I wouldn't be surprised if it was illegal under that new legislation the current crop of fascists wants to enact. This thing sounds like it was made for card-swapping and flexibility.
I agree totally, except for involving the PR Department. Once those drones get involved, nothing will be accomplished. Present them with a fait accompli, and invite them to make of it what they will.
I used to work in "Public Affairs" at a major university, and from my experience there and many, many contacts with people at other universities, I can assure you that they run pretty much the same. Bums will be covered. Permissions will be sought. Bright people will think of all kinds of "better" uses for all your excess capacity. And the whole thing will die in a welter of blood as it gets nibbled to death by tiny rodents with sharp little teeth.
So go with the rest of the program, and let the upper levels of the university administration eventually order PR to send a rookie flack with a camera and notepad. Otherwise, you'll have to deal with a department head dying to prove to everybody how smart and valuable he is. At your expense.
Five congenital liars, a serial killer, six child molesters, several sewer rats and a starving weasel applied to the same court for status as "Friends of the RIAA".
I guess you believe Russert, or any journalist, would bend over backward to make sure that a hostile examiner didn't leap to any wrong conclusions, or that a source begging to be burned should be aware of their vulnerability. You persist in chasing an illusion, and have forgotten completely that I specifically said I didn't want to defend Russert.
"He CANNOT forbid him from publishing what was said. The journalist is even within his rights to promise that an interview is off the record, then publish anyway. One of the links I supplied to you outlined specific conditions where this would even be ethical."
"Ah, progress. All you had to do was grapple with the argument. I knew you could do it, eventually. Too bad you still haven't answered the question."
No, sorry. No progress. You are still unable to understand the actual situation, or usual journalism practice. And I see no evidence that you have the intellectual capacity to do so.
"It was just the index page; it offered nothing that was relevant to the discussion. A red herring, essentially, so you could pad your post with links."
You obviously don't know quite what to do when you run into an index. You're supposed to read it, and having done so you go to the place it points you toward. If your skills don't extend to determining where that is, you need more help than I can offer you. "Pad my post?" Don't be an ass. You choose to forget that I intended to point you at an actual page on the site, and gave you the index by mistake. And said so. As I also said, I didn't know that spoonfeeding you included wiping your chin. This, of course, is typical of the way you twist and misrepresent what has been said in the vain hope of bolstering your case.
"Is it just that you're completely ignorant of what journalism has become in the United States?"
Well, no, actually. What it has become is a cesspool dominated by asskissers (more in broadcast than print) on assigned beats. And moonbats like you who have gained spurious legitimacy by your access to the Internet and your willingness to trumpet your ignorance far louder than more informed, more intelligent people who are routinely drowned out by your histrionics.
"Russert's "situation" was precisely what he told us it was: conversations with the nation's powerful elites were off the record, always; unless they specifically told them they were on the record."
Your inability to read and understand the implications of a simple quote are the basis of your persistent failure to grasp the situation. Russert was quoted incompletely though not inaccurately in a tech magazine opinion piece which was widely reproduced. The quote was derived from his testimony at the Scooter Libby trial, but not taken directly from the transcript. The quote was, "My personal policy is always off the record when talking to government officials unless specified." Do you see the implications? I bet you didn't notice that Russert made no mention of who it is that makes the specification. Or when. Or under what circumstances.
You might also consider the implications of the fact that in any interview Russert would have notes. Such notes are presumed accurate and are admissable in court. Do some research, and maybe you'll begin to understand what this means. I doubt it, but there's always hope.
I say I doubt it because you seem very much like one of those tinfoil hat people who insist that there was no moon landing. If a powerful enough telescope was turned on one of the sites and took pictures showing evidence of human activity, they'd claim they were faked. If the pictures were verified by a reputable scientist, the scientist would be called a member of the scientific establishment, and untrustworthy...and so on, and so on.
