Is the Primary Role of the US Press to Uncover and Report "Secrets of the Powerful"? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 03-08-2008, 02:54 PM

....Or, is it something else? Is it submitting to control of the powerful, acting as their "mouthpiece", in exchange for continued access to them?

Last night on MSNBC, conservative political show host, Tucker Carlson, interviewed UK's Scotsman reporter, Gerri Peev, concerning her interview with an Obama foreign policy advisor who resigned after Peev reported her comments in the Scotsman:

Quote:

Obama Adviser Quits Over 'Off the Record' Crack at Clinton
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030800063.html
Washington Post, United States - 17 hours ago
As the story recounted: " 'She is a monster, too -- that is off the record -- she is stooping to anything,' Ms. Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her....

Quote:

CARLSON: What -- she wanted it off the record. Typically, the arrangement is if someone you're interviewing wants a quote off the record, you give it to them off the record. Why didn't you do that?

PEEV: <h3>Are you really that acquiescent in the United States?</h3> In the United Kingdom, journalists believe that <h3>on or off the record is a principle that's decided ahead of the interview. If a figure in public life.</h3>

CARLSON: Right.

PEEV: Someone who's ostensibly going to be an advisor to the man who could be the most powerful politician in the world, if she makes a comment and decides it's a bit too controversial and wants to withdraw it immediately after, unfortunately if the interview is on the record, it has to go ahead.

CARLSON: Right. Well, it's a little.

PEEV: I didn't set out in any way, shape.

CARLSON: Right. But I mean, since journalistic standards in Great Britain are so much dramatically lower than they are here, it's a little much being lectured on journalistic ethics by a reporter from the "Scotsman," <h3>but I wonder if you could just explain what you think the effect is on the relationship between the press and the powerful.</h3> People don't talk to you when you go out of your way to hurt them as you did in this piece.

Don't you think that hurts the rest of us in our effort to get to the truth from the principals in these campaigns?

PEEV: If this is the first time that candid remarks have been published about what one campaign team thinks of the other candidate, then I would argue that your journalists aren't doing a very good job of getting to the truth. Now I did not go out of my way in any way, shape or form to hurt Miss Power. I believe she's an intelligent and perfectly affable woman. In fact, she's -- she is incredibly intelligent so she -- who knows she may have known what she was doing.

She regretted it. She probably acted with integrity. It's not for me to decide one way or the other whether she did the right thing. But I did not go out and try to end her career.

Watch Tucker Carlson's interview with Peev:

msnbc.com Video Player

Do you agree with Carlson or Peev? Isn't the problem with the white house press corps for example, the fact that they have made the decision to muzzle their reporting about the president and his administration in exchange for access to the president and his staff.

If the press trades access to the powerful for restraint in their reporting and questioning of the president and of his staff, haven't they effectively put themselves under the control of the powerful, instead of reporting what they consider to be news worthy about their words and actions?

Who has more credibility, Carlson or Peev? If Carlson's principles assure him continued access to the powerful, can we expect that he will report anything significant or negative about them?

Lebell · 03-08-2008, 03:10 PM

Ummm, I don't know, maybe it's to report news?

Hey Host, it's a great day out there. I think the wife and I are gonna drop off the kid at grandma's and catch dinner and a movie.

Ciao!

Willravel · 03-08-2008, 03:15 PM

Earlier today I was watching Link TV, and they were covering how journalists at Fox 13 were going to report on the dangerous nature of rGPH when the higher ups tried to coerce, threaten, and bribe them and then they were fired, all because they wanted to tell the truth. To speak truth to power (where is that from?). They actually managed to win a lawsuit, but it was dismissed in appeal because the court basically said "The news does not have any legal obligation to be truthful". I respectfully disagree with that travesty of justice.

We have free media in the Bill of Rights to so that muzzles could not be applied by those in power. It's a damn shame that there isn't an amendment requiring that news cannot be falsified or edited, or barring media from corporate control.

Baraka_Guru · 03-08-2008, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

We have free media in the Bill of Rights to so that muzzles could not be applied by those in power. It's a damn shame that there isn't an amendment requiring that news cannot be falsified or edited, or barring media from corporate control.

I think this could only be accomplished with publicly owned media.

Willravel · 03-08-2008, 09:00 PM

Uh oh... socialism... let's not ruin another of host's threads.

