that the Press really is the enemy of the people. So sad
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe...until-after-his-senate-race-was-over-n2543257
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe...until-after-his-senate-race-was-over-n2543257
More Proof
- Thread starter Bruce1
- Start date
This is actually a pretty interesting story, as it gets at the heard of journalistic integrity/ethics vs protecting your sources. Based on the reporting, there were only 3 different ways this could have played out...keeping in mind this was all figured out as part of book research, not an official Reuters investigation:
1) Menn figures out it is Beto, confronts him about it, Beto agrees to confirm the story for his book but under the stipulation he doesn't write a story or publish before completion of senate race (this is what happened).
2) Menn confronts Beto and he responds "No comment." Menn is then forced to continue working other sources to confirm the story, who knows if or when that would happen. Based on his own admission he didn't have any other confirmations, just leads. Given this wasn't an official Reuters investigation, he would have to get approval to run it as a story.
3) Menn confronts Beto and he responds "No comment." Menn then decides to run the story via Reuters based on the info he has. This would be exactly what everyone rails on the media for doing, because he couldn't verify. This would most likely kill his credibility if it couldn't be proven, or proven false, a risk most journalists aren't going to take.
Which option would you want him to choose? Almost a prototypical "damned if you do damned if you don't" situation if you ask me. Also, Reuters is considers one of the most respected news organizations you are going to find.
1) Menn figures out it is Beto, confronts him about it, Beto agrees to confirm the story for his book but under the stipulation he doesn't write a story or publish before completion of senate race (this is what happened).
2) Menn confronts Beto and he responds "No comment." Menn is then forced to continue working other sources to confirm the story, who knows if or when that would happen. Based on his own admission he didn't have any other confirmations, just leads. Given this wasn't an official Reuters investigation, he would have to get approval to run it as a story.
3) Menn confronts Beto and he responds "No comment." Menn then decides to run the story via Reuters based on the info he has. This would be exactly what everyone rails on the media for doing, because he couldn't verify. This would most likely kill his credibility if it couldn't be proven, or proven false, a risk most journalists aren't going to take.
Which option would you want him to choose? Almost a prototypical "damned if you do damned if you don't" situation if you ask me. Also, Reuters is considers one of the most respected news organizations you are going to find.
The problem is that, at least imho, authors (i.e. those who write books) and reporters (i.e. those who write for newspapers and similar journalistic print or electronic media) are two different things.
I don't see the issue as to the time of the release of information in the same way for them.
And in the instance at hand, it seems to me that an author is free to publish his book or provide information as he sees fit, while journalistic integrity should be far more open to the urgency of "news"
In other words, I really don't see the article dealing with the Press but rather with an author.
I don't see the issue as to the time of the release of information in the same way for them.
And in the instance at hand, it seems to me that an author is free to publish his book or provide information as he sees fit, while journalistic integrity should be far more open to the urgency of "news"
In other words, I really don't see the article dealing with the Press but rather with an author.
Because everyone needs to be able to rely on them to report the truth. Being quiet isn’t the answer. Speaking up is our duty. You don’t think this kind of thing is bad?
There has always been a lot of opinion passing as news. I don’t know if it is so much worse than it ever was but for the concentrated invective by certain groups and people trying to demand only their opinion and view should count. Pravda was the state newspaper for Russia and no other view was permitted which is why Radio Free Europe was such a big deal back in the 1950’s so those people behind the Iron Curtain could maybe hear news that was different than what the state wanted them to hear. Does this sound familiar?
What a very Indy35 type question. You seriously can't think of why calling out the press is necessary when they intentionally cover up a story?
So we've got several media members reporting daily on made up up stories about Russian collusion to damage a conservative politician while other media covers up potentially damaging info to a liberal politician? Is anyone really surprised anymore? I think most would be surprised if neither of these things happened. Do libs ever get tired of being mislead and lied to by their media sources? Its been going on for decades so apparently not.
We, fortunately live in a free country-that is so far at least, so read what you like and allow others to read what they want. Capisce..
Made up stories, lol. Maybe look into it a little bit instead of just taking the Hannity word as gospel. Made up stories...you continue to amaze.
who defines an individual or entity or company as "media" ?
and what is your distinction here on trump... relationship between media and private citizen?
with twitter/internet/etc, there isnt a need for traditional media - as trump proclaims and has proven.
anyone can now easily provide and distribute info and stories. we are all media now.
sounds like you want to give government a lot more to search and approve.... careful what you wish for.
Last edited:
In 2012 Donald Trump was not a member of the media. In 2018 a Reuters reporter was a member of the media. Hope that helps.
ok, you're saying fox news ("traditional media") should be held accountable and punished for spreading trumps stories about obama
Last edited:
I rarely post here anymore. I check in about once a week to see if the libs are still in full circle jerk mode. Yup - spooging all over each other creating a ghost town of a board. Get your vaseline and kleenex Billy!
1. Come up with new slogan "Democracy dies in darkness" after you lose an election.
2. Slather it on your masthead.
3. Spend $10 million on a Super Bowl ad telling folks how you are a firefighter.
4. Publish opinion piece from Erdogan.
***chef kiss***
2. Slather it on your masthead.
3. Spend $10 million on a Super Bowl ad telling folks how you are a firefighter.
4. Publish opinion piece from Erdogan.
***chef kiss***
Republicans sure do believe some crazy ass stuff.
Are you sure you want to get smacked around with facts again? Doesn't' that get tiring? Do we have to run through all the contacts with Russians and connections the Trump team lies about? Trump was briefed on Russia attacking our country and he then provided them cover by saying it could be anybody. There was absolutely enough to warrant an investigation. Far more evidence than any of the conspiracy theories the right was throwing around during the Obama administration.
Being a Republican in present time means being completely oblivious to economics, science, math, history, etc.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
How are we getting to 13 Scholarships- Latest: GoldandBlackintheSaddleAgain
-
