Posted on 03/06/2004 8:43:04 PM PST by kristinn
A succession of well-publicized missteps by the news media in recent years -- from misrepresentation of facts and questionable reporting methods to outright fabrication and plagiarism -- has understandably shaken public trust in the media. The Washington Post, like several other large news organizations, has responded by reviewing our policies on accuracy, fairness and our relationships with news sources and readers.
We have spent several months on this effort and recently produced a restatement of our policies covering, among other things, reporting techniques, use of direct quotations, attribution of information, use of confidential sources and corrections of our mistakes. We are now discussing these policies in detail with the hundreds of reporters and editors in our newsroom and in our bureaus around the Washington area, the nation and the world. The conversations go to the heart of what we do and how we do it. I want to tell you, our readers, about these guidelines.
SNIP
So we have updated and expanded our guidelines to help us publish stories that are accurate and complete. That goal has become more challenging in an era of Internet-borne rumors, talk-show speculation and sophisticated spinning by newsmakers who want to influence how the news is reported while hiding their responsibility for doing so.
SNIP
That's why we will try to explain to readers why a source is not being named. We also will strive to tell our readers as much as we can about why such a source would be knowledgeable and whether the source has a particular point of view -- for example, "a police official involved in the investigation," "an aide to a Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee" or "a senior Pentagon official who disagrees with the administration's policy." We want at least one Post editor to know the identity of each unnamed source cited in the newspaper, as was the case during Watergate, so that editors can help decide whether to use the source in a story.
We also strive to treat our sources fairly by putting their statements in context to present what they say accurately. When we quote someone in The Post, the quotation should be the words that were spoken. We should not alter a quotation to make it easier to understand or to correct the speaker's use of language. When necessary to make clear what someone is intending to say or to avoid embarrassing someone who has difficulty using the language, we may opt to avoid quotation and paraphrase what was said instead.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Translated: If they're powerful, we'll cover for them. If their agenda is our agenda, we'll cover for them. But if the source is a little guy, who could lose everything, we'll give him the shaft.
And that ain't just a lefty media practice. A few years ago, the New York Post ran a guest op-ed on the terrible New York City schools, by a teacher who had just fled the city system for the suburbs. In a note, the editor said he was baffled that the woman refused to use her real name, and that he had broken with Post policy, in running her piece pseudonymously.
An editor so stupid as to fail to understand why that woman wouldn't use her real name, should be put in an institution for the severely retarded. The first thing that would have happened, would be that someone from the NYC public schools (whether a former colleague or superior) would clip the article, and send it to her new employer. 2. She gets a negative teaching evaluation. 3. She gets fired. 4. Anytime she applies for a new teaching job, the prospective employer would contact her previous employer and the NYC Department of Education. Either or both would send the employer a copy of her article; she would never teach again. Hell, she might be lucky to get a minimum wage job.
When I taught college, I wrote for the funny papers, including the New York Post, not that the editors knew it. I didn't give them the chance to ruin me. I submitted work pseudonymously.
I'm convinced that newspaper people, for all their fine talk about whistle-blowers, enjoy leaving them to twist in the wind. I think it's because they consider the news their private property, and because they think of themselves as aristocrats (and they do come from well-to-do families), and a knowledgeable but politically impotent employee "doesn't know his place." Unless, that is, you're powerful, in which case, you're a "reliable source."
Here I am, just tryin' to grease-up the old bones for yet another campaign, and you, "kristinn", keep me up laughing all night with this 'compost-bullshit'!!
Have a great Sunday, pally...............FRegards
...has understandably shaken public trust in the media. The Washington Post, like several other large news organizations, has responded by reviewing our policies on accuracy, fairness...
T'is good to hear them bleating as their collective ad revenue goes south. 8^)
Say 'Hi' to Mata Sherry for me.
5.56mm
Established media outlets are dying. As soon as computer technology can convincingly and realistically replace TV anchors with computer generated avatars selected by individual users, Peter Jennings and their like will be out of business.
I want full control of what, how, and when news is presented to me. No amount of screaming , "Trust us" is going to work, I dream of a time when news from television is as customizable as the news on my home page is.
This sounds like Washington is no different than a Banana Republic if department-level workers fear for their safety if they speak out. Who are they afraid of? Elected officials? "Friends" of elected officials? Are we electing thugs to our highest offices?
-PJ
Yes, we know who you are and where you want to take the country. But we don't WANT to be Canada, nor do we WANT to be france.
Sorry, you betrayed our trust and you are not likely to regain it as easily as you think.
You're not following the Washington Post guidelines! :-)
If we followed the WP's guidelines, we would paraphrase as follows:
"You must trust us [WP], we never (screw) up."
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.