Elphaba

I inadvertently created a threadjack in dksuddeth's topic when I brought up my belief that our main stream press has shirked it's responsibilities in providing a check to government excesses.

Shakran and then Host gently disabused me of some of my romantic notions regarding the Fourth Estate, but I believe there is much yet to discuss. I will repeat the relevant posts here with the hope of continuing that dialogue.

Elphaba

I began the discussion with this whine:

To my knowledge, the New York Times remains mum on why they held the information of NSA spying on Americans for a year. It irritates me that our msp also gave this story a pass before the war began in Iraq. How do the "people" hold their free press accountable?

(The link is not necessary for this discussion)

Elphaba

Shakran responded with this post:

Simple. You stop subscribing to that newspaper, or quit watching that news cast, and send a letter to the media outlet explaining what they did and why that means you won't be watching them anymore.

Now understand that we get all SORTS of crackpot letters like that - We just got a letter this week saying they won't watch our station anymore because the meteorologist dresses too sloppy (didn't button his jacket one day) - so don't expect immediate change. However, if enough people write similar letters (I'm not buying your newspaper anymore because you're covering up the news rather than reporting it) and they see subscriptions (and therefore also advertising revenues) go down, then maybe management will get the message and remember that we are journalists, not political stooges.

Elphaba

I responded:

Shakran, do you honestly believe it is that simple?

Network and cable news stations are now owned by large corporations with their own agenda; GE and Murdock for example. Deregulation has greatly reduced the number of owners that currently represent our main stream media. It is obvious, at least to me, that our msp abdicated their role in the checks and balances of government excess for continued "access" to this corrupt government. The Bush administration has succeeded on many fronts to corrupt the so called "free press."

I wonder what you would advise the average American whose only source of news is our msp? How does one object to a lack of coverage that occurs in Europe and is not reported on Channel 5? I read international media sources and I can't tell you how frustrating it has been to attempt discussions here that simply was dismissed by Ustwo and the like, because the source wasn't from Fox News.

We (the people) endured five years of msm obsequiousness to this administration. The only reason the press has returned to the role of government watchdog, in my opinion, is that they perceive the administration as weakened. This "watchdog" sells news for profit, just like any whore.

Shakran, this rant isn't directed at you or your obvious integrity. The Miller's, Woodward's and others that sold their journalistic integrity for personal or monitary gain have earned the wrath of everyone still believing in an independent press, including yourself.

Perhaps that is the key to accountability? Censure by your peers might be far more effective than getting cranky with my local paper that depends on national feeds.

Elphaba

Shakran responds:

Yes I do, and here's why. You're entirely correct that news stations (and most journalism outfits, not just TV, btw) are owned by large corporations.

So attacking it from a "journalists should tell the story no matter what because it's the right thing to do" perspective won't work. Oh, you'll convince us alright, but then we're already convinced so that's not necessary.

What you need to do is attack it from a "holy shit, you're gonna lose a CRAPload of money" perspective. Right now the large corporations think the American public wants more reality shows and less news. And they think what news you do want must be chock full of entertainment value. And you don't want much international news because "those funny names are hard to pronounce" and "other countries are so far away from us."

So, a mass movement of the public needs to prove them wrong. Whether its TV, radio, or newspaper, profit is the bottom line. And the only way to make more money is to get more eyeballs on your news product. If masses of people write in and say "I'm not gonna look at your product unless you start acting like real journalists again" then the bosses will either respond by turning their journos loose to do their jobs, or face the consequences when they lose viewer/readership.

