Posted on 02/13/2005 9:21:49 AM PST by Brian Mosely
Geez, the guy resigned! It's not like we had a private internet trial, convicted and put this guy in prison for life. Suck it up and get another job.
Just show the video.
(Nevertheless, there is one advantage in this story: masks are fallen!)
So true! Just not in the way the author means it! Biased liberal "journalists" will find it harder and harder to fool people into thinking they're getting unbiased news.
One can only assume that being French, Mr.Pecquerie shares the musk glands of his close relative.
The world's just topsy-turvy for leftists these days. Imagine the horror of finding out you have to re-learn your craft (i.e., start reporting objectively and telling the truth) from scratch or find another career. Imagine realizing that you aren't Fount O' Truth that the unwashed masses look to for hope and vision, rather those very same plebes are showing you up at your own craft!
O' the Horror!
And this writer manages to get the dynamic completely wrong in a panel discussion:
Bertrand Pecquerie, director of the World Editor's Forum and blogger at editorsweblog.org had many interesting things to say. He described how in the US the journalist - blogger debate is an often-nasty combat. He worries about the lack of an editorial body for bloggers. For example, he said, journalists have a group behind them who analyzes the facts, provides guidance, etc. He refers to this group as a collective intelligence. He believes this collective intelligence is missing in the blogosphere.
M. Pecquerie says that bloggers go from "breaking news" to "comments" - the entire step of running it through an editorial filter is missing. The reply to this, of course, is that the blogger's readers act as this editorial filter. A different kind of collective intelligence, if you will. He doesn't really buy this, however, due to the gap in time between blogging and response, among other reasons.
----------
Amazing. Absolutely amazing that Pecquerie could say this with a straight face months after Rathergate.
"... the defense of reporters' work (and sometimes life)!"
I completely agree with this writer.
After all, just look at the life's work of Eason Jorden. What's a lie comparatively.
Just remember the life's work of Senator Ted Kennedy, (C-MA). Even drowning a girl couldn't damage his reputation.
And Ward Churchill....fraud though he be, just look at HIS life's contributions. I mean claiming paratrooper status in Vietnam while really just trained to drive a jeep deserves being overlooked.
It's all relative to the unabashed left. Then again, they never met a lie they couldn't defend.
Yes,I can imagine that to someone who is used to and wants to continue spreading lies and deceptions under the cover of news,it would be very worrying.
Hey,... I saw that guy the other night checking out the rosebushes for a late night snack. No I was not and had not been drinking, I live in southeastern AZ.
They're not bad eating either, but they are mean little suckers.
Is that Rove holding that sign?
lol
Accountability has NEVER been the strong suit of those who would nurture and protect the forever-fragile postulates of collectivist thinking.
Left to defending its own premises, without the apologetic presstitutes, Communism in Russia would have died of its own weight in the 1930's. Much the same as radical Islamofascism would die out today. These anti-life ideologies continue to exist largely BECAUSE there are those who feel a vague dissatisfaction with their personal lives, and yet do not know how to express it, save by proclaiming their present situation as untenable.
"Sad conclusion in the Eason Jordan affair, sad day for the freedom of expression in America and sad day again for the future of blogging: the defense of the US army honor seemed more important to some bloggers that the defense of reporters' work!"
Your quick to jump on the NYT bandwagon. Odd considering they failed to report this story for nearly two weeks. And as your quoted story shows still is in "full protect" mode by not giving full context to the Jordan affair.
Example: Where is the NYT reference, or yours for that matter, to Jordan's previous and similar "targeting" quotes from last November?
Example: Note these very same type remarks leveled at the Israeli army.
Example: Where is Jordan's call for the Davos tape to be released? If this incident is such a "sad day for the freedom of expression" lets see the "freedom." Release the tape, after all it shouldn't be an easy task for Jordan, he sat on the World Economic Forum's board.
The man simply has had a long and extended pattern of such behavior, good riddence!
And if you look to Chris Cramer, currently president of CNN International, to assume Jordans job, don't.
He has mimiced Jordans nonsensical attacks to a TEE.
He needs to go also!
LOL. If you slander X, or the institutions of X, then you can reasonably be described as "anti-X."
If someone said "everyone who works at Editor's Weblog eats babies," then you could reasonably describe them as "anti-Editor's Weblog"
Slandering an American institution is, in fact, anti-American.
Slander: harmful statements made with reckless disregard for the truth, or harmful statements known to be false, but made anyway.
American institutions: like our democracy, our military, etc.
Anti-American: see "CNN"
"...the MSM trying to circle their broken wagons is an interesting spectacle."
It certainly is. Amazing he was forced out over this flap than over his tremendous admission that CNN coverd up Saddam's crimes, even those committed against CNN's own workers, iirc.
His departure is no loss.
Leave it to the left, EVERY FRIGGING TIME, to make clueless ramblings about "freedom of speech." For the fifteen thousandth time, criticizing someone for what they say is not a violation of their freedom of speech. Being called publicly by your fellow citizens for saying stupid crap is simply being held accountable for what you say.
McCarthy was RIGHT! BTTT
American hero vs. American hater, tough call.
Within the honest community of bloggers, some of them claimed to be the "sons of the First Amendment"
It's never been as license to libel.
Eason Jordan ... appeared to suggest that United States troops had deliberately aimed at journalists, killing some.
Did/Does Nixon appear to be guilty? He only resigned too.
Though no transcript of Mr. Jordan's remarks at Davos on Jan. 27 has been released, the panel's moderator, David Gergen
a.k.a. deepthroat, a.k.a Benidict Arnold. Look, even Barney Fife says Eason said it, your own team is calling him out. Your side has the video, has the transctript, and was in attendance. Release the tape already so we can all have a good laugh at what we all know CNN believes.
