|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:10 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| You know very little of how media (left or right) works. Fact of the matter is that many publications, news outlets, do have a specific policy forbidding the use of unnamed sources... |
ROFL.
Hersh is highly-regarded. Not to mention his Pulitzer.
Woodward and Bernstein, to cite another well-known example, brought down Nixon based, for the decisive part, on a single, unattributed source.
Your preaching that no one should ever serve in the military, fight wars, and that everyone should speak openly at all times, etc., etc....pure leftist dream-world jaberwocky. Nice ideas. No relation at all to planet Earth or Homo sapiens, however.
Your positions are among the most unrealistic and unreasonable (not to mention wholly one-sided) on this board. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Your positions are among the most unrealistic and unreasonable (not to mention wholly one-sided) on this board. |
So what it is all about is how many agree or disagree? Sounds like the principal shortcoming of our modern day democracy. That isn't the ALL.
Your statement is partially correct. I don't find advocating discussion and pre-emptive diplomacy over aggression, of advocating investment in human potential instead of human waste/death, unreasonable.
And thanks for quoting me in part, your usual. Anything to make YOUR point. What I do know, is that all media agencies have a very strict policy regarding the conduct of journalists and what might make a story printable/airable. This includes not using unnamed sources unless their are accompanying facts, information which substantiate the source. In this article's case, there is no such.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| First off, anyone who employs the term "fifth estate" is probably a neo-Marxist. Second, anyone who claims Fox has an agenda while failing to state the same about CNN is obviously a leftwinger. Nice try, ddude. |
Once more you are wrong. LOL. I am for free enterprise, pro business. Always have been and feel that economic (and not the military, buy our juice guns type) is the right approach to creating a better world. The U.S. should stick to this, this is the best way to bring the world into that better place........
Also, no leftist dictator I like, nor no rightist. I am anti-dictator and prefer the least amount of govt possible. That included state interventions of the soft or hard sort. I am for the education of people, not the corraling of them as sheep, or as Mailer famously put it -- grunts. You might read some Mailer to know my own political "style".
| Quote: |
| �There is one expanding horror in American life. It is that our long odyssey toward liberty, democracy and freedom-for-all may be achieved in such a way that utopia remains forever closed, and we live in freedom and hell, debased of style, not individual from one another, void of courage, our fear rationalized away.� |
Norman Mailer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ddeubel:
How can you be for a better educated citizenry and claim to be a libertarian? Me thinks I smell a rat.
Last edited by stevemcgarrett on Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:23 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| What I do know, is that all media agencies... |
Show me, Ddeubel. Show me any two or three media agencies' policy on this. You just said "all" in a rather typical, sweeping assertion. Producing any two or three specifics ought to be a simple matter, then.
You claim to know something on this. Very well. But you have often claimed to know substantive things and on several occassions I have caught you inventing facts. You get on your righteous soapbox and start lecturing, waving your hands, and shouting "jaberwocky!" You invent any information that you need at the moment, you keep lecturing, and you never look back. It takes someone like me three or four posts, posting the same objection over and over again that, for example, the United States govt lists Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, before you stop lecturing and actually listen.
You lectured me that I was totally off-base, remember? Not just off-base, mind you. You said not only had Washington taken Hezbollah off the list. But that it had done so "looooooong ago" -- forgive me if I put one or two too many "o" letters in that word, or one or two too few.
Back to the matter at hand: I have cited two very high-profile, highly-respected journalists who regularly cite unattributed, confidential sources as "senior officials," etc. I have explained that this is standard practice and that certain officials have certain code-words that all understand: "White House official," etc.
Hollywood even has its own interesting code-word phenomenon: ever notice that Alan Smithee sure has directed a lot of films but has never appeared on any interview or shown up at any awards show...?
Now: you cite "all media agencies" but fail to specify or substantiate anything.
I am going to press you on this point because you are strongly asserting your position as if you know this for a fact. You might. It would come as a surprise to me because, as I have said, I believe that journalists may and do use unattributed, confidential sources in their stories. Standard practice. And, for some issues, if they did not, we would simply not hear the story. I do not argue that such a practice is without controversy, even and especially among journalists.
What I do question, however, is your sweeping statement and heavy-handed dismissal of OP's story as a lie ("as in lie and deeply lie," remember?) solely because it cited unattributed, confidential sources.
So, then. Call. Show your cards. You just said "all." Show me what you have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
English_Ocean
Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Location: You don't have the right to abuse me!
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
IMO it does not matter if the report is true or fabricated, these things seem to come to pass somehow. If it's not true, then someone will make it happen or make it seem to happen, which is nothing more than evil trickery intended to help further someones secret agenda. If it is true then, once again, innocent people will be trapped into a world situation which they have no control over.
What can the average intelligent person do to deter such gross mismanagement of power? Truly, is there a safe place on this planet anymore? Is anyone able to travel from country to country freely and without fear? Or have I been reading too many news articles and the world is actually bright green and blue without pollution, poverty, and weapons of destruction?