Now the problem with this little scheme of mine is manyfold. But the big problem is (i'm switching to only TV here since that's my area) viewers are MUCH more likely to write in to complain about what clothes the anchor wore or the way the meteorologist talks than they are to write in and complain about the integrity and thoroughness of the journalism. So getting that mass movement together is going to be very tough.




you're largely correct, but that is overly simplified. First off, this didn't start with Bush. It would be more accurate to say it started with Reagan, who abolished the fairness doctrine. Second, journalists haven't abdicated anything. The press didn't abdicate anything. Unfortunately, the press and TV stations are two different things. The news department is only one part of a TV station. The higher ups at TV stations are the ones making the decision to sell out to large corporations. Ask just about any TV journalist and our dream is to start our own TV station that's staffed entirely by journalists and that delivers the news the RIGHT way. Unfortunately since the average TV journalist makes between 20 and 40 thousand a year, getting the funds together to actually do this is very unlikely.






Well first off if you really pay attention the msp can still help you out. Look at the justification to the Iraq war for instance. Look at Colin Powell's speech to the UN that supposedly proved Iraq had WMD. Now I saw the same speech you did, many outlets carried it live, and CP had butkus for evidence. That was obvious to me, and to many others. The information IS out there if you make the effort to find it. Unfortunately most people don't want to make that effort.




And that's a HUGE problem with the American press. Media execs have decided you guys don't WANT international news. They've decided you can't understand international news even if you do want it.

I personally think that's bullshit. One of the most-watched series EVER was a multipart look into conditions in Africa. The ratings were through the roof. If we as journalists make world news available to you, you will consume it.

Now, we're starting to get into an interesting age. With satellite radio, and the internet, it's not very hard at all for you to fire up a BBC broadcast. You CAN get the international news you want. You just have to want it. And if you can't find it from an American news outlet, go find it from the BBC.






One of the problems there is with this concept of media bias. Higher ups at the outlets are so scared that the public will label them as biased, that they bias themselves toward bad coverage. We're so scared you'll think we're liberally biased if we tell you Bush screwed up, that we won't tell you bush screwed up unless someone else SAYS Bush screwed up.

The press used to go out and dig up the facts. Now they largely sit around waiting for some group to dig up the facts, then report it as "these guys say .. . " to avoid bias. Unfortunately, we're also avoiding our jobs when we do that.

Who's at fault for that? Well, partly the guys who scream "media bias" every time the media reports something they don't like. The rest belongs squarely with the media bosses who kowtow to that kind of manipulative bullshit.





As I said, profit is the name of the game. And it will be until media outlets are busted away from their parent megacorporations.






I appreciate that. I do want to emphasize, however, that journalists with integrity are out there, and in great numbers. Our problem is that our hands are tied by our corporate bosses. The business is largely one of compromise nowadays. "Well if I give them this bullshit story about how good this woman feels now that she's using energy efficient light bulbs (made by GE) then maybe they'll let me expose the corruption on this other story"




Sadly, it won't, for the reasons I mentioned above. Actually there's plenty of censure by our peers. Newsblues.com is only one place that routinely bashes poor journalism. But our corporate owners don't care about that - they only care about the almighty dollar. And since you the viewer are in control of that dollar, it's you the viewer that must convince the corporations of what you want.

By the way, you might find "Bad News" by Tom Fenton a very interesting read.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/00...glance&n=283155

Elphaba

Host then provides an example of what I might expect by peer censure:



On the above theme:

Comment: In the December 18 New York Times' Review of Books, Brian Ladd reviewed (registration required) Richard J. Evans' new book, The Third Reich in Power. Ladd wrote in the review, titled "A State of Evil," that Evans explains that, "Behind a facade of legality, the Nazis dismantled the established protections of law. Not satisfied merely to crush a lively if troubled democracy, they used their police state and the mass media to dissolve traditional allegiances." Ladd said the result "was a nightmare version of a normal modern society, with popular entertainment manipulating public enthusiasms and hatreds..." Looks like Fox News is taking the lead in directing us down that road in a 21st Century, US version of "A State of Evil."


It is plain to see the desparation peeking out from behind the curtain as all the stops are pulled in the latest Rove "Op" intended on deflecting the crisis from where it sits squarely in the lap of the Bush junta, by attacking and labeling the whistle blowers as "traitors", with the "farce", described above, masking itself as "fair and balanced" news commentary.