Even though I know you will never, never admit you're out of your depth, and even though I'm done with doing research you're too lazy and/or too dishonest to do for yourself, I'll give you one more chance. Try to get beyond the shallow, seven-second-sound-bite version to a place where you understand that criticism of Russert, or any journalist, has to rest on more than an incomplete apprehension of idiosyncratic practices that are largely situational.
Time for you to step up to the plate. Prove you aren't a moonbat. Do some research. Supply something more than misrepresentation, reflex aggression and bombast. Who knows, maybe you'll manage to broaden your horizons a little.
I seem to recall that they had something like this before. Quite a bit faster. Very good at getting its cargo to the waiting soldiers. A bit rougher on the payload, perhaps (and the soldiers).
I believe it was called a Cruise Something-or-other.
"A website for a Canadian journalism organization doesn't answer a question about how journalism serves the American people."
As a matter of fact, in this case it does. It informs you about usual practice in the profession with respect to "on the record" vs "off the record". Such practice applies in both countries. My degree and journalism credentials are recognized in your country, and a graduate of one of your universities would be recognized here, as well as press credentials if he had them.
To refresh your extremely selective memory, you originally alleged (incorrectly) that because Tim Russert conducted all his telephone interviews with government officials "off the record" that this meant he was either incompetent or a tool of the power structure.
"Just answer. When a journalist promises that all statements by government officials are off the record unless they generously state otherwise, does that serve the American people, or the government's elites?"
If only you had read what was given to you, you'd have understood why I keep saying that your question has been answered. Your premise is completely incorrect, probably because you misunderstood TFA. That's why you just don't seem to comprehend that the question you keep harping on is utterly meaningless. Get this through your thick head: It is the journalist who decides whether a comment or interview is "off the record". Nobody else. No government official, not even the President himself, can demand that anything said in the presence of a journalist be off the record. He can refuse an interview or he can attempt to reason with the journalist if he realizes he has spoken unwisely. He can even have the Secret Service confiscate the journalist's notes and kick him out. He CANNOT forbid him from publishing what was said. The journalist is even within his rights to promise that an interview is off the record, then publish anyway. One of the links I supplied to you outlined specific conditions where this would even be ethical. Did you bother to read it?
Russert's situation was probably this: a journalist will often make a blanket agreement with a frequent contact, so that easy conversation is possible without misunderstanding. For example, chatting with the White House Chief of Staff might be off the record unless THE JOURNALIST says otherwise (which he is free to do at any time). Conversely, conversation with the White House Press Secretary would likely always be on the record, unless THE JOURNALIST agreed to accept an interview as "background" or "off the record". If a Press Secretary tried to use such a promise to stifle an investigation, the journalist would certainly publish everything discussed...with full attribution and pretty flowers.
Most likely, Russert also felt that a telephone interview wasn't reliable. One of the reasons these people are based in Washington is so that they can meet face-to-face with their subject whenever necessary. What would happen to Russert's credibility if he published a story based on a phone interview, only to have the official in question prove he was nowhere near the office, and that a new aide who just happened to sound the same pulled a stupid prank? Furthermore, because any responsible journalist will usually sit on a story until he gets two solid sources, Russert wouldn't want to go with that one contact anyway. He would attempt to verify the information through other channels, and he would use it to grill somebody else who was most definitely on the record. Sometimes one source is all there is, but you put your professional reputation on the line when you don't get confirmation.
Again you have been spoon-fed. I hope you now understand that your question is nonsense because it was based on a premise that is utterly and completely untrue. If you had taken the time to review the links you were sent, you would have understood that, and this entire response would have been unnece
And you have no problem with the fact that they suggest the tactic of throwing possibly-innocent people into some hole and forgetting about them should be used sparingly not because it's morally, ethically and legally wrong, but because it might supply propaganda ammunition to the other side?
That's like saying it's a bad idea to kill civilians because the bodies get the tank treads all icky.
Habeas corpus is one of the most basic underpinnings of any democratic society. When you allow your society's agents to throw it out because it's tactically convenient rather than because it's evil and best avoided as long as there's any other possible thing you can do, you've started that society down a very, very bad road.
