roachboy, you may not think Cronkite an important example, but, can you think of another one that more obviously portrays the shift in what is permissible today, vs. in 1968? Do you think it is even possible for any TV anchor today to embark on an unembedded fact finding trip to Iraq or Afghanistan and then come back and make the kind of qualified opinion that Cronkite made, and have it broadcast, without editorial interference....?
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=132321&highlight=secrets">Is the Primary Role of the US Press to Uncover and Report "Secrets of the Powerful"? </a>
Post #20
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
the question as posed makes no sense. Who is "powerful"? How do you define it? Is a union leader powerful? Head of a NGO? A local neighborhood organizer?
And what does "Uncover and report" mean? Suppose there is no lawbreaking or unethical behavior?
And I thought the purpose of the press is to report the news and provide a forum for opinions. Sometimes powerful people (however defined) do things that are newsworthy (whether good or bad). Sometimes non-powerful people do things that are newsworthy (whether good or bad).
In principle, at least, the press writ large isn't supposed to be grinding axes for its own agenda. That's not to say that some segments of the press should be - I.F. Stone, for example, used to do a fair amount of investigative journalism and was very good at it, and he had a very definite point of view. Dan Rather used to fancy himself an heir to that sort of approach, though he wasn't as careful as Stone was.
|
Is the question any clearer, now? Isn't the power...the inclination to investigate....go whereever the circumstances lead....and report, no matter who in power has his toes stepped on...... either in the hands of the journalist, or in the hands of the corporate executive, aligned with the regime?