Baraka_Guru · 03-08-2008, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Uh oh... socialism... let's not ruin another of host's threads.

Hey, we're only a quarter socialist! How about privately owned, non-profit media (à la PBS)?

Sun Tzu · 03-09-2008, 12:53 AM

Spoken by the last president to write his own speeches; JFK verbalizes it well.

host · 03-09-2008, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Spoken by the last president to write his own speeches; JFK verbalizes it well.

Yes, JFK knew how to reach people. It was no wonder that so many wept openly at the news of his death, including TV and radio newscasters tasked with announcing that sad news, and including me....

Some excerpts from that speech:

Quote:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical...rs04271961.htm
The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association
President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
New York City, April 27, 1961

...The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired....

....For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.....

....I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

Isn't Tucker Carlson's argument that journalists must keep the truth from the public at the request of the powerful in exchange for access to additional truth disclosed by the powerful, building a trust that will result in even more disclosure of "secrets" by the powerful that the journalist appropriately avoids disclosing to the public.

Instead of exposing, the journalist is in the business of protecting the secrets of the powerful. Tucker Carlson is thus a servant, ass kisser, and stenographer at the beck and call of the powerful engaged in public relations.

ratbastid · 03-09-2008, 06:03 AM

Tucker Carlson is a weasel. Always has been. His head is so far up his ass, his doctor had to install a glass navel. I wouldn't take his prognostications as particularly relevatory--even among journalists he's not taken seriously.

There are people out there who will tell the truth and damn the consequences. Some of those people are professional journalists (Woodward and Hersch come to mind--and it may not be a coincidence that both are from an older, more progressive school of journalism). Some are citizen journalists, empowered by the Internet. One way or another, I believe that the truth gets told.

shakran · 03-10-2008, 01:23 AM

Hey Host. Tucker Carlson is a moron. He is NOT a journalist. He just plays one on TV. He not only did not major in journalism, he didn't even manage to graduate to get the history degree he halfheartedly attempted to earn.

If anyone was curious, yes, REAL journalists here in the USA also believe that it is on the record unless agreed otherwise by both parties beforehand.

dksuddeth · 03-10-2008, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

but it was dismissed in appeal because the court basically said "The news does not have any legal obligation to be truthful". I respectfully disagree with that travesty of justice.

why in the world would you 'respectfully' disagree?? especially if you consider it a travesty of justice? You should be on street corners and rooftops denigrating and demeaning the unholy hell out of every single idiot judge who agreed with that decision.

Ustwo · 03-10-2008, 06:31 AM

And here I thought their role was to sell papers (and the information age equivalents).

The concept that the news media has ever been 'noble' in some form in this county is laughable. There have been times where it may have acted as such, but just for fleeting moments in times of crisis.

We were founded on yellow journalism, its the same now.

Willravel · 03-10-2008, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

why in the world would you 'respectfully' disagree?? especially if you consider it a travesty of justice? You should be on street corners and rooftops denigrating and demeaning the unholy hell out of every single idiot judge who agreed with that decision.

Showing respect to those who's minds you want to change stands a better chance of success. You may have noted that when you scream, yell, kick, and call names, the other party is less likely to change their position because it emboldens them and gives them a sense of entitlement. I could pull up threads on TFP that demonstrate this.

aceventura3 · 03-10-2008, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Hey Host. Tucker Carlson is a moron. He is NOT a journalist. He just plays one on TV.

Do you mean that literally or figuratively?

What is the world coming to when people are so thinned skinned that they can not take being called a name?

From the time Sen. Clinton became known on a national level I heard about unflattering descriptions used about her.

I think Tucker was on target with his question. The point is not Clinton being called a monster, but what is the basis for calling her a monster. I want the politicians that I support to be "monsters". Take no prisoners, make no compromises. If you called me a "monster", I would say thank you.

Personally, I think Clinton will do or say whatever needs to be said or done for power. I am amused by those on the left who have concerns about Bush and Chaney but would ignore what Clinton would do.

dc_dux · 03-10-2008, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Personally, I think Clinton will do or say whatever needs to be said or done for power. I am amused by those on the left who have concerns about Bush and Chaney but would ignore what Clinton would do.

