NY Times-- the secret is out, reporters confess that they let politicians edit their stories!

by moshe 23 Replies latest social current

  • talesin
    talesin

    BOTR - Ms. Ormiston's point was that she was restricted from reporting the facts. Not because of 'national security', but because it would make the mililtary 'look bad'. I rather agree with dgp's comment.

    The practice of embedding a journalist means the journalist isn't free to report and is there as a public relations person. In my opinion, we should not deceive ourselves and think otherwise. Can this journalist choose where to go?

    ps. I think the NYT is a great paper (as things go nowadays), and sometimes enjoy reading it at the library (esp. the Sunday edition). Where would our culture be without the NYT crossword?!

    tal

  • mP
    mP

    Who would have guessed that rich people who own the media help politicians in much the same way politicians help rich people. It doesnt take a genius to realise that both sides dont want to shake the status quo.

  • moshe
    moshe
    It doesnt take a genius to realise that both sides dont want to shake the status quo.

    The 99%'ers of this country are unwittingly being fleeced to give the 1%'ers their labor and profits at cut rate prices. Both parties have been co-opted, so it matters not one iota who gets elected, as long as you vote for candidates of the two major parties.

  • betterdaze
    betterdaze

    Dan Rather chimes in on CNN: 'Quote approval' a media sellout

    . . . As someone who's been covering presidential campaigns since the 1950s, I have no delusions about political reporting. Candidates bargaining access to get the kind of news coverage they want is nothing new. The thicket of attribution and disclosure deals is a deep maze reporters have been picking their way through even before my time. But this latest tactic by candidates revealed by the Times gives me, to say the least, great pause. It should give every citizen pause.

    . . . Let us mark well this Faustian bargain. It is for the benefit of the politicians, at the expense of readers, listeners and viewers. It is not in the public interest; it is designed to further the candidates' interests.

    Political operatives cannot be blamed for wanting this. We, the press, should be held accountable for letting them have it.

    Thomas Jefferson said: "The only security of all is in a free press." A free and truly independent press -- fiercely independent when necessary -- is the red beating heart of freedom and democracy. One of the most important roles of our journalists is to be watchdogs. Submitting to these new tactics puts us more in the category of lapdogs.

    . . . Please know that there is no joy in calling attention to these things. I respect and empathize with reporters and editors who must compete in today's environment. And I know full well that when I've been covering campaigns, which I still do, I've made my mistakes and have been far from perfect.

    About all of us doing this line of work, I'm often reminded of a sign in an old Wild West cow town saloon that said, "Please don't shoot the piano player, he's doing the best he can."

    But we journalists can do better. We must.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit