Slashdot Mirror

In October 2009 the Democrats who were then running congress by a huge majority changed the locks on the capitol hill meeting rooms so they could keep Republicans out when they wanted to. (they did this to stop Republicans exposing the involvement of Democrats in the 2008 home loan meltdown activity at Countrywide, but they then used those locked rooms to exclude Republicans from the secret healthcare reform negotiations which Obama had promised would air in their entirety live on C-SPAN)

Obama did, indeed, promise Obamacare negotiations would air live on C-SPAN before he broke his promise, and journalists from across the political spectrum objected and tried to get the negotiations opened

And here's an admittedly biased link to a TEA Party site, used here to point out their frustration with the fact that the "establishment" wing (the lifetime politicians who like big government) of the GOP keeps doing SYMBOLIC votes against Obamacare but then keeps actually fully funding it. The Washington elites of both parties have done stuff like that to their base voters on many issues for decades, but the internet is exposing it.

Oh, and if you are in denial about the corporate lobbyists who climbed into bed with Obama on Obamacare, here is a link to a story explaining WHY big insurance got on board (they originally fought it, but then they got admitted to the closed-door meetings WE the public were shut out of). Also see this link on big Pharma and big Insurance climbing on board and throwing money at Democrat politicians. While many organizations and lobbying groups were involved in the "secret" negotiations, the names of most of the individuals involved are NOT known to Republicans who repeatedly demanded the names and were denied.

Let me further point out that when the Obama administration thinks a Republican governor is breaking a law, they run to the federal courts - something they have NOT done (so I cannot link to it here) to any governor over his/her refusal to create a state exchange - a tacit admission that the governors are obeying the law.

Since I have validated everything in the post you said was so full of falsehoods, whereas YOU provided NO evidence ANY of the claims was false, that previous post was the correct one and yours was the loser

As you point out, bloggers are answerable to noone and will give their own opinions... But for-profit companies are answerable to their profit margins, and will report whatever makes them the most profit

First, you shoot yourself in the foot right away: opinion is not journalism. It is opinion, not the reporting of facts. Second, people will not watch news that is suspect. I don't believe there is anyone who will willingly get their news from organizations that are known to lie. Yes Fox commentators spout blatantly right wing propaganda, but I have found that their news reporting by and large is pretty accurate. I don't watch it though because it is suspect to me. And that is why 'good' news organizations will exist, people like me will go to them because they have developed our trust. We know that their reporters are monitored and vetted, their stories are vetted, and accuracy and bias is important to them. Those new organizations prosper because of trust. Bloggers have nothing to vet them or ensure accuracy. At best, their data is not information, but is rather opinion.

And speaking of trust how do you know that whenever you go to the dentist he won't nick a good tooth with his polisher so that you have to come in to fix the cavity that will happen later on. You trust him because he/she has sworn an oath to take care of you and not hurt you. If they breach the oath or do something unethical they can lose their license.

How does that relate to journalism? Journalism, and journalism editors in particular live by a canon that says they must be truthful, accurate, and impartial. I know this is not everywhere, and I am not so naive as to think that corporate head offices, Murdock being one of the very worst offenders, doesn't try to influence what is reported. In fact we know that at least some of the his outlets verge on lying. But because of the oath, the lies gain more prominence than they would otherwise. A profession that has a code of ethics like this, makes a big deal of transgressions, so that we know about them. Again, bloggers have nothing to do this so that others know what is true or not. That is why opinion is not journalism and is not real 'news'.

In the case of Rupert Murdock, we often are presented with rabidly right wing 'journalists' who are misinformed due to their own narrow view point, spout untruths that they themselves believe since it is easy for them to believe in the things they want to believe in without verifying what they say. I phrased the previous sentence the way I did, including putting the word 'journalists' in quotes, to highlight how many people, due to what I can only ascribe to weak thinking, are now incorrectly labelling commentating as journalism, and commentators or pundits as journalists. Much of this is not journalism (sorry John Stewart ;-) ) and the people commentating are not journalists. A good example is Bill O'Reilly (a ocmmentator) who announced to his listeners around 2004, that Canada's federal government was running a deficit for years when in fact it was maintaining a balanced budget and in fact had budget surpluses for years. Don't mistake these commentators for journalists. They aren't. Unfortunately as you yourself evidence, people are also incorrectly ascribing the title of journalism to blogs. Very few bloggers if any, keep their own feelings out of what they write, which lands them too, in the boat called commentary. I do listen and watch a wide range of sources so that I can see, understand, and assess the various sources of news, form my own opinion on what is credible and what is not. So far, bloggers are at the very bottom of my list as to what is credible 'news'... I can't help it, I have to put 'news' in quotes when in conjunction with bloggers.