I am amused by those on the right who try to compare what Bush and Chaney HAVE done with what they think Clinton MIGHT do....a common deflection tactic among many conservative talking heads like Carlson (and apparently among some TFP contributors as well)

aceventura3 · 03-10-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I am amused by those on the right who try to compare what Bush and Chaney HAVE done with what they think Clinton MIGHT do....a common deflection tactic among many conservative talking heads like Carlson (and apparently among some TFP contributors as well)

I generally don't deflect points. I know what Bush and Chaney are capable of and I know (based on what has been made public) what they have done or authorized. I generally support their actions, I have said so many times, and I have stated that in many of those situations I would have made the same decisions they made. Chaney in particular is a mean son of a bitch, who you don't want to piss off unless you are ready for a fight (a real fight, a real fight that may involve some mean - really mean stuff).

Hillery Clinton in my view is very similar to Dick Chaney. Like I wrote in the past, Hilery Clinton is the type of woman who would grab a man by his balls and squeeze until he starts singing like a 13 year-old in the Vienna Boys choir. Just the sound of her voice makes me shudder. I just wish she was on my
side.

{added} Regarding Carlson, conservative or not, why didn't the reporter follow up with a question about what was meant by the term "monster" by the person who used it? did the reporter instinctively know what was being said and implicitly agree?

dksuddeth · 03-10-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Showing respect to those who's minds you want to change stands a better chance of success. You may have noted that when you scream, yell, kick, and call names, the other party is less likely to change their position because it emboldens them and gives them a sense of entitlement. I could pull up threads on TFP that demonstrate this.

while that might work with individuals NOT on the bench, it would be a sorry assed judge indeed to simply change their mind because you bullshitted them with flattering words and debate. nobody else gets this though so i'll be quiet now.

Willravel · 03-10-2008, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

while that might work with individuals NOT on the bench, it would be a sorry assed judge indeed to simply change their mind because you bullshitted them with flattering words and debate. nobody else gets this though so i'll be quiet now.

You'd do well in learning to adopt what I was talking about.

Besides, I know several judges and I'm pretty sure they'd agree that instead of treating them like shit, one is more likely to convince them that they were in err by speaking calmly and respectfully.

host · 03-11-2008, 11:05 AM

Ooops....wrong thread !

loquitur · 03-11-2008, 11:26 AM

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.

shakran · 03-11-2008, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Do you mean that literally or figuratively?

Literally. Calling Tucker Carlson a journalist is like calling a guy on a piano bench a concert pianist. Just because you sit at the piano with your hands on the keys doesn't mean you know what the hell you're doing.

Quote:

What is the world coming to when people are so thinned skinned that they can not take being called a name?

I referred to Carlson being upset that a comment which was made and then later retracted was used anyway. For him to feel that way shows that he's not a real journalist. The rule is simple. Anything you say to me is on the record unless you and I BOTH agree, BEFOREHAND, that it is not. You don't get to blurt crap out and then take a mulligan. You say it, and it's important, it's going in my story.

host · 03-12-2008, 01:07 AM

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.

loquitur, this is a description of accomplishment any serious practitioner of the profession of journalism should be attempting to emulate now, as then:

Quote:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefe...p_tarbell.html
.....Instantly popular with readers, <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefellers/sfeature/sf_7.html">"The History of the Standard Oil Company"</a> grew to be a nineteen-part series, published between November 1902 and October 1904. Tarbell wrote a detailed exposé of Rockefeller’s unethical tactics, sympathetically portraying the plight of Pennsylvania’s independent oil workers. Still, she was careful to acknowledge Rockefeller’s brilliance and the flawlessness of the business structure he had created. She did not condemn capitalism itself, but "the open disregard of decent ethical business practices by capitalists." About Standard Oil, she wrote: "They had never played fair, and that ruined their greatness for me."

Tarbell capped the series with a two-part character study that revealed her fixation with the man she had been studying for the better part of five years. Focusing on Rockefeller’s weary appearance, he called him "the oldest man in the world -- a living mummy," and accused him of being "money-mad" and "a hypocrite." "Our national life is on every side distinctly poorer, uglier, meaner, for the kind of influence he exercises," she concluded. Rockefeller was deeply hurt by this last attack from "that poisonous woman," as he called her, but he refused to engage in any public rebuttal of her allegations. "Not a word," he told his advisors. "Not a word about that misguided woman."

