Do I think that a thousand reporters could be trusted today to make the same call that we did in 1979? I wonder. Even back then, there was the fear that some rogue reporter would ignore the pleas and go with the story. In today's journalism world, I fear that some blogger or counterculture ideologue using journalism as a political tool rather than as a mechanism for dispensing straight information, would make the wrong call. I hope I'm wrong about that.
It's also useful to recall that the Drive By Media had the Monica Lewinsky story for at least a year and sat on it until Drudge blew the lid off.
if it was today while Bush is President, the NY Times could hardly wait to leak that piece of news to get those Americans killed and then rejoice at hurting America and blame Bush.
The oversight to publish has reduced drastically since the 79. I would like to see the ocupational definition of journalist loosen because integrity is key to the job. The problem is that sociopaths and opportunists without integrity can publish almost as effectively as a journalist with integrity. It may be that our free press, certainly the press in Europe, has tipped in the favor of sociopaths and opportunists. I hope I’m wrong about that.
In today's journalism world, I fear that some blogger or counterculture ideologue using journalism as a political tool rather than as a mechanism for dispensing straight information, would make the wrong call. I hope I'm wrong about that.
The oversight to publish has reduced drastically since 79. However I would not like to see the ocupational definition of journalist loosen because integrity is key to the job. The problem is that sociopaths and opportunists without integrity can publish almost as effectively as a journalist with integrity. It may be that our free press, certainly the press in Europe, has tipped in the favor of sociopaths and opportunists. I hope I’m wrong about that.
"In today's journalism world, I fear that some blogger or counterculture ideologue using journalism as a political tool rather than as a mechanism for dispensing straight information, would make the wrong call" and go with the story.
Not to worry, 95% of the print and television media will "make the wrong call". Umm, well, unless they're covering for a democrat AKA, liberal, socialist, progressive...
Cheers
They must have thought some of the six were journalists...
ping
Only when there's a Democrat in the White House.
Keep in mind that back in '79 the press was mainly focused on covering for the Soviets and the rest of the international Communists. It wasn't until years later that Islamofascists popped up on the radar as a new anti-American threat for the MSM to pander to and appease.
Wonder if there has been another example in the last 27 years?
A single result does not prove a fact. For something to be a fact, it must be provable every time.
In today's journalism world, I fear that some blogger or counterculture ideologue using journalism as a political tool rather than as a mechanism for dispensing straight information, would make the wrong call. I hope I'm wrong about that.
You already reached the wrong conclusion upon which your entire article was based so there's no reason to think you're correct about this.
Journalists. Are they all stupid?