Posted on 07/07/2010 8:02:18 PM PDT by neverdem
You might like to check this out: OBSERVATIONS ON JOURNALISTS
Huh?
Predicting the future is easy based on consistent past performance.
Helping the left by pushing "negativity?" Try seeing reality, not wishful thinking.
The GOP creates its own sulf-fulfilling defeat. Ever heard of John McCain? As it turned out, he's been proven to be a liar, a hypocrite, and a RINO liberal.
So why bother to post? Why bother to be involved? Just to tell everyone defeat is certain?
You gave a break to the school administration - people who might be able to help you in some capacity in the future? Interesting. Would you have made the same call - if instead of the administration it had been some sexist fraternity - a group you couldn't stand?
This was in the sixties...and I've had no respect for the journalism "profession" ever since.
Your experience is common, okie - and sad. A free press is vital to a free people. It's important. Why MSM journalists are throwing away credibility is beyond me. I look at it - it makes no sense.
Some years back the New York Times had a Public Editor (an ombudsman for the people) who was first rate - Okrent or something like that - they dumped him after 6 months.
“You gave a break to the school administration - people who might be able to help you in some capacity in the future? Interesting. Would you have made the same call - if instead of the administration it had been some sexist fraternity - a group you couldn’t stand?”
I would hope so. A bedrock principle of mine is that both sides to a dispute have a right to be heard before judgment. Had the administration not made any changes after I approached it, I would have reported no changes and however the readers wanted to interpret it was fine by me.
That was a long time ago but I don’t recall thinking, gee, this administrator might be able to help me so I’ll give him a break. I just considered it a professional responsibility to seek comment from someone being accused of unfairness before smearing them. I guess it’s possible I was acting under some unconscious self-interest but it certainly wasn’t conscious.
As to a sexist, whatever group I didn’t care for. My track record has been to wait for facts. I may have been one of the few persons in the country who chose not to convict O.J. Simpson before the trial. I’m also someone who believes true evil is relatively rare in this world. Most people have found some way in their minds to justify their evil acts. They are tools of truly evil people and, while that doesn’t excuse their behavior at all, it does indicate that a lot of evildoers are not proud of being or doing evil. While it is discouraging to see the number of evil tools, it is encouraging to realize they must try to find ways to justify their evil rather than revel in it.
These days I am villified a lot for refusing to condemn people without hearing both sides, even here on FR. The grandma tasing story is just one example of my refusing to condemn the cops until more facts come to light. So I think I would not be willing to treat a disliked group differently from the way I treated that administrator. I have been around long enough to know there are at least two sides to every story. (Besides, I grew up a middle child of three children.)
Just kidding.
On the subject: I don't disagree with the choice you made - and I don't disagree with your friends who thought you should have exposed them. Both are acceptable choices.
The problem I have is each reporter is left making this call - or as you pointed out - each editor.
The reader is left with 'WTF' is going on - and screams of bias. And it's bias because we all tend to empathize with the people we understand best - people like ourselves. And for journalist, that means 'liberals' - maybe even young liberals who don't own a home in the community and ride their bikes on weekends to environmental meetings with friends at the local Quaker Meeting House or Unitarian Fellowship Hall. Who knows?
Newspapers don't let every reporter decided how to spell foreign countries - or how to abbreviate the names of States etc. They have a 'style book' - it keeps the news organization consistent and professional. My feeling is that an "ethics" style book should be part of every journalists tool kit. It would say, " Voter discrimination stories" are always put on the front page of the B section, below the fold, for the first mention. Voter discrimination cases affect the whole community in a negatives way and what group is discriminated against what group is not - is NOT the issue.
Any group that tries to obstruct the process of citizens voting will be covered seriously and in the same style. Please note: the color, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation are NOT an issue. A white, Christian, heterosexual will be covered the same as a black, atheist, homosexual. This newspaper does not pick favorites.
Of course the above would be written beautifully by "one who writes" - but you get the idea.
In your case the ethics book might say we always talk to the people in charge to see if the issue was a "mistake". Then that rule would apply to Liberals and Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans alike.
Or the ethics book might say, "we print was we have, and NEVER tip our hand to someone being covered - because we don't believe in prior restraint ... or attempts at prior restraint... If newspapers like the Washington Post and New York Times did this - they would be able to get their conservative readers back...
An ethics book would definitely be an improvement over the wants of editors, publishers and advertisers, colored by the prejudices of the reporter in the first place. There are several levels of self-interest (and prejudice)involved in the final news product. I’ve never seen any kind of formal guidelines as to what topics rate what play on the front page. It tends to be a day-by-day decision, for the most part.
Fortunately, general news outlets like papers and television news programs are dying. I say fortunate because we are beyond the place where a half-hour program or 24-hour news stories have relevance to most of our lives. I can remember my parents religiously sitting down to watch Huntley and Brinkley or Cronkite report the news each evening at 5 or 6 pm. Then came local news, followed by another local broadcast at 10 pm in our situation. (And then Johnny Carson followed at 10:30.) Now we no longer wait until 6 pm or 10 pm to see the local breaking news. We no longer look to the newspaper for breaking news either. And I think that is a good trend.
As to birth order, yes, I had a big sister and little brother and it was interesting. No so much hand-me-downs because my sister and I had totally different body types but she definitely expected me to walk in her footsteps, studying Spanish, clarinet, elementary education. My middle-child experience was to rarely get any kind of gift that was unique. Half my Christmas gifts were identical to my sister, half identical to my brother: dolls and ice skates, later, makeup and skis. Same with birthdays and graduations. I suspected I wasn’t unique in my parents’ eyes until at least college when I went off the reservation to study journalism. Now I am the family ex-pat, living 800 miles from the rest of them. And my younger sibling, the only boy, was spoiled rotten (although he’s turned out pretty well now in the mid-50s).
Dan Okrent his name was. A former publishing editor, co-inventor of rotisserie baseball and a baseball historian of some note.
His deal with the Times was that he would do the job without interference for a year, then he and they would make a mutual decision as to whether to continue the relationship.
Okrent readily admitted that he was a committed liberal -- as were most of the employees at the Times. But he soon began complaining that he could get no response (or inadequate responses) from the newsroom and the editorial department in regard to his questions.
As you say, after six months, it was over. Both parties wanted out. An honest liberal couldn't abide the inner workings of the Times. And the Times couldn't abide an honest liberal.
As you say, after six months, it was over. Both parties wanted out. An honest liberal couldn't abide the inner workings of the Times. And the Times couldn't abide an honest liberal.
We knew he was liberal. He was upfront about that, but reading him was fun.
My sweet love and I would make coffee - breakfast and put the paper on the table between us - then we'd agree which one of us would have the honor of checking if Okrent was "in" then teasing the answer to the other - a weekend ritual happiness was discovering he was... Shortly after Okrent left we gave up our subscription to the New York Times...
Well, you're unique here, caseinpoint - and appreciated. It's been nice chatting. I'll say a quick prayer for all of us 'second borns' - we matter too.
“OBAMA
OMNIPOTANT
INCOMPETENCE”
Well, at least you spelled “incompetence” correctly.
Kudos back to you. Make it a good week.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.