Will the shameless efforts of wealthy international corporatist Rupert Murdoch's "trophy" propaganda "news" network, along with a blast from
his New York Post's rag of an "editorial" page, be enough to keep the American sheeple grazing obliviously in the meadow?

Please do not post objection to the comparison with Richard J. Evans' new book, "The Third Reich in Power", describing the "nightmare version of a normal modern society, with popular entertainment manipulating public enthusiasms and hatreds...", without also telling us what you think that the
Bush administration and Rupert Murdoch's network and newspaper are actually teaming up to "tell" us, that is legitimate or "balanced".

Elphaba

My notion of a free press, as indicated by Shakran and Host, was wrong in many ways.

First, the Fourth Estate truly is a myth of my own making because there is no obligation of the press to provide a check to government.

The so called "Free Press" has no responsibility to the public, but to it's corporate owners and shareholders.

Given that, some notion of a peer review is as naive as believing in Santa Clause.

Only one of my beliefs remains true and open to discussion, and that is the First Amendment right of a press free from government intrusion. I would welcome a discussion on the current administration's manipulation of the press (the examples are plentiful). I would also like to discuss any possible means we might have in holding our press accountable for what they print or withhold.

Thoughts?

pan6467

The free press does what sells. The people seem to be more interested in who Jennifer Aniston is fucking than what is going on in the government because people have lost the feeling they can change anything or that their voice matters.

And the press feeds those feelings.

Plus, you have the left saying not to believe the press, you have the right telling you how evil the press is.... and the press no longer being in the business to report news but to make profits.

Plus, how do we know the NYT didn't have to wait and make sure the story was accurate before they ran it. If they had ran it and it turned out to be a "fake" story it would kill thier reputation.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Elphaba

Judith Miller didn't do that already?

alpha phi

I've have just been reading about propaganda and
"group Mind" in the media
Mass Mind Control
Through Network Television

I think it makes many valid points
the corporate press is not the free press
Sure I could unsubcribe to the Asheville Citizen-Times
To send a clear message, But then
I pick up USA today.......
Guess what.....I will be reading the same news
Not only are most stories off the AP wire
both are owned by Gannett
We would all have to ignore all corperate media
paper, broadcast, cable, satilite, to make an impact
At the same time support local indepandant media
and internet news sources that will report the truth.

__________________

pan6467

Actually, I find that Gannett and his outlets are about as middle and unbiased as a media can get. But that is just my opinion...... Plus Mr. Gannett himself is a Unitarian Universalist like myself sooooooo he can't be all bad.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Elphaba

Knight Ridder also has received acknowledgement for refusing to be influenced by "access." They were usually the media source to first report that being said in the international press.

And I agree with you and alphi phi, Pan. I don't think we can fix our msp.

alpha phi

Not to single out gannett as the worst evil
I used it as an example of corperate media
because they own about a third of my local media.
and all of my local print except the local coupon/forclosure paper

__________________

pan6467

The media can be fixed the government needs to regulate it again and prevent all the media being owned by a few small select groups.

When you allow someone like Clear Channel to own all of one media in a town how can you expect anything but biased and controlled news?

Then when you follow the paper trails and find that much like the oil companies the same people own ALL the large media groups, how can you expect fair and unbiased news?

That was why our government regulated it, to prevent this from happening and Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and W have all worked to make sure the rules were such that mass ownership would be allowed.

It's pathetic really. By allowing this to happen we have closed any form of competition down because these companies are able to control the market.

Regulating is the only way to fair and true competition back into the media.

Everyone of our media companies is heavily leveraged and indebted because of their rushes to pay unGodly amounts of money to buy the companies they needed to get that big.