Your term "Seed-neck" threw me a curve. I thought you were going to say that when these folks were interviewed, they'd generally say, "When I seed the twister comin' across the field near to where Bart's trailer was set, I figured I could get on America's Funniest Home Videos if I showed how it made my can of beer pour sideways."
You're clearly delusional, and have forgotten that everything written to this point is a matter of record. Where did you get this, "Is it good for the American people, or is it good for powerful elites?" thing? How did you manage to get that out of whether a journalist's personal rules for on-record, off-record interviews reflects on their professionalism?
You forget, I've looked at your other "work", and have seen what you are. If you lived near me and had a knife collection, I'd already have asked the police to provide protection for my girl friend. But because of this wonderful medium, I can afford to say that I find you amusing; that I have no intention of obeying you in any respect or accepting the nonsense that you are in the habit of foisting upon others; that your assertion I am dodging anything whatsoever is a steaming pile of crap.
When I get bored with you, I'll simply ignore you. But that time is not yet. So I'll say it once more: read what is already written, for there you shall find the answer...though not the one you seek. I believe the legal term is, "Asked and answered", and if a judge were around, he'd tell you to move on.
"...with the family down the street/Through the courtesy of Fred's two feet."
I couldn't think of anything else once I heard what those snake-oil salesmen at the FCC were passing off as "broadband". No wonder the Europeans are laughing their asses off.
The whole satellite, including payload, has to weigh between 10 and 20 grams? Unless you have some mad desire to put a politician's brain in orbit, what the hell good is that?
"Your internet psychoanalysis falls somewhat short of the truth."
Only "somewhat"? By your own admission, only "somewhat"? Sounds to me like an objective observer might be inclined to be a bit more generous than "somewhat".
Go back and read the answer supplied. If you're too, um, "special" to understand it, I'm afraid there's not much more I can do, unless you let me have a word with your mommy. You're totally owned. You know it. I know it. Anybody who reads the thread knows it. Repeatedly squawking, "Answer the question" in a vain attempt to make it seem as though I haven't isn't effective when anybody can just read back and find the answer that you have so obviously missed.
By the way, I know LOL stands for "Laughing Out Loud", but it's not really appropriate in this case. So consider me SATP (Snickering At The Psycho).
Oh, my! I took a look at your profile, and a pattern begins to emerge. You post obsessively, utterly determined to have the last word regardless of the merit of your argument. In fact, your arguments are often narrow and dishonest; isolated facts presented in a context designed to mislead and obfuscate. Based upon their reaction,/.'s moderators, seem to agree. I added up the moderator points on our two pages (24 posts each), and you seem to be trailing 37 to 28. Given the nature of the situation, that's like being blown out by six or seven goals in a hockey game...a team of little boys pathetically over-matched by bigger, stronger adults. The gap would be even wider, but a couple of my higher scores (for humour) dropped off the page when you started this nonsense.
And I now understand why you are unable to grasp my argument, or to see the relevance of the pages I found for you, or comprehend that your question was in fact answered, though the answer may not have been to your liking. (I apologize for sending you in one case just to the site instead of the exact page. I wasn't aware that after spoon-feeding you, I was also expected to wipe your chin).
Anyway, some of your other posts indicate you are so consumed with impotent rage that one must suspect you are the victim of that same awful self-loathing suffered by people prone to self-mutilation...and very small dogs. You tend to treat those who differ with you, no matter how cogent their argument or how polite their disagreement, with rage-fueled contempt and ad hominem assaults on their honesty and intelligence. Sometimes, evidently, your reading comprehension is affected.
I suspect your nastiest responses are drawn from a deep well of rage caused by your own unfortunate life experience. Therefore I will cease mocking you for that which you cannot control and treat you with the horrified pity which is a more appropriate and more charitable response to your misfortune.
As a matter of fact, I've had a little fun with PhotoShop myself, though not for this purpose.
