at least they smell better than the indymedia crowd
Everybody with some time to kill and a chip on their shoulder about the press should take a look at this article on Slate. And then take a look at today's lead on Salon. Any justification for squirting the news out there early will do, it seems...
I think a case could be made for journalistic ethics only existing for the sake of journalists' egos. "Nobody gives a shit about [boring analysis-free story], but by writing this piece I'm doing my part to save democracy" is the original formulation, I believe. Now it's "People are talking about the following piece of irresponsible journalism: [irresponsible journalism]". The whole ethics thing is just there for old times' sake.
I don't think there's any going back. Now the first thing you do after getting your first byline is set up your own online internet punditry lemonade stand and start pricing fake bookcase backdrops for via-satellite appearances on Hardball.
Of course I say all this through the elitist prism of someone who already heard the rumor, is glad he did, and is now implying that he thinks others shouldn't be similarly informed. It's probably just residual anti-press/pro-Dean bitterness.
Comments
yay, tommy posted!
what i really hate is all the sites/blogs that are like..."we are soooo totally above actually mentioning a certain democratic scandal that has been brought to light in the past twenty-fours blah blah blah" and then they go on and on talking about it without mentioning any details or names, when it's obvious exactly what they're talking about. if you were really above it, you wouldn't even allude to it at all.
I'm afraid I'm not above it. Squarely stuck in the gutter over here.
If journalistic ethics are absent on this one, then political ethics are, uh, real absent. I'm worried about the nasty push-polling Rove used against McCain way back when, asking red-state voters how they'd feel if McCain had a black baby—which both ignores the fact that McCain's kid is an adopted Bangladeshi and preys on awful instincts.
oh, i'm all for being in the gutter. i just can't stand sites that pretend they're not, even though they're clearly alluding to the kerry rumor and thereby spreading it. kind of like politicalaims.com today, though they're not all serious: "There's a rumor about a presidential candidate currently tearing its way around the Internet, but you're not going to hear about it here." then they go on to talk in detail about being above unsourced items but discuss the way the lewinsky scandal was reported on. which goes back to what tommy said about news sites taking the path of trying to pretend to be above a story by not reporting on the story but reporting on the reporting of the story. lame!
sorry. i just had a huge cosmopolitan at lunch.
Post A Comment