The questions are how long can they last being indebt, and who truly holds the debt on each of these?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

I know you weren't, I was just saying I liked Gannett and to be honest I trust them more than any other big corporate owned media.... except local news. That I am still sold on WJW (the Fox affiliate) and WEWS the Scripps Howard station. As for radio.... I don't even pay attention to national news anymore as it is all pretty much Clear Channel.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

I need to ammend post #14. there is a small chance that the telephone companies can get into the media business (SBC/Yahoo.... ATT.... VErizon... etc.) However, I look for them to be swallowed up or merge with the media companies if they do become serious competition.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

alpha phi

I think what worries me most about coroperate media
is the Video news releases
How much of this "propaganda" do we
consume each day without even realizing it?

__________________

Elphaba

Good point, alpha phi. The government is also paying journalists and talking heads to speak favorably about government programs. There was also the planted stooge at press briefings to lob approved questions to Bush or his press secretary.

pan6467

Very interesting read thanks Alpha.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Elphaba

In my opinion, the most overt manipulation of the press is that of Judith Miller. Second would be the Wilson retaliation outing Plame. Bob Woodward is merely a pathetic case of self-promotion that the government recognized and used to their own advantage. Miller is fired, but Woodward hangs on for now.

shakran

First off, the planted stooge wasn't a member of the press. That's entirely the administration's fault. The media is blameless there. In fact, the media exposed him for what he was.

Any journalist who accepts ANYthing to cover a story other than his company-provided paycheck should be run out of town on a rail. And I'm not just talking about the big payoffs. I won't even eat a donut if someone I'm covering offers it to me because I won't allow even the appearance of potential conflicts of interest.

As for VNR's I use them all the time. If I need video of, say, Bethesda doctors for a story I'm doing, I might grab a VNR, get that video, and use it in my story. I personally would not air a VNR unedited. At worst I would do my story around the VNR but I would go out and find the other side to whatever the issue is and include that in my piece.

But you are correct in that many stations run them unedited, and unverified. The reason is simple - they gotta fill that time slot and upper management is so chintzy with budgets that they simply don't have the staff to go out and get their own stories. It's wrong and it's disgusting, but it's a reality of the business.

Ethical stations will not do this - and if they do air a VNR they will make it patently clear who produced it.

I've actually been known to air VNR's as an example of something someone's complaing about - turns the objective of the VNR on its head

Elphaba

By no means was the media at fault for the stooge, but simply an example of the administration manipulating what they wanted us to hear. I'm sure we agree on that?

Shakran, you bring up a far more important point of those in the media that take the handful of silver in payment for their integrity. How do we run those whores out of town?

shakran

That disgusts me but what disgusts me more is that you didn't hear enough outcry in the press about it. The press pretty much bent over and took it. Sure they reported on it, but that should have sparked a HUGE series of investigative reports along the lines of "what other lies did this guy tell us?"


Expose them. We do run those whores out of town. If I accepted payment for any of my stories and my news director found out, I'd be fired at once.

And because the journalism community is VERY tight knit (I know journos from all over the country, and we all talk to each other about who's good and who's a fuck up) it'd be highly unlikely that I'd get another job. And I'm just a photographer - behind the scenes (usually) letting the reporter get all the glory (usually), which means the viewers at a different station wouldn't even know I was there (i.e. the station wouldn't hire me out of their own ethics, not out of worrying about what the viewers would think)

The trouble is catching the little shits. Unless they and/or their buyer are REAL stupid, it's pretty tough to figure out they're getting paid off. It's not like the guy buying coverage is gonna send the reporter a check c/o the news director

I think the press has shown prompt and responsible action WHEN they catch these guys. And I honestly don't know how, without hiring a fact checker for EVERY reporter and then having that fact checker along for all the interviews, we can 100% prevent this. As disturbing as it is, journalists have their bad apples just like any other profession, and just like any other profession it's VERY hard to catch them.

alpha phi

I suspect this is where some of the more
informed internet blogs are coming from.
Journalists who want a huge public outcry
But are not willing to risk their job (or life)
to get the reports to go public.
Notice how the anthrax attacks
after 911 hit the media?
NBC and New York Post
The "big guys" who would be doing the investigative reports
Won't touch them out of fear of retailition

__________________

Elphaba

It is amazing, isn't it? The very nature of their profession is quite public, but the intention of their public opinion remains hidden.