I think what would tell the tale is if you had a bunch of "photos" of e-mails from some weasel who was lying like a carpet about whatever the situation happened to be. After a while, the sheer consistency of the things would be a point in your favour.
And in most situations where contradictory versions of events are considered, a lot more gets examined than just the bare bones of what each side claims. For example, even though they could be forged, "pictures" of the e-mails would be rather persuasive if it was the third or fourth time the same guy had been in that kind of situation, and the other people all had pretty good employment records.
If you wanted to really go over the top, there are programs that analyze sentence structure and word use to determine who actually wrote an article or essay. Some university professors use them to catch plagiarists.
It would be nice to believe all this crap is unnecessary, but I've actually worked with a couple of really slimy people. Fortunately, they didn't have any reason to go after me, because at the time I would have been far too innocent to figure out what was happening.
FTR: "The Office" is a newsroom at a medium-market Canadian television station.
I don't know if you see yourself as some kind of crusading news-hero or something, but you have no idea what you're talking about, and the question as you have framed it is simply nonsense. It is based on a false premise.
Because you are too lazy, or too lacking in talent, or just too stupid to do even a tiny little bit of research and find out for yourself why this is the case, I have done in a few minutes what you could have done at any time to figure out why there is no correlation between the quality of a journalist's work and what ethical rules they use during interviews, especially with respect to one narrowly-defined situation.
If, having read what you will find there, you still cannot understand why your question and its underlying assumptions are based upon an indefensible lack of understanding, then you should probably enrol yourself in a remedial reading course.
I am fairly confident that you won't bother to read what you will find at these URL's. At least one of them might take as much as five or six minutes to read in its entirety. If you actually do read them instead of just searching for "record" and reading sentences where the word appears, all will become clear to you, and it will be like the sun breaking out from behind clouds.
...probably wouldn't realize that good old "Print Screen" or "Alt-Print Screen" would provide all the evidence you need to hang 'em high, if they were counting on their self-destructing e-mail to cover their tracks or screw you over.
Too much trouble for everyday use, but most people have a pretty good idea about who they have to watch out for among their business associates.
Read the original goddamn post. Are you fucking stupid? The issue is ground rules for telephone interviews. If you interviewed five Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists, they'd probably give you five different answers to the question of how they establish a working relationship with news-makers they have to deal with on a regular basis. The same goes for five wankers who write UFO stories for the Enquirer. My original point was that the ground rules Russert set up for his telephone interviews say nothing about what kind of journalist he was...good or bad.
Let me try to explain it to you in terms you might understand: Whether I conduct telephone interviews with the lights on or in the dark has nothing to do with the quality of journalist I am. I hope the analogy isn't beyond you.
Now quit bugging me and go play in traffic or something.
Please read the post I responded to. The discussion concerned telephone interviews. I haven't been a fan of Meet the Press under Russert, but that's another issue entirely. In all honesty, I haven't noticed any of the major media outlets in the United States do much beyond kissing Bush's bum. You see it more in the stories they hardly cover at all (contractor fraud and looting of historical artifacts in Iraq, for two examples among a hundred) than in the quality of interview they actually conduct.
In fairness, when you're dealing with political figures, you develop rules for what's on the record and what isn't. Clearly, Russert's practice for speaking on the phone was to treat such conversations as "off the record" or "background". If he then wanted to use what he got in a way that would lead to the official's doorstep, he'd need to ask permission. Knowledge gained this way is often used to question other officials on the record and shake information out of them, or to figure out whether somebody's lying.
Most journalists assume that unless it's expressly stated otherwise, an interview is on the record. There's no rule about this, however. Perhaps Russert felt that a phone interview was too easy to fake. Whatever the case, the key is that the ground rules are understood by both sides.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't be surprised if it was illegal under that new legislation the current crop of fascists wants to enact. This thing sounds like it was made for card-swapping and flexibility.
"Smell the pun"??? What an apt expression.
I agree totally, except for involving the PR Department. Once those drones get involved, nothing will be accomplished. Present them with a fait accompli, and invite them to make of it what they will.
