Free press or controlled press?
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/07/25 00:15:11
|
|
|||||
|
42 votes
|
|
35% | |||
|
66 votes
|
|
55% | |||
|
11 votes
|
|
9% | |||
A mainstream reporter admitted it last week: he lets big-time politicians, including the putative President and his challenger, vet his interviews. Since when is that the act of a free press?
Lazy. That's how it starts. Letting your sources write your copy, to go out under your by-line. Then letting your interview subjects vet your quotes, even when you have independent records and know when you're being accurate or not.
Read the article through, and then decide: have we a free press, or a controlled press?
Lazy. That's how it starts. Letting your sources write your copy, to go out under your by-line. Then letting your interview subjects vet your quotes, even when you have independent records and know when you're being accurate or not.
Read the article through, and then decide: have we a free press, or a controlled press?
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/07/24...
LAZY.
With most graduates of Journalism schools being of a Liberal bent, it is not surprising that they will always take the easy way out.
Look at the election a few years ago when John Kerry was quoted by the Bush administration saying something he never said. Kerry is asked "what it would take for Americans to feel safe again." Kerry responded: ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' the article states as the Massachusetts senator's reply.
''As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''
So the Bush campaign took the quote and made a political add saying that John Kerry didn't understand ...
Look at the election a few years ago when John Kerry was quoted by the Bush administration saying something he never said. Kerry is asked "what it would take for Americans to feel safe again." Kerry responded: ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' the article states as the Massachusetts senator's reply.
''As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''
So the Bush campaign took the quote and made a political add saying that John Kerry didn't understand the threat of terrorism and thinks it is a nuisance like prostitution.
Why shouldn't quotes be looked at by a candidate. After all, it used to be the medias job to report the news. But after FOX news sued for the right to lie on their newscasts, you nerve know how anyone is going to use what you did or didn't say.
The test will be if the msm ever starts covering Obama half as critically as they go after everyone else. They certainly have been holding back the punches so far.
And I must say that the practise of having interviews of eminent people revised by them previously, namely to avoid embarrassing themes, is unfortunately very common since long.
They say that privacy must be respected. On the other hand, there is a scandal press which does not hesitate to drag people in the mud, simply for some scoop. Remember the accident of Princess Diana ...