"The History of the Standard Oil Company" would be hailed as a landmark in the history of investigative journalism, as well as the most comprehensive study of the building of Rockefeller’s oil empire. In 1999 it was listed number five among the top 100 works of twentieth-century American journalism.

<center>Rockefeller’s rise:

The strides the firm of Rockefeller & Andrews made after the former went into it were attributed, for three or four years, mainly to [his] extraordinary capacity for bargaining and borrowing. Then its chief competitors began to suspect something. Rockefeller might get his oil cheaper now and then, they said, but he could not do it often. He might make close contracts for which they had neither the patience nor the stomach. He might have an unusual mechanical and practical genius in his partner. But these things could not explain all. They believed they bought, on the whole, almost as cheaply as he, and they knew they made as good oil and with as great, or nearly as great, economy. He could sell at no better price than they. Where was his advantage? There was but one place where it could be, and that was in transportation.
</center>

I can't see Ms. Tarbell attending an "off the record" weekend at J.D. Rockefeller's invitation, can you? It didn't take "access" to the subject of her journalistic inquiry and reporting for her to achieve such an enduring and admired work.

loquitur · 03-12-2008, 08:43 AM

Host, I'll agree that documenting wrongdoing by John D. Rockefeller was a worthy journalistic pursuit. But that type of thing is not the only worthy journalistic pursuit.

I have been working for a while on a blog post about how the way we see the world gets skewed by the concept of "newsworthiness." I'll have to finish it.

You seem to be promoting a somewhat different principle, that all journalism should be advocacy journalism. There is a respectable school of thought that agrees with you. The argument goes that all journalists have a point of view, but that they try to suppress it, wtih the result that their biases get hidden and only become apparent over time and with exposure, which damages their credibility -- whereas if they were upfront about their biases from the get-go, readers could evaluate credibility without wondering about hidden agendas. Do you really think the country would be better served with an avowedly partisan press? And when you answer that question, bear in mind that not all journalists will share your views, so the partisanship will go both ways.

roachboy · 03-12-2008, 08:47 AM

i would think that journalism should be involved with alot more than this--restricting their purview to uncovering the secrets of the powerful is to make all journalism a type of tabloid affair. there are structural issues---journalism should be concerned with them. there are complex national and international questions that journalism should be on top of.

to my mind, the central limitation on much american journalism is its commercial nature--that it is about selling advertising.
from this follows all others.

loquitur · 03-12-2008, 09:01 AM

RB, you think journalists should do, in essence, what doctoral students in Political Science do?

Not in this universe they won't. And I doubt they should. I assume journalists want to be read. Unless you're going to force people to read things they dno't want to, no one would pay attention to that stuff except people who already do even in the current structure. Advertising doesn't really affect that.

host · 06-17-2008, 07:25 AM

This is what "Speaking Truth to Power" looks like, in action. It is McClatchey's news service's motto....two out of three of you don't subscribe to it, and you mourn the "loss" of Tim Russert's "journalism" (complicity with, facilitation of....power?....)

I think you have it backwards:

Quote:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/38773.html
* posted on Sunday, June 15, 2008

By Tom Lasseter | McClatchy Newspapers

GARDEZ, Afghanistan — The militants crept up behind Mohammed Akhtiar as he squatted at the spigot to wash his hands before evening prayers at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

They shouted "Allahu Akbar" — God is great — as one of them hefted a metal mop squeezer into the air, slammed it into Akhtiar's head and sent thick streams of blood running down his face.

Akhtiar was among the more than 770 terrorism suspects imprisoned at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. They are the men the Bush administration described as "the worst of the worst."

But Akhtiar was no terrorist. American troops had dragged him out of his Afghanistan home in 2003 and held him in Guantanamo for three years in the belief that he was an insurgent involved in rocket attacks on U.S. forces. The Islamic radicals in Guantanamo's Camp Four who hissed "infidel" and spat at Akhtiar, however, knew something his captors didn't: The U.S. government had the wrong guy......