I used to work in "Public Affairs" at a major university, and from my experience there and many, many contacts with people at other universities, I can assure you that they run pretty much the same. Bums will be covered. Permissions will be sought. Bright people will think of all kinds of "better" uses for all your excess capacity. And the whole thing will die in a welter of blood as it gets nibbled to death by tiny rodents with sharp little teeth.
So go with the rest of the program, and let the upper levels of the university administration eventually order PR to send a rookie flack with a camera and notepad. Otherwise, you'll have to deal with a department head dying to prove to everybody how smart and valuable he is. At your expense.
Five congenital liars, a serial killer, six child molesters, several sewer rats and a starving weasel applied to the same court for status as "Friends of the RIAA".
I guess you believe Russert, or any journalist, would bend over backward to make sure that a hostile examiner didn't leap to any wrong conclusions, or that a source begging to be burned should be aware of their vulnerability. You persist in chasing an illusion, and have forgotten completely that I specifically said I didn't want to defend Russert.
"He CANNOT forbid him from publishing what was said. The journalist is even within his rights to promise that an interview is off the record, then publish anyway. One of the links I supplied to you outlined specific conditions where this would even be ethical."
Cut. Paste. Repeat.
I am SO going to use this in a speech about my cousin's wedding night when we throw his stag next week. "Fast, you say? I'll tell you about fast..."
"Ah, progress. All you had to do was grapple with the argument. I knew you could do it, eventually. Too bad you still haven't answered the question."
No, sorry. No progress. You are still unable to understand the actual situation, or usual journalism practice. And I see no evidence that you have the intellectual capacity to do so.
"It was just the index page; it offered nothing that was relevant to the discussion. A red herring, essentially, so you could pad your post with links."
You obviously don't know quite what to do when you run into an index. You're supposed to read it, and having done so you go to the place it points you toward. If your skills don't extend to determining where that is, you need more help than I can offer you. "Pad my post?" Don't be an ass. You choose to forget that I intended to point you at an actual page on the site, and gave you the index by mistake. And said so. As I also said, I didn't know that spoonfeeding you included wiping your chin. This, of course, is typical of the way you twist and misrepresent what has been said in the vain hope of bolstering your case.
"Is it just that you're completely ignorant of what journalism has become in the United States?"
Well, no, actually. What it has become is a cesspool dominated by asskissers (more in broadcast than print) on assigned beats. And moonbats like you who have gained spurious legitimacy by your access to the Internet and your willingness to trumpet your ignorance far louder than more informed, more intelligent people who are routinely drowned out by your histrionics.
"Russert's "situation" was precisely what he told us it was: conversations with the nation's powerful elites were off the record, always; unless they specifically told them they were on the record."
Your inability to read and understand the implications of a simple quote are the basis of your persistent failure to grasp the situation. Russert was quoted incompletely though not inaccurately in a tech magazine opinion piece which was widely reproduced. The quote was derived from his testimony at the Scooter Libby trial, but not taken directly from the transcript. The quote was, "My personal policy is always off the record when talking to government officials unless specified." Do you see the implications? I bet you didn't notice that Russert made no mention of who it is that makes the specification. Or when. Or under what circumstances.
You might also consider the implications of the fact that in any interview Russert would have notes. Such notes are presumed accurate and are admissable in court. Do some research, and maybe you'll begin to understand what this means. I doubt it, but there's always hope.
I say I doubt it because you seem very much like one of those tinfoil hat people who insist that there was no moon landing. If a powerful enough telescope was turned on one of the sites and took pictures showing evidence of human activity, they'd claim they were faked. If the pictures were verified by a reputable scientist, the scientist would be called a member of the scientific establishment, and untrustworthy...and so on, and so on.
Even though I know you will never, never admit you're out of your depth, and even though I'm done with doing research you're too lazy and/or too dishonest to do for yourself, I'll give you one more chance. Try to get beyond the shallow, seven-second-sound-bite version to a place where you understand that criticism of Russert, or any journalist, has to rest on more than an incomplete apprehension of idiosyncratic practices that are largely situational.