Real journalists are constantly subject to review by their colleagues (working for the same organization and otherwise) and the public. Their long term job security depen

    Monitoring journalists is actually a smart move, for an organization that wishes to gather intelligence.

    Journalists write about the news. They're sent out on great breaking stories, as well as little crappy ones. They may have one piece of a much bigger story, and never know about it.

    Think about this. A guy steals a car in New York. Not big news, right? But someone is bound to cover it. The police only have so much manpower to investigate things. Now, an investigative reporter finds that it's a little old lady, and wants to make it news. It's a fluff story, but maybe someone will have some sympathy for her.

    The reporter goes to some neighboring houses. They ask "did you see anything." "What can you tell me about the little old lady." Oh, she's nice, tends to her flowers every day, and has 14 cats. Big deal. That is, until you find that one of the neighbors was actually a person of interest.

    The neighbor of interest normally lives in California, but is now in New York. Another person of the same organization had flown into New York (found through the airline reservation systems). Another was stopped crossing the Canadian border because he had a forged passport. Documents in his bag indicate he was going to ... you got it, New York.

    I won't agree that it's nice that they record all my calls, emails, and movements. Their job isn't to be nice. Theirs, for the most part, is to gather intelligence. By monitoring journalists, that would put an extra 50,000 eyes and ears out there (according to ASNE) every day. Add that to the more traditional resources, like other law enforcement agencies and their own agents, and now you get a much clearer picture.

    They can't depend on the news that does make it. Plenty of stories are written and rejected. The journalist trying to make the story about our little old lady, her 14 cats, and stolen car, will probably never see the light of day. It'll be superseded by any more interesting story.

    Do I know that any of this happens? No. But, it would make a lot of sense. I know my own news site is read on a regular basis by just about every intelligence agency there is. I know when I write a story about being flagged as a security risk at the airport, I'm not flagged again. Really, if they monitor everything I do, they're bored out of their minds, but they do know, I'm not a risk. I know if I look through my logs, I get a good glimpse of what they're willing to let me see (the occasional IP from their agency). I know that's not the whole story either. I just think of it as their way of saying "hi".

Yes, but likening the neocons (with their tendancy to reduce civil liberties and centralize power) to historical fascists is reasonable because there's truth to it. Traditional conservatives aren't so bad -- at least they still believe in personal liberties[*]. The neocons are f'ing scary.

[*] - Except the personal liberties they don't believe in (abortion, sexual behavior among consenting adults, etc); that's still a big improvement on attacking freedom of the press, privacy rights, the Freedom Of Information Act, etc.

Actually, Susan is my boss, but I'm going to assume you paid attention to where I indicated that in my original post, and are addressing your comments rhetorically. For the record Susan's been in journalism for decades, is a frequent judge for journalism awards, lectured at NYU's journalism school, etc, etc., and been the EIC of Spectrum for over six years. So drop the patronizing smarm. Finding your own angle on a story that's going around is one thing: failing to give adequate attribution is another, and is violation of, e.g., the Washington Post's ethics policy:

Attribution of material from other newspapers and other media must be total. ... It is the policy of this newspaper to give credit to other publications that develop exclusive stories worthy of coverage by The Post.

Certainly, for example, digging up Matthew Patton was an element of the VCF story that was exclusive to Spectrum's coverage, as Patton had not appeared in other media outlets before or since Spectrum's coverage until today.

Even when publications are chasing the same story, when one publication gets something unique it is normal to see lines such as "As first reported in the New York Times..." etc in stories in other outlets. A similar attribution in passing in the text was all that would have been required: instead the only attempt at attribution by the Post article is buried in the credits list for the accompanying timeline graphic, where the "Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers" is credited as a source, which is a) insufficient and b) wrong (the source was "IEEE Spectrum Magazine". Crediting the IEEE is like crediting General Electric for information taken from a "Today Show" segment.)

