Posted on 01/28/2005 7:42:21 AM PST by The Spirit Of Allegiance
What is the one that Gergen had with Joran and Barney Frank called??
Also .. if this can be purchased on the internet .. why hasn't someone already gotten it?
The commercial media must balance the public's need to know with the financial interests of its shareholders. But with the decline of news, the rise of reality shows and growing claims of bias, the fourth estate seems to be neglecting its role as democracy's watchdog. 1) What is the extent of the commercial media's responsibility to keep the public informed? 2) Should commercial news media be regulated to ensure fairness and balance? 3) How important is commercial media to the strength of democratic values?
Good question.
Looks like with AO, you have to be a paying member, to view/download the video session.
I wonder if anyone bothered to GO to the WEF website like we just did to look. You have to print out the PDF order form, then select which session you want a DVD copy of. (Correction, each session (there are 203) is 60 francs each).. then, tell them what language you want it in, then fill out name addres, email. Then fax it in, and they say you'll have your DVD 3 weeks after the date of the session.
Lot of lag time between that method vs. AO's method of downloading by end next day..
For all we know, someone has ordered copies. 3 weeks from the last day of the conference (1/30) would be 2/20 +/- weekend mailing.
.
I didn't know Clinton was at the Davos conference.
Hatch has some interesting comments here...
http://clients.world-television.com/worldeconomicforum_annualmeeting2005/_S12441.asp
The summary of Gergens session said it upfront:.. go to Oxens link to read, but I'll repost here:
http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/_S13066
Will Democracy Survive the Media?
27.01.2005
Annual Meeting 2005
If the frank exchange of views between the media and politicians that characterized this session is anything to go by, the answer to the theme question was an emphatic "no". In a discussion that ranged from the disappearance of the county hall news bureau to the killing of journalists in Iraq, an informal consensus was reached that a healthy media makes for a robust democracy and one cannot survive without the other.
Which is not to say that everything is rosy. Moderator David R. Gergen, Director, Center for Public Leadership, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, USA, opened