Time for you to step up to the plate. Prove you aren't a moonbat. Do some research. Supply something more than misrepresentation, reflex aggression and bombast. Who knows, maybe you'll manage to broaden your horizons a little.
I seem to recall that they had something like this before. Quite a bit faster. Very good at getting its cargo to the waiting soldiers. A bit rougher on the payload, perhaps (and the soldiers).
I believe it was called a Cruise Something-or-other.
"A website for a Canadian journalism organization doesn't answer a question about how journalism serves the American people."
As a matter of fact, in this case it does. It informs you about usual practice in the profession with respect to "on the record" vs "off the record". Such practice applies in both countries. My degree and journalism credentials are recognized in your country, and a graduate of one of your universities would be recognized here, as well as press credentials if he had them.
To refresh your extremely selective memory, you originally alleged (incorrectly) that because Tim Russert conducted all his telephone interviews with government officials "off the record" that this meant he was either incompetent or a tool of the power structure.
"Just answer. When a journalist promises that all statements by government officials are off the record unless they generously state otherwise, does that serve the American people, or the government's elites?"
If only you had read what was given to you, you'd have understood why I keep saying that your question has been answered. Your premise is completely incorrect, probably because you misunderstood TFA. That's why you just don't seem to comprehend that the question you keep harping on is utterly meaningless. Get this through your thick head: It is the journalist who decides whether a comment or interview is "off the record". Nobody else. No government official, not even the President himself, can demand that anything said in the presence of a journalist be off the record. He can refuse an interview or he can attempt to reason with the journalist if he realizes he has spoken unwisely. He can even have the Secret Service confiscate the journalist's notes and kick him out. He CANNOT forbid him from publishing what was said. The journalist is even within his rights to promise that an interview is off the record, then publish anyway. One of the links I supplied to you outlined specific conditions where this would even be ethical. Did you bother to read it?
Russert's situation was probably this: a journalist will often make a blanket agreement with a frequent contact, so that easy conversation is possible without misunderstanding. For example, chatting with the White House Chief of Staff might be off the record unless THE JOURNALIST says otherwise (which he is free to do at any time). Conversely, conversation with the White House Press Secretary would likely always be on the record, unless THE JOURNALIST agreed to accept an interview as "background" or "off the record". If a Press Secretary tried to use such a promise to stifle an investigation, the journalist would certainly publish everything discussed...with full attribution and pretty flowers.
Most likely, Russert also felt that a telephone interview wasn't reliable. One of the reasons these people are based in Washington is so that they can meet face-to-face with their subject whenever necessary. What would happen to Russert's credibility if he published a story based on a phone interview, only to have the official in question prove he was nowhere near the office, and that a new aide who just happened to sound the same pulled a stupid prank? Furthermore, because any responsible journalist will usually sit on a story until he gets two solid sources, Russert wouldn't want to go with that one contact anyway. He would attempt to verify the information through other channels, and he would use it to grill somebody else who was most definitely on the record. Sometimes one source is all there is, but you put your professional reputation on the line when you don't get confirmation.
Again you have been spoon-fed. I hope you now understand that your question is nonsense because it was based on a premise that is utterly and completely untrue. If you had taken the time to review the links you were sent, you would have understood that, and this entire response would have been unnece
If that was your problem, you could be changing settings all over the place and none of it would help.
And you have no problem with the fact that they suggest the tactic of throwing possibly-innocent people into some hole and forgetting about them should be used sparingly not because it's morally, ethically and legally wrong, but because it might supply propaganda ammunition to the other side?
That's like saying it's a bad idea to kill civilians because the bodies get the tank treads all icky.
Habeas corpus is one of the most basic underpinnings of any democratic society. When you allow your society's agents to throw it out because it's tactically convenient rather than because it's evil and best avoided as long as there's any other possible thing you can do, you've started that society down a very, very bad road.