I wonder if journalists should be held to the same public disclosure laws that our politicians are required to provide regarding sources of money? Heh...not that we have seen much exposure come from that.

shakran

It's not so much a matter of risking our job. I fight at least once a week to get a story on the air that I think needs to be told, but that's rejected. Sure I could go shoot, write, voice, and edit the story anyway and no one would fire me. But unless I hijack the control room, I can't get it on the air anyway



Elphaba asked me in PM to explain my earlier comments on Reagan and the Fairness Doctrine, so here goes a simplified explanation:

In the "good old days" the media was required by a law called the fairness doctrine to cover all sides of a story. Under this doctrine, if I show a democrat saying "I think the republicans suck because of X" then I MUST go find a republican counterpart and let him refute it. Regan and his deregulation sweeps (the same sweeps that deregulated the meat industry and are directly responsible for the fact that the hamburger you ate last night has a good chance of having been in contact with animal feces - or worse) abolished the fairness doctrine.

Interestingly, this same deregulation also abolished a requirement that came about at the same time as the fairness doctrine. That requirement said that the press, being a public trust, MUST actively seek out issues of importance to their community, and to air programming that addressed those issues. This means Clinton would never have gotten away with not effectively retaliating against bin Laden when he bombed the WTC the first time because the press would have been required to jump on the issue. Unfortunately, we are no longer required by law to do that, and since our corporate owners want us to 1) produce stories they think the "ignorant public" wants to see and 2) do it as freakin' cheaply as possible, we don't enterprise nearly as many stories as we ought to.

Elphaba

Alpha phi, I believe I posted elsewhere about the mysterious disappearance of the anthrax attacks by the msp. If I didn't, it would be due to VOMIT (Violent Outrage; Meaning in Turmoil).

To allow a home grown version of anthrax delivered as it was, to silently disappear from the press, is what conspiracies are made of. How do we bring that threat to the forefront again?

Elphaba

Shakran, I love you.

Is there any hope in returning to the Fairness Doctrine? My romantic fantasy of the obligations of the press was based on something, afterall?

alpha phi

I honestly don't think it will ever be exposed
It was a two fold plan:
1. To silence media and politicians who would speak out
2. to increase the "security" at the postal service
so that our mail could be opened, scanned, ect.
(such as the wire taps)

It was a very effective plan......

__________________

alpha phi

I remember hearing somewhere that all
good reporters want to start their own stations
so that they could do the stories that are important.
I can't wait till one of them finds a way to make
it possible to make a living on the internet
doing exactly that.

__________________

Elphaba

Alpha phi, my mail has been routinely opened since 2002. Sometimes in the most outrageous and obvious manner. I've not said or done anything about it, because they simply wasted their time with me. I am guilty of allowing that intrusion, but no more.

alpha phi

Mine has been opened too...
Christmas presents that were packed in
a box that was opened and unwraped.
letters with the end of the envelopes torn off.
the christmas box had a sticker on it that read:
OPPS!! this parcel get stuck in a sorting machine
the USPS is not responsible for missing or damaged items.
Yea right...the machine opened the tape with a clean cut
and unwraped the wrapping paper.

__________________

Elphaba

Yep, they assume we will continue to take this bs, because we have been sold via fear propaganda that we should give up our privacy rights. Wait a minute! I'm threadjacking my own topic.

shakran

Sure there's hope. I don't want to paint a complete, irreversible gloom and doom portrait of the media here. We're going through a bad spell right now, but it's not like that hasn't happened before. Back in the 1800's, newspapers were pretty much never objective. They reported the news the way their editor wanted to see it. If that meant squelching coverage on something that the editor didn't like, that's just what they did. If you'd been alive back then you'd be saying similar things to what you're saying now - - is there any hope for the press?