"quickly walked that back to make it clear that there was no policy on the part of the U.S. government to target or injure journalists," Mr. Gergen said."
Right, the man said the U.S. Military was targetting journalists, not the government, and then reinforced the point after Gergen tried to get him to step away from the 50 story ledge. We get it, love government, hate the military. Peace without guns.
In a memorandum released to his colleagues last night, Mr. Jordan, 44, who had worked at the network for more than two decades, said he had "decided to resign in an effort to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq."
Translation: "See, I was right to support Sadam, I was right to spike every story of him killing CNN employees, the United States is a big scary monster.
What's wrong with American journalism? (1)
I am taking the opportunity of a piece of news about the Drudge report to begin a series of short articles on American journalism (one posting every three days). My meeting with Danny Schechter, the editor of mediachannel.org, also gave me the idea of comparing journalism in Europe and America. I will obviously be making postings out of Paris, and hope my selection will be appreciated as a European's interpretation of the American scene.
Let me begin with this remark by Rich Ord, Webpronews: "According to Google Zeitgeist, the internet based Drudge Report is the third most searched for news source as of October, 2004. Why is this interesting? Of the top sites searched for news sources, the Drudge Report (DR) is the only Web based news service. It is significant that online news sources are now mainstream news sources when using pure popularity as the barometer. All of the others in the top five are principally television based. The Google Zeitgeist list of most popular news sources is as follows: CNN, Today Show, Drudge Report, Fox News, MSNBC..."
What is amazing about this piece of news is that very few people seem to be worried: it is now part of the American media landscape - as wonkette.com or other opinion blogs - and relatively well accepted, even if the parent/child relationship between DR and its baby-blogs can be discussed or denied (seen from Europe, there is no doubt it exists). Organisations with hundreds of journalists - and skilled people and a long tradition of fact-checking - are now put on the same level as a single person. But nobody seems to care! Isn't important when rumours and second-hand commentaries become as important as breaking news and investigative reports? And ironically, during the presidential elections, major American newspapers were almost obliged to follow the lead set by opinionated weblogs: de facto, their agenda was driven by this new cast of opinion leaders.
The second point is the apparent lack of courage among many American editors (due to media-political correctness?): the only one who reacted to this new trend was John S. Carroll, LA Times editor in a prophetic lecture entitled "The Wolf in Reporter's Clothing: the Rise of Pseudo-Journalism in America" (targeting Fox News talk-shows but a lot of his examples could be applied to opinionated blogs). What does this editors' self-censorship mean? That today blogs are so popular that nobody dares say that Drudge's sons of the blogosphere raise as many problems as they bring solutions. I know that American editors aren't pro-blogs, but I'm still waiting for a strong editorial saying that blogs are not the corner stone of 21st century journalism...
What's the main issue for European journalists in this American blogmania tsunami? Usually, the information process can be divided into four segments (fact-checking being part of the two first segments): breaking news, investigative reporting, balanced analysis and then opinion. With the bloggers, you jump directly from breaking news to the opinion article. This is a major disruption and, by the way, a major misunderstanding of what journalism is: when you are articulated and well informed, it's rather easy to become an opinion giver, but it is much more difficult to fact-check the news and avoid manipulation by the government or big companies and interests. You need staff, a newsroom, and what has existed in media organisations from a century. Period.
I am, by now, perfectly aware of bloggers' arguments regarding the CBS affair concerning the "60 minutes" report about George W. Bush National Guard service. It is said that, thanks to the "guys in pajamas", truth emerged very quickly. To be frank, I'm not fully convinced. For the following reason: CBS' competitors would have done the same job, criticizing the sources and the conclusions as they usually do. But it would have taken days and days. What is really new is that, as a case study, the collective intelligence of the blog community did the work in a few hours. It is now impossible to re-write the story as if bloggers didn't exist, but as far as we are concerned in Europe, the blog issue is only a question of timing, not a question of principle. Bloggers, in this sense, are part of the journalistic community. As potential contributors and as accelerators - as opinion makers as well -, not as editors or truth makers!
Another worrying issue is what could be called "American demagogy" or the "Zagat culture" and I will develop that in another posting. The syllogism is the following: blogs are popular, blogs are worthy - instead of so-called MSM or mainstream media -, so blogs give you the truth! In France, you don't say a restaurant is good because it is full and seems successful. First, you try the food and second you let pass time to see if the promises are kept in the following months. So, it is not because you have 12 million monthly visitors on Dailykos.com that it is a good site. It's certainly a successful blog, but beyond that it reveals a crisis in American public opinion. I see it as a symptom, not a cure! Sorry if it is a bit tough, but there is no reason to accept any "religion of figures" based on the audience of some weblogs: so far, fairness and accuracy were not indexed on Technorati technology! It's more or less the same story about the "We Media" concept and we will discuss that later in "What's wrong with American journalism? (2)".
------------
End frog commentary, start dirtboy commentary:
I am, by now, perfectly aware of bloggers' arguments regarding the CBS affair concerning the "60 minutes" report about George W. Bush [sic] National Guard service. It is said that, thanks to the "guys in pajamas", truth emerged very quickly. To be frank, I'm not fully convinced. For the following reason: CBS' competitors would have done the same job, criticizing the sources and the conclusions as they usually do. But it would have taken days and days. What is really new is that, as a case study, the collective intelligence of the blog community did the work in a few hours. It is now impossible to re-write the story as if bloggers didn't exist, but as far as we are concerned in Europe, the blog issue is only a question of timing, not a question of principle.
He just doesn't get it. We do it not only faster but better. We have a tremendous pool of knowledge at our disposal. And we are not bound by the dictates of editors - we don't have to please the boss, just make our case to other freepers in the course of vetting a story. It is a highly democratic process where the best research and the most thought-through opinion survives.
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.