Your term "Seed-neck" threw me a curve. I thought you were going to say that when these folks were interviewed, they'd generally say, "When I seed the twister comin' across the field near to where Bart's trailer was set, I figured I could get on America's Funniest Home Videos if I showed how it made my can of beer pour sideways."
This is fun.
You're clearly delusional, and have forgotten that everything written to this point is a matter of record. Where did you get this, "Is it good for the American people, or is it good for powerful elites?" thing? How did you manage to get that out of whether a journalist's personal rules for on-record, off-record interviews reflects on their professionalism?
You forget, I've looked at your other "work", and have seen what you are. If you lived near me and had a knife collection, I'd already have asked the police to provide protection for my girl friend. But because of this wonderful medium, I can afford to say that I find you amusing; that I have no intention of obeying you in any respect or accepting the nonsense that you are in the habit of foisting upon others; that your assertion I am dodging anything whatsoever is a steaming pile of crap.
When I get bored with you, I'll simply ignore you. But that time is not yet. So I'll say it once more: read what is already written, for there you shall find the answer...though not the one you seek. I believe the legal term is, "Asked and answered", and if a judge were around, he'd tell you to move on.
Trusting you will do this, I remain,
Your Superior In All Ways (and laughing at you).
"...with the family down the street/Through the courtesy of Fred's two feet."
I couldn't think of anything else once I heard what those snake-oil salesmen at the FCC were passing off as "broadband". No wonder the Europeans are laughing their asses off.
The whole satellite, including payload, has to weigh between 10 and 20 grams? Unless you have some mad desire to put a politician's brain in orbit, what the hell good is that?
"Your internet psychoanalysis falls somewhat short of the truth."
Only "somewhat"? By your own admission, only "somewhat"? Sounds to me like an objective observer might be inclined to be a bit more generous than "somewhat".
Go back and read the answer supplied. If you're too, um, "special" to understand it, I'm afraid there's not much more I can do, unless you let me have a word with your mommy. You're totally owned. You know it. I know it. Anybody who reads the thread knows it. Repeatedly squawking, "Answer the question" in a vain attempt to make it seem as though I haven't isn't effective when anybody can just read back and find the answer that you have so obviously missed.
By the way, I know LOL stands for "Laughing Out Loud", but it's not really appropriate in this case. So consider me SATP (Snickering At The Psycho).
And do wipe your chin.
Oh, my! I took a look at your profile, and a pattern begins to emerge. You post obsessively, utterly determined to have the last word regardless of the merit of your argument. In fact, your arguments are often narrow and dishonest; isolated facts presented in a context designed to mislead and obfuscate. Based upon their reaction, /.'s moderators, seem to agree. I added up the moderator points on our two pages (24 posts each), and you seem to be trailing 37 to 28. Given the nature of the situation, that's like being blown out by six or seven goals in a hockey game...a team of little boys pathetically over-matched by bigger, stronger adults. The gap would be even wider, but a couple of my higher scores (for humour) dropped off the page when you started this nonsense.
And I now understand why you are unable to grasp my argument, or to see the relevance of the pages I found for you, or comprehend that your question was in fact answered, though the answer may not have been to your liking. (I apologize for sending you in one case just to the site instead of the exact page. I wasn't aware that after spoon-feeding you, I was also expected to wipe your chin).
Anyway, some of your other posts indicate you are so consumed with impotent rage that one must suspect you are the victim of that same awful self-loathing suffered by people prone to self-mutilation...and very small dogs. You tend to treat those who differ with you, no matter how cogent their argument or how polite their disagreement, with rage-fueled contempt and ad hominem assaults on their honesty and intelligence. Sometimes, evidently, your reading comprehension is affected.
I suspect your nastiest responses are drawn from a deep well of rage caused by your own unfortunate life experience. Therefore I will cease mocking you for that which you cannot control and treat you with the horrified pity which is a more appropriate and more charitable response to your misfortune.
Peace. It will all be OK. Really.
As a matter of fact, I've had a little fun with PhotoShop myself, though not for this purpose.