As a concrete example, let's look at the recent Sony-BMG DRM rootkit controversy. I did a story on that, interviewing many of the people involved, people who got interviewed by a lot of media outlets at the same time, but when I found a nugget that had been exclusivey reported by one other news outlet--a video of a DHS offcial talking to a local buisiness group about the issue--I gave credit where credit where was due. To the Washington Post in fact: "One party that cares is the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which includes cybersecurity as part of its portfolio. On 10 November, as reported by the Washington Post, Stewart Baker, assistant secretary for homeland security, made a pointed reference to the Sony BMG protection system..." [Emphasis added]

Speaking personally as someone who hires freelancers, and who's been a staff journalist and editor for somewhat more than a week myself, if your post is indicative of your grasp of the ethical standards of journalism, you can be sure this is one editor who wouldn't call on your abilities as a stringer, or anything else.

Press Code of Ethics (Associated Press)
Associated Press Managing Editors. Code of Ethics. 1995
http://www.asne.org/ideas/codes/apme.htm
Associated Press Managing Editors
Code of Ethics
Revised and Adopted 1995
These principles are a model against which news and editorial staff members can measure their performance.

They have been formulated in the belief that newspapers and the people who produce them should adhere to the highest standards of ethical and professional conduct.

The public's right to know about matters of importance is paramount. The newspaper has a special responsibility as surrogate of its readers to be a vigilant watchdog of their legitimate public interests.

No statement of principles can prescribe decisions governing every situation. Common sense and good judgment are required in applying ethical principles to newspaper realities. As new technologies evolve, these principles can help guide editors to insure the credibility of the news and information they provide. Individual newspapers are encouraged to augment these APME guidelines more specifically to their own situations.

RESPONSIBILITY

The good newspaper is fair, accurate, honest, responsible, independent and decent.

Truth is its guiding principle.

It avoids practices that would conflict with the ability to report and present news in a fair, accurate and unbiased manner.

The newspaper should serve as a constructive critic of all segments of society. It should reasonably reflect, in staffing and coverage, its diverse constituencies.

It should vigorously expose wrongdoing, duplicity or misuse of power, public or private. Editorially, it should advocate needed reform and innovation in the public interest. News sources should be disclosed unless there is a clear reason not to do so. When it is necessary to protect the confidentiality of a source, the reason should be explained.

The newspaper should uphold the right of free speech and freedom of the press and should respect the individual's right to privacy. The newspaper should fight vigorously for public access to news of government through open meetings and records.

ACCURACY

The newspaper should guard against inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortion through emphasis, omission or technological manipulation.
It should acknowledge substantive errors and correct them promptly and prominently.

INTEGRITY

The newspaper should strive for impartial treatment of issues and dispassionate handling of controversial subjects. It should provide a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism, especially when such comment is opposed to its editorial positions. Editorials and expressions of personal opinion by reporters and editors should be clearly labeled. Advertising should be differentiated from news.

The newspaper should report the news laws without regard for its own interests, mindful of the need to disclose potential conflicts. It should not give favored news treatment to advertisers or special-interest groups.

It should report matters regarding itself or its personnel with the same vigor and candor as it would other institutions or individuals. Concern for community, business or personal interests should not cause the newspaper to distort or misrepresent the facts.

The newspaper should deal honestly with readers and newsmakers. It should keep its promises.
The newspaper should not plagiarize words or images.

INDEPENDENCE

The newspaper and its staff should be free of obligations to news sources and newsmakers. Even the appearance of obligation or conflict of interest should be avoided.

Newspapers should accept nothing of value from news sources or others outside the profession. Gifts and free or reduced-rate travel, entertainment, products and lodging should not be accepted. Expenses in connection with news reporting should be paid by the newspaper. Special favors and special tr

Maybe you need a refresher on the ad hominem

Nope!

This is EXACTLY what you are doing.

Actually, not remotely. I never said your claims were false because you are sad. I just said, you are sad. I gave other reasons why your claims were false.

What I did was a snide personal attack, not an ad hominem. Sad for you that you can't tell the difference.

anything I claim without a link is obviously false

No ... with or without a link, your claim that the PATRIOT Act has kidnapping provisions is false, as is your claim that everyone detained under the PATRIOT Act is never heard from again. Both are obviously false on their face, and need no links to prove it.

The effect of the USA Patriot Act upon businesses ... is not to find and incarcerate terrorists--there are far more ways to investigate threats to the nation than to check on a terrorist's reading and listening habits--but to put a sweeping chilling effect upon Constitutional freedoms.

