Quote:
Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Oct 15 2004, 03:42 PM
But that's just that - a nice story isn't what journalism is - that's business. Journalism is to report what's going on, and things that have impact.
Steriziling something because someone told you is not how it should work.
Comparing Iraq to Theo Fleury's drug problem is a good example. What should have they done? Report it - was it a problem? How could they truly know? The whole issue of slander comes into play if they slip up so the risk is there so of course they back off.
But underneath all of the coverup the truth is he was whacked out on the stuff. And in the same way, bad things are happening in Iraq that have impact, as are good things. I think journalists should report on the both if they have impact. If they are told to fluff something up, I don't like that.
|
If they are told to fluff something up, I don't like that.
Who would?
Its simply human nature to try to control the message, to have yourself presented in the best light possible. Being President of the USA or President of a Minor Hockey Association makes little difference.
So "they" ask. "They" threaten intellectually or even physically. "They" cajole. "They" limit access. "They" provide only threads of information but not the whole story. It happens all the time.
All pretty normal whether its a Democrat or a Republican president or whether its some contentious issue at a county council meeting or even a minor hockey association. Honestly, you see it at the highest levels and the lowest level imaginable, the gravest of issues and the stupidest of issues.
The frailty of human nature on display 24/7. They can certainly ask or threaten. There's not much you can do about it but expose the request or the threat, as we saw in the links Lanny provided.
That's different than a media source aquiescing or falling for it or stopping in its tracks.
Lanny posted another link earlier in the week of the small town paper, The Iconoclast, in GW Bush's hometown endorsing John Kerry with a ripping editorial of the Bush administration.
I posted the follow up story of businesses refusing to carry the newspaper in their stores anymore, of advertisers withdrawing, of subscriptions being cancelled and hundreds of letters to the editor.
Regarding Fleury, one could argue the Flames benefited from media not going after the substance abuse issue, sending damaged goods to the Avalanche for an attractive package that is now a bedrock of the franchise. Meanwhile, the Avs couldn't get rid of Fleury fast enough.
But is it the media's business to help the Flames?
Cowperson