Posted on 10/16/2009 1:34:23 AM PDT by GVnana
This statement covers a large percentage of what's wrong with modern "journalism". Many of the smears published by the leftists in the MSM are covered by this clause. It is libel to print a blatantly false statement attributed to the target. However, when you print: "Joe Blow said, "the blatantly false statement", you are protected from libel damages. The next reporter then can say "the newspaper reported "the blatantly false statement". And by the third revolution, it becomes unattributed "news".
The "fake, but accurate" defense.
The Star was once a respected publication.
Really?
By whom?
I've been a conservative with republican tendencies since 1973 and lived in the KC Star service area for over 5 years and have followed much of the KC Star's stupidity.
I know of no conservative with republican tendencies that could ever recall a time that the KC Star was "respected", other than by a nitwitted birkenstocked liberal.
If you follow them closely, it becomes evident that they are simply a parrot for the Democrat Party and they spend quite a large amount of time in the proximity of the buttocks of the New York Times.
Much of their editorial content borders on absolute hysterics and makes use of hyperbole, in a very transparent attempt to inflame the sensitivities of the mid-westerners that still read it.
The only political support that I can recall the Star giving to a republican figure was their adoring and simpering tributes to Eisenhower, albeit, after he was out of office.
I do recall an editorial (memory fails as to the editor) that excoriated Truman for his decision to drop the bomb on Japan, but that was also about the time that reparations for the Nisei were being tossed around.
They are journalistic whores, but I do admit to reading them on a regular basis, so, one might say that I do support them.
I also read the New York Times.
Observation of the enemy is critical to formulating a plan for defeat.
I guess Jason's "back on the porch", a term I had never heard of until last night.
Of course, I had never heard of the term "teabagger" before this year, either.
The writer is far too timid in his criticism of Whitlock, but I don’t know that you’re being fair. He questions Whitlock’s judgement for using questionable sources, but notes that all ethics requires is to cite the source, which is true.
Instead of making this into a he-said-she-said, he should criticize Whitlock more vociferously for using such a questionable source.
Ah, so you know about my past. :)
If my criticism of the KC Star came off as a personal criticism of you, it was unintentional, for I have no personal knowledge of you.
I do have a personal knowledge of the KC Star, and I remain, as ever, extremely critical of them.
Also, my congratulations to you for your recovery...not all nitwitted birkenstocked liberals see the light.
It must have been quite a struggle for a Native New Yorker.
All in good humor...some of my best friends have been nitwitted birkenstocked liberals.
I actually wrote Whitlock a letter last night condemning his use of unsourced quotes to fit his agenda. I gave him some examples in his own work, such as when he threw Sean Taylor under the bus for associating with “unsavory characters”. Taylor was asleep in bed with his wife when he was murdered. What the hell was he supposed to be doing? I hope he reads it, though I doubt he will.
I like Whitlock and I believe he wrote exactly what black athletes believe.
They live in their own little cocoon where facts don’t penetrate the blanket that their handlers keep them in.
In other words, Obama voters.
One day I had an epiphany, and it was as if a curtain parted.
Now, the hard part is not laughing hysterically as I circulate socially here.
Whitlock is an idiot anyway. I haven’t read any of his crap since he took the Chiefs to task for not signing Jeff George when he was a free agent.
Any journalist or academic is required by professional eithcs to cite the source. That is true. But what if you cite the source, you know the material is extremely damaging, and you do not make any effort to obtain information from the person harmed?
Somewhere there's a fine point on libel law for that one.
Journalism has relied on the device of "providing both sides" for a long time. It's a shoddy substitute for truth, but it does offer some fairness.
Genunine "ethics" requires something more than "he did it so I can too."
The false quote is born of genuine malice. The reporter's use of it is an act of malice.
He could try a defense along the lines of, "Everyone knows Rush is a racist, so I had no reason to doubt the accuracy," but he would be admitting his own bias.
I would like for him to sue so that he can do discovery on all these people. Expose them through discovery, and win enough to cover attorney’s fees.
http://www.newsmax.com/lowell_ponte/jesse_jackson_fades/2008/07/18/114041.html
“Jesse found work at a local restaurant where, as he later boasted, he would secretly spit in the food of white customers.”
Well, isn’t that special. I just tried posting a comment but their server is currently “unable unavailable to process requests”.
[Well.. He might not have said it. But he’s still divisive so he must be racist. So we couldn’t give him the benefit of doubt.]
In other words, conservatism is racism. That seems to be the message from the state run media. This is an all to common narrative coming from this administration and it’s supporters conservatism and any opposition to Obama is racist.
I don’t really see him as defending Whitlock. What I did read was Donovan basically saying that he disagrees with Whitlock’s sources, since they were not checked, and that because he used these questionable sources, his argument was pretty much nil. Another couple of things I noticed as well, was how Donovan mentioned that both Rush and Whitlock are clearly misunderstood by those that criticize them. I’ve seen this to be the case many times when it comes to Rush. I don’t know that much about Whitlock so I can’t really say much on him. I think you’re reading something that really isn’t there, as are several people here.
Donovan isn’t using the “fake but accurate” scam that Rather used. What he’s said is that Whitlock used a type of source that he, himself (Donovan) wouldn’t use. How does that equate to Rather’s “fake but accurate” reporting?
I don't think I ever said it did. But, I think you could argue that a reporter using that quote without checking the source has malice as a motive.
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.