Posted on 09/26/2005 7:52:28 PM PDT by Pikamax
Ooops! Turns out he's under indictment. I knew that bawling on TV was an act the first time I saw it.
Can something be factually flawed and still be an important part of the bigger story? How important is it for the media to correct such stories, and does it change anything when it occurs? The New Orleans Times-Picayune picks up on the theme advanced by the New York Times David Carr last week about stories we all heard about that turned out to be untrue. Tales of atrocities and emotional breakdowns on national TV make a definite impact on peoples attitudes, which in turn help shape future policy. Can such impressions ever be revised in the face of new information? And what is the duty for the media to do so?
Its an interesting debate that we surely havent seen the end of. But clearly, a story with factual inaccuracies should never be excused just because it appears to point to a bigger truth. Respect for facts is a standard that must be a line in the sand as long as journalism purports to report the story.
To a scam artist like Broussard facts are pliable things to be molded to fit his purpose at the moment. There are thousands like him in jails across the country and unfortunately in government offices, especially it would seem, in Louisiana.
This article discusses what we were touching on the other night regarding the longterm impacts of media lies on the media.
Line in the sand!!!??
Lines can be redrawn.
It better be carved in frickin' stone!
I don't think the media understands the word "stone". To them, everything is clay to be twisted and manipulated into whatever form best suits their agenda.
'Cept there are probably far more in government offices than in the jails. Too lazy to work, too nervous to steal and there's nothin' left but country music or a government job.
Jefferson Parish's web site still has email blocked. Aaron's hiding.
I don't think the media understands the word "stone". To them, everything is clay to be twisted and manipulated into whatever form best suits their agenda.
________________________________________
They understand stone--as in "I went through college stoned".
I beg to differ. Reporters are supposed to report facts. Their job is not to tailor the facts to fit some "truth" or to teach lessons. They may think that is their job or wish that were their job but it is not.
Stone Phillips.
Thanks for saving me the time to go looking. I've been waiting like a coiled spring that keeps getting notched up tighter every time I hear that puke's name.
This is CBS talkin', now.
There are lots of us!
it is obviously the media's duty, if they are to be deemed sources of accurate information and enjoy FCC- and FEC-granted privileges, to shy away from sensationalism, to check their data before reporting, and to openly correct themselves and each other when they err.
any reluctance to do all of the above shows the media to be other than sources of accurate information
And as evidenced by reporting on Iraq and Katrina, the media appears willing to do none of the above. Hopefully the price they pay will start being fatal to them instead of the victims of their dishonesty (like our troops in Iraq).
Doesn't ARKANSAS border on Louisiana? Yeah, thought so.
"Respect for facts is a standard that must be a line in the sand as long as journalism purports to report the story."
It's a sad commentary on the media that they actually have to say this. One would think this would be an ingrained principle, but one would be wrong.
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.