That's exceptionally poor writing. If there are "far more ways" to investigate threats than to check reading habits, that necessarily implies that checking reading habits is such a way, and therefore finding and incarcerating them is necessarily an effect.

It seems like he is conflating purpose and effects. Either that, or he just doesn't know what the heck he means. Silly.

The Act butts against the protections of the First (free speech), Fourth (unreasonable searches), Fifth (right against self-incrimination), and Sixth (due process) amendments.

Well, except, no, it doesn't. It has no First or Fifth problems, at all. It might have some Fourth problems, via the Sixth, especially in regard to using the FISA provisions against American citizens.

But to say that lawfully investigating something might cause someone to be more careful about speaking and is a de facto First amendment violation is nonsense; similarly, it's nonsense to say that a lawful investigation into someone's activities constitutes a breach of the right against self-incrimination.

And none of those examples about people changing their habits is remotely true. We've already seen the PATRIOT Act in effect for three years, and none of it has come to pass.

How ironic it is that a President who says he wants everyone to read is the one who may be responsible for giving the people less choice in what they may read.

Now, *this* is an ad hominem.

Your original claim that I replied to that "more journalists fall on the left than right" has not, that I can find, been linked or referenced to any study or report that agrees with it.

No one asked me to provide a reference, until you sortof did just now. There are many surveys, here's one. It's one of those pervasively true things that I don't bother looking up or providing a link to unless specifically asked.

http://www.asne.org/kiosk/editor/98.july/kees2.htm

"In terms of practical policy, [fact-checking] is pretty much impossible. The sheer number of words, the sheer number of reporters per editor make fact-checking nearly impossible. ... If you're willing to lose $11 million a year like The New Yorker, you can have fact-checkers." -- Bruce DeSilva, enterprise editor, The Associated Press

"You've got to be careful when a reporter falls in love with a story -- especially an investigative story. Love is blind. You see what you want to see. ... We don't spot-check. We have 1,523 spot checkers doing it for us (AP's newspaper clients) -- and they do. You put a story out there and someone somewhere will have a connection to it -- and they'll tell us. -- William Ahearn, executive editor, The Associated Press

The recent scandals with Jayson Blair and Jack Kelley have highlighted how little fact-checking actually goes on. "Opinion" columns in newspapers are even worse; the journalists who write them tend to be too lazy to do even a minimal amount of resource, and frequently make untrue claims to support their opinions.

The NYT response to complains was that anything in an opinion column counted as opinion, so it never needed to be corrected.

Let's not forget Dilbert was actually based from real experiences from within HP.

Wrong. It was based partly off of creator Scott Adams's experiences at Pacific Bell.

The American Soc. Of Newspaper editors did a survey of 1037 reporters. 61% identified themselves as liberal 15% as conservative, that's 4:1.

In 1995 Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report surveyed his fellow white house correspondants on who they voted for. 50 voted D 7 voted R. 7:1.

Here is your evidence of media bias.

I read the excerpt posted on Amazon, and it is categorically misleading. The thesis of the part posted on line is that "It costs money to run a newspaper, so newspapers only represent the rich".

To back this up, he says that you could start a weekly in England in 1837 that prints 6500 copies a week for about a thousand pounds. But by 1867, daily newspapers cost 50,000 pounds to start.

Let's see here, he compares weekly to daily, and does not reveal how many copies the larger(tool of the capitalist oppressor) paper prints. That's how you make a point, by pulling vague numbers out of your ass that don't mean anything when you use your brain and think about them.

Hey brainiac, you can still start a socialist workers party paper with 6,500 copies down at Kinkos for 6500*.05c = $325.

I know that you are trying to offer a bit of insight, but please create original work or give writing creit where due. A simple search returns an interesting link. I believe this was originally done by John Stossel and his orignal title can be found here.

From the site""Pandering to Fear: The Media's Crisis Mentality" Every day newspapers and television warns us of new, unsuspected dangers in our complex modern world--from Alar and asbestos to cyclamates to the Audi 5000 and the Suzuki Samurai. With the world apparently getting more dangerous all the time, we have to wonder how life expectancy keeps on growing. ABC's John Stossel will discuss what the real risks in modern life are, why the media seem to hype unrealistic fears, and why readers and viewers fall for it. "

Thank you for your time. I appreciate the effort, but I appreciate and value the efforts of the original authors even more. Lest we forget Doris Kearns Goodwin and her misdeeds.