| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Rick Bragg, suspended by the NEW YORK TIMES in the wake of the Jayson Blair fiasco, comments on what the mainstream press is currently experiencing:
“And this insanity—this bizarre atmosphere we’re moving through as if in a dream—we’re being made to feel ashamed for what was routine. . . . Reporters are being bad-mouthed daily. I hate it. It makes me sick.”
Mr. Bragg is experiencing, doubtless for the first time, how unfair hostile reporting is. Yet this is what the mainstream press has subjected every other business in America to for decades.
Hostile reporting is the result of the sentence all mainstream reporters say, specifically, “To be objective I must be hostile to the subject of the article.” That sentence is false. Hostility as a goal produces only attacks. It does not produce fairness. This is what Bragg, and the press, are discovering under these unfortunate circumstances.
It’s easy to tear things down. Anyone can do that. What is laudable is to build, to contribute, to be helpful. So, to practice what I preach, let me seek to offer something helpful.
A good example of how to do great reporting with fairness can be found in the trade and business press. Examples: FORTUNE, FORBES, BUSINESS WEEK, VARIETY, THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER, etc. etc. etc. These publications are recognized for expert, truthful, fair reporting. But their goal is to help: to help the businesses on which they report.
I would suggest that the mainstream press should consider that the business on which they report is the business of the world – the health, well-being, and prosperity of the American people, and of all people everywhere. With the goal of promoting these good things, the press will be able to report fully, truthfully, helpfully, and admirably.
Update: typo (Freudian slip) corrected: “meanstream” changed to “mainstream” in paragraph 3.
#1
#2I liked it better with the "typo". More accurate that way.
#3How do you think politicians feel who are always targets?
#4Tallan, I agree 100%.
#5Jayson Blair is reportedly about to make millions from his bad actor activities at the NY Times.
Many people rely on the the NY Times and other media outlets to make important decisions in their lives. From investments to the purchase of home security systems to law enforcement acting on leads that are generated through the media.
For years the liberal press has applauded lawsuits against tobacco. Of late they have jumped on the side of advocating for lawsuits against gun dealers and manufacturers. You could even see the optimism in articles about the recent fast-food outlet lawsuit until it was tossed.
Let them squirm under a tort assault on their industry. The anticipated claims of 1st Amendment protections should be identified as hypocritical given the media's frenzy in constantly attacking the 2nd Amendment.
The NY Times and Jayson Blair should be named as the main bad actors, but all of the media outlets that ran his bogus stories should be included. The secondary targets eventually will be dismissed from the suit, but let every newspaper be forced to waste resources in legal fees - just like many business and individuals are forced to daily by a tort system that is out of control.
Research will have to be done to find out which of Blair's articles caused "harm". If the DC area police wasted resources because of a bogus lead created by Blair, they will have standing. If there are bogus stories that would have given an investor cause to change an investment decision and ultimately lose money, they'll have standing. If someone purchased a home security system because of a perception of threat that did not exist before a Blair story, they will have standing. Anyone who has had their faith in media stories and now suffered severe "emotional harm" and distrust will have standing (conservatives have known for years to be skeptical of the liberal media and welcome the latest class of dupes to our side).
A class-action lawsuit as I've described will be using the enemy to slay the enemy. Perhaps, after watching their own industry in the cross-hairs of trial lawyers, the media will find their reporting on others with similar fates to be a little less one-sided.
Let's make this happen by starting the process on this blog. Some young, aspiring law firm will see the potential for profit and making a name for themselves, and won't mind killing the goose that lays their golden egg at the same time.
#6gorman: Yeah, lets sue any media company that ever makes a mistake. Yeah, that'll work.
There might be some chance to sue blair, who knowingly lied about things, as well as violated copyright, but suing newpapers for making mistakes? that'll never happen, nor should it.
btw, can you point out any spesific articles or stories in the NYT that supported suing fast food places? One of the most annoying things about this whole thing are the people ready to charge the NYT and "liberal media" with hypocracy based on what they imagine them to be like. I've got news for you, hypocracy is an inconsistancy with words and actions, not an inconsistancy between words and actions you think they might make.
#7Ideas on Earth are badges of friendship or enmity.
TO: Glenn Reynolds
RE: You Say...
...that the Times is not getting anywhere near the full-bore treatment Enron got.
That's because the Times is not going to pull out the 'big guns' to shoot itself in public.
Regards,
Chuck(le)