I think what would tell the tale is if you had a bunch of "photos" of e-mails from some weasel who was lying like a carpet about whatever the situation happened to be. After a while, the sheer consistency of the things would be a point in your favour.
And in most situations where contradictory versions of events are considered, a lot more gets examined than just the bare bones of what each side claims. For example, even though they could be forged, "pictures" of the e-mails would be rather persuasive if it was the third or fourth time the same guy had been in that kind of situation, and the other people all had pretty good employment records.
If you wanted to really go over the top, there are programs that analyze sentence structure and word use to determine who actually wrote an article or essay. Some university professors use them to catch plagiarists.
It would be nice to believe all this crap is unnecessary, but I've actually worked with a couple of really slimy people. Fortunately, they didn't have any reason to go after me, because at the time I would have been far too innocent to figure out what was happening.
I can see my remark about reading skills was right on the money. Back to school, little boy.
FTR: "The Office" is a newsroom at a medium-market Canadian television station.
I don't know if you see yourself as some kind of crusading news-hero or something, but you have no idea what you're talking about, and the question as you have framed it is simply nonsense. It is based on a false premise.
Because you are too lazy, or too lacking in talent, or just too stupid to do even a tiny little bit of research and find out for yourself why this is the case, I have done in a few minutes what you could have done at any time to figure out why there is no correlation between the quality of a journalist's work and what ethical rules they use during interviews, especially with respect to one narrowly-defined situation.
Follow the links and read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omid-memarian/samantha-power-ethical-jo_b_91401.html
http://www.journalismethics.ca/ethics_in_news/adams.htm
http://www.rrj.ca/issue/2006/spring/617/
http://www.eagle.ca/caj/
If, having read what you will find there, you still cannot understand why your question and its underlying assumptions are based upon an indefensible lack of understanding, then you should probably enrol yourself in a remedial reading course.
I am fairly confident that you won't bother to read what you will find at these URL's. At least one of them might take as much as five or six minutes to read in its entirety. If you actually do read them instead of just searching for "record" and reading sentences where the word appears, all will become clear to you, and it will be like the sun breaking out from behind clouds.
Personally, I'm expecting rain.
Too much trouble for everyday use, but most people have a pretty good idea about who they have to watch out for among their business associates.
I ran this thread around the office and the votes are in: You're an idiot.
Read the original goddamn post. Are you fucking stupid? The issue is ground rules for telephone interviews. If you interviewed five Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists, they'd probably give you five different answers to the question of how they establish a working relationship with news-makers they have to deal with on a regular basis. The same goes for five wankers who write UFO stories for the Enquirer. My original point was that the ground rules Russert set up for his telephone interviews say nothing about what kind of journalist he was...good or bad.
Let me try to explain it to you in terms you might understand: Whether I conduct telephone interviews with the lights on or in the dark has nothing to do with the quality of journalist I am. I hope the analogy isn't beyond you.
Now quit bugging me and go play in traffic or something.
Please read the post I responded to. The discussion concerned telephone interviews. I haven't been a fan of Meet the Press under Russert, but that's another issue entirely. In all honesty, I haven't noticed any of the major media outlets in the United States do much beyond kissing Bush's bum. You see it more in the stories they hardly cover at all (contractor fraud and looting of historical artifacts in Iraq, for two examples among a hundred) than in the quality of interview they actually conduct.
In fairness, when you're dealing with political figures, you develop rules for what's on the record and what isn't. Clearly, Russert's practice for speaking on the phone was to treat such conversations as "off the record" or "background". If he then wanted to use what he got in a way that would lead to the official's doorstep, he'd need to ask permission. Knowledge gained this way is often used to question other officials on the record and shake information out of them, or to figure out whether somebody's lying.
Most journalists assume that unless it's expressly stated otherwise, an interview is on the record. There's no rule about this, however. Perhaps Russert felt that a phone interview was too easy to fake. Whatever the case, the key is that the ground rules are understood by both sides.