....and this:...he wasn't Taliban until the US sent him to Gitmo:

Quote:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/259/story/38779.html
* Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Wrongly jailed detainees found militancy at Guantanamo
More on this Story

Mohammed Naim Farouq is now considered a significant Taliban leader in his region after his release from Guantanamo. | View larger image
By Tom Lasseter | McClatchy Newspapers

View Poll Results: Is the Primary Job of the Press in the US to report the Secrets of the Powerful?
No	13	72.22%
Yes	5	27.78%
Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

03-08-2008, 03:10 PM	#2 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Ummm, I don't know, maybe it's to report news? Hey Host, it's a great day out there. I think the wife and I are gonna drop off the kid at grandma's and catch dinner and a movie. Ciao! __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

03-09-2008, 12:53 AM	#7 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	Spoken by the last president to write his own speeches; JFK verbalizes it well. __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

03-10-2008, 06:31 AM	#12 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	And here I thought their role was to sell papers (and the information age equivalents). The concept that the news media has ever been 'noble' in some form in this county is laughable. There have been times where it may have acted as such, but just for fleeting moments in times of crisis. We were founded on yellow journalism, its the same now. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

03-12-2008, 08:47 AM	#24 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i would think that journalism should be involved with alot more than this--restricting their purview to uncovering the secrets of the powerful is to make all journalism a type of tabloid affair. there are structural issues---journalism should be concerned with them. there are complex national and international questions that journalism should be on top of. to my mind, the central limitation on much american journalism is its commercial nature--that it is about selling advertising. from this follows all others. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-08-2008, 03:15 PM	#3 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Earlier today I was watching Link TV, and they were covering how journalists at Fox 13 were going to report on the dangerous nature of rGPH when the higher ups tried to coerce, threaten, and bribe them and then they were fired, all because they wanted to tell the truth. To speak truth to power (where is that from?). They actually managed to win a lawsuit, but it was dismissed in appeal because the court basically said "The news does not have any legal obligation to be truthful". I respectfully disagree with that travesty of justice. We have free media in the Bill of Rights to so that muzzles could not be applied by those in power. It's a damn shame that there isn't an amendment requiring that news cannot be falsified or edited, or barring media from corporate control.

03-08-2008, 09:00 PM	#5 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Uh oh... socialism... let's not ruin another of host's threads.

03-09-2008, 06:03 AM	#9 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Tucker Carlson is a weasel. Always has been. His head is so far up his ass, his doctor had to install a glass navel. I wouldn't take his prognostications as particularly relevatory--even among journalists he's not taken seriously. There are people out there who will tell the truth and damn the consequences. Some of those people are professional journalists (Woodward and Hersch come to mind--and it may not be a coincidence that both are from an older, more progressive school of journalism). Some are citizen journalists, empowered by the Internet. One way or another, I believe that the truth gets told.

03-10-2008, 01:23 AM	#10 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Hey Host. Tucker Carlson is a moron. He is NOT a journalist. He just plays one on TV. He not only did not major in journalism, he didn't even manage to graduate to get the history degree he halfheartedly attempted to earn. If anyone was curious, yes, REAL journalists here in the USA also believe that it is on the record unless agreed otherwise by both parties beforehand.

03-11-2008, 11:05 AM	#19 (permalink)
host Banned	Ooops....wrong thread !

03-11-2008, 11:26 AM	#20 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	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.

03-12-2008, 08:43 AM	#23 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Host, I'll agree that documenting wrongdoing by John D. Rockefeller was a worthy journalistic pursuit. But that type of thing is not the only worthy journalistic pursuit. I have been working for a while on a blog post about how the way we see the world gets skewed by the concept of "newsworthiness." I'll have to finish it. You seem to be promoting a somewhat different principle, that all journalism should be advocacy journalism. There is a respectable school of thought that agrees with you. The argument goes that all journalists have a point of view, but that they try to suppress it, wtih the result that their biases get hidden and only become apparent over time and with exposure, which damages their credibility -- whereas if they were upfront about their biases from the get-go, readers could evaluate credibility without wondering about hidden agendas. Do you really think the country would be better served with an avowedly partisan press? And when you answer that question, bear in mind that not all journalists will share your views, so the partisanship will go both ways.

03-12-2008, 09:01 AM	#25 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	RB, you think journalists should do, in essence, what doctoral students in Political Science do? Not in this universe they won't. And I doubt they should. I assume journalists want to be read. Unless you're going to force people to read things they dno't want to, no one would pay attention to that stuff except people who already do even in the current structure. Advertising doesn't really affect that.