I've said too much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Show me, Ddeubel. Show me any two or three media agencies' policy on this. You just said "all" in a rather typical, sweeping assertion. Producing any two or three specifics ought to be a simple matter, then |
Gopher,
I stand behind the statement (and please quit droning on about my Hizzbollah terror list statement. I said I was wrong, straight and direct and will always do so if I am wrong).
The journalists you quoted did use confidential sources and most journalists at one time or another will write up a story with an "unnamed source" or "sources in the .....dept" . Nothing wrong with that IF there are other facts, statements that corroborate the story. (and why you didn't read this in my previous reply is beyond me. I did state, if the articles are not fact based (ie. regarding a specific meeting, event ) .) In this instance and with too much of the White House spin lately, this is just not the case. This story has no facts about where or when this meeting took place, no descriptions of the travel of these Iranians and also and most importantly, no statement of the other side (Iran - and the foreign minister prior to this article had stated categorically that there was no contact whatsoever between Iran and N.K. , why was this not even mentioned with the cursory, "Iran denies the allegations"?).
Further, there is no explanation in the story as to why they used only "The senior official, whose name was not disclosed". This is also part of real journalism, explaining that the story lacks verification. I would ask as an editor, "Why can't this man be named?" I don't see why not and this alone should set off alarms. Please look at the story about Kim Jong Il being under house arrest for a similiar kind of article that is just pure drivel and not in the public interest. Unsubstantiated and was not run by major news organizations except as a second hand item.
All in all then, this is why I lump this Fox article into the "canned" , State dept. , let's pass off some propaganda dept. . Happens too often with this administration.
Credible journalism must pass several tests, just like evidence in a court of law. This would only get a chuckle out of the judge, if brought to court to prove Iranian involvement with N.K.
As to codes of journalistic conduct. I don't have at hand any for management but they exist and are standard practice that editors must follow when asking themselves the question - "Is this publishable?" They are usually in house documents and I will try to get one to post. I have worked for several news agencies, specifically a large Swiss media house with publishing interests across the world.
But here is SPJ's (society of professional journalism) standard code of ethics, in part. For the full thing, go to www.spj.org If you read this, it appears this article breaks numerous of these very standard ethical codes. Not only myself but many others have decried Fox New's own close relationship with the White house and their lack of journalistic integrity and professionalism.
The journalist's credo should be that of hard TRUTH, not fabrication and gossip.
| Quote: |
Journalists should:
� Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
� Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
� Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
� Always question sources� motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
� Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
� Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
� Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
� Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
� Never plagiarize.
� Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
� Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
� Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
� Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
� Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
� Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
� Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
� Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection. |
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"The journalists' credo?" What are you, Columbia?
In seriousness, I agree with the principles you restate here. But "journalistic integrity" is and has always been just as much an oxymoron as "military intelligence."
And perhaps we would miss much were these principles rigorously enforced.
Nevertheless, I am going to start spamming article after article based on unatrributed sources to make my "standard practice" point, or, perhaps I might just throw your journalists' credo in your face anytime you ever post anything here again that does not disclose its sources, if you do not stop failing to acknowledge how things work in the real world on this point.
Let me ask you this: Jonathan Haslam "revealed" to us in 2005 that (a) CIA created and directed, not merely supported, Chile's right-wing terrorist group, patria y libertad; and (b) Nixon and the Pengaton sidestepped the CIA and secretly organized, directed, and even micromanaged Pinochet's coup.
This is totally new information. Goes way beyond "complicity." The United States perpetrated the coup, every detail of it, and its aftermath, according to Haslam. Pinochet and the DINA, for exampe,...mere puppets with no will of their own. You will find no proof of these allegaitons in the Chile Declassificaiton Project, in the so-called Hinchey Report, in earlier Senate hearings like the Church Report, in any memoirs, in no extant Chilean sources, etc., etc.
Yet Haslam tells us he knows this for a fact. How does he know?
See, for example, p. 169, n. 45. "Testimony from source (A), off-the-record in Washington DC."
Fascinating, no?
Indeed, his account, The Nixon Administration and the Death of Allende's Chile, contains many such unattributed, anonymous references on controversial allegations, on each and every crucial point of his analysis: "testimony from someone who would know" appears at least once.
What do you think about Haslam's research and conclusions? Same reaction as you had to FoxNews?
You called them "liars," remember? "What a croc...! Spin...! Jaberwocky!" Is Haslam a liar and a spinner, too, Ddeubel? More lectures and ddeubletalk? "Let's-pass-off-some-propaganda-dept.?"
Bring it on.
Oh yeah...my position on it? Just like FoxNews, Hersh, and Woodward: I find it inconclusive and would not act on any of it. Apparently they have gone through editors, though. Let them say what they like. Let them deal with the criticism that people like you and I will hurl at them. That is what critical thinking is for you crybaby. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