Well we got through that, and had some pretty good decades (exposing McCarthy, Watergate, Vietnam, etc etc). We'll get through this as well - hopefully before our lack of coverage brings about a national decline from which we cannot recover.

What we need is a citizen uprising that *demands* the government return control of the media to the media rather than megacorporations. And *demands* the government reinstate the fairness doctrine. And if the congress won't do it, then the citizens need to vote it out, and vote in congresspeople who will.

Republicans got rid of it because they didn't want the things Reagan was up to exposed. But it ended up biting them (and the country) in the ass when it also led to lack of coverage of Clinton's foreign policy failings. Fact is, just about every president makes collossal blunders, no matter what party they're from. Without the media to serve as a watchdog, presidents, republican AND democrat, get away with it.

There is also, as has been alluded to above, hope from the internet, but that hope comes with some nasty pitfalls. The internet, with it's anonymity, means anyone can hop on here claiming to be a journalist and report bullshit. If you wanna know how easilly that could spread and be accepted by the public, check your email. I bet there's something in there about Bill Gates giving you a dollar for everyone who gets the email after you forward it
And I'm not sure how that problem can be solved. I'm open to ideas

alansmithee

I'm personally interested where this idea of an independant, noble press came from. At best, media outlets are platforms for personal agendas by the reporters, journalists, or editors. At worst, they are merely a medium for getting people to BUY MORE STUFF!!11!1!11! I don't see really a time when this was extraordinarily different. And I also see no problem with the gov't using said media for their purposes. If the media seeks to impose themselves as some check on gov't power, the gov't needs to check media power, or work to keep it in line.

host

shakran, I have to offer a contradictory opinion that respectfully but firmly calls into question your comments quoted above. Not only was the elite white house press corps "mum" about Gannon, before he was exposed, but Froomkin reported (below), that Gannon's exposure was largely due to the efforts of mediamatters.org founder, David Brock. The in-depth, followup reporting that revealed the unusual access to the white house that Guckert AKA Gannon enjoyed, was dominated by rawstory.com.

Here is a highlight of Froomkin's assessment of how the WH press corps allowed the Bush administration to further erode the remnants of integrity that it still enjoyed after the press corps silently excepted the disgraceful treatment that ranking correspondent Helen Thomas received by the white house. Even after it was obvious that Gannon was a planted shill, the press corps did not lead or even do a thorough job of reporting important details.

We seem to be in the midst of an curious era where the most prominent reporters and their employers choose "not to report",,,,,,Miller...Woodward....Cooper....and now the NY Times delaying an important story for a year, and still not explaining why!

shakran

Did you bother reading this thread? For the most part, personal agendas of the journalists don't factor in. In fact, we go to extreme lengths to NOT let our personal opinions get into the story - you all know how I feel about Bush and the republicans in general, but that doesn't stop me from holding the democrats' feet to the fire if they screw something up as well.

The problem lies not with the majority of the journalists, but with the media owners.

Ahh. Then you also see no problem with the crumbling of democracy and the rise of a police state. Because that's what happens if the government gets power over what the media covers.

I object to the term "impose." We're not imposing anything. In case you've forgotten, ours is supposed to be a government which represents the people. How can the people know if the government is properly representing them if there is no group that tells the people what the government is up to.

This is all well and good for you to say now, when your candidate is in power. Will you be of the same opinion when a democrat is back in office and the media is reporting on what he does wrong? I'll be interested to see if you think the democratic president should "check media power" and "keep it in line."

alpha phi

The history of American Journalism goes hand in hand
with the founding of this country
The freedom of the press is the FIRST amendment
The press was instrumental in denouncing
the abusive rule of King George,
And encouraging the colonists to revolt
As early as 1795 Reporters were allowed in both the
House of Representatives and the Senate.
Because our founding fathers knew how
important an informed electorate is.
The goverment can and does publish
whatever they want.
The goverment Has No Right or Authority
to "check" or limit the press

__________________

shakran

I somehow missed this.

Most of us are held to disclosure regulations. We're required to disclose to our company any gifts, etc, we received (and kept) over the past year that are related to our jobs. Basically, if your disclosure sheet isn't blank, and you don't have a VERY good reason for it not being blank, you're in a LOT of hot water.

Some stations go even further and require you to disclose gifts you received but did not keep. My current station does that and it's honestly a pain in the ass because someone's always sending journo's gifts. Most of the time those gifts aren't meant to influence coverage - it'll be something like a box of donuts because they thought you did a really good job on the story. They're not trying to compromise our ethics, and quite frankly there aren't many journalists who would change a negative story to a positive one because someone sent him a few krispy kremes, but even still, we don't keep 'em. There's a food kitchen down the street from my station and any food gifts go there. Other types of gifts are returned or thrown away.


Of course, this whole disclosure thing gets right back to the initial problem. A journalist on the take isn't gonna admit it in a disclosure form, unless he's a true idiot. So we're back to the having to trust the journo until he proves untrustworthy. And trust me, that's scary as HELL when that new reporter shows up in the newsroom, because if a reporter breaks that trust, he's not only hurt his relationship with the rest of the staff, but he's hurt the station's reputation with the community.

host

Since at least 1735, when a New York court ruled for the acquittal of a publisher who was jailed by the royal governor for publishing the works of other authors that were deemed by the governor to be "libelous", due to their criticism of the government, thus overturning the British libel law that had kept the press in check, citizens of the colonies moved towards the principle that <b>"truth is an absolute defense. This decision proved to not only redefine the law of libel and slander but also to lay the foundation for the freedom of the press that we enjoy today".</b>.
Alexander Hamilton, a framer of the U.S. Constitution, and the author of the Federalist Papers, wrote that a bill of rights held the potential of endangering the preservation of the very rights that it described. <b>Hamilton noted that, unlike the British subjects of the monarch, it is the people who reserve all rights not expressly ceded to the government, and not the other way around.</b>

alansmithee, I find your opinion that <b>"If the media seeks to impose themselves as some check on gov't power, the gov't needs to check media power, or work to keep it in line."</b>...to be seriously misinformed, if it is not intended as satirical. Elected officials who devote their efforts as you describe, use power extended to them by the people, to impede the peoples' "right to know". How can such efforts conform to an oath to "protect and defend the constitution"?
[quote]http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...3_0713_ZO.html
403 U.S. 713
New York Times Co. v. United States
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 1873 Argued: June 26, 1971 --- Decided: June 30, 1971[*]

[p*714] PER CURIAM

We granted certiorari in these cases in which the United States seeks to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified study entitled "History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy." Post, pp. 942, 943.

"Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963); see also Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931). The Government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint." Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 (1971). The District Court for the Southern District of New York, in the New York Times case, and the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in the Washington Post case, held that the Government had not met that burden. We agree.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is therefore affirmed. The order of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions to enter a judgment affirming the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. The stays entered June 25, 1971, by the Court are vacated. The judgments shall issue forthwith.

So ordered.
When the executive branch of government attempted to prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war, on the grounds of "national security", Justice Black's concurring opinion for the majority, excerpted above, describes all that is needed to obtain an "American" point of view concerning the role of the press as guardians of the people, and not of the government.

Read Justice Black's bold print comments in the short paragraph above, and then consider the stereo messages of Rupert Murdoch's foxnews and NYpost that I earlier supplied here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=310 .

Why do our V.P. and many American conservatives prefer to have their "news" delivered via an Australian media mogul's News Corp. assets, foxnews and the NYpost, when they align themselves with the government, and clearly against the right of the governed to have access to the truth about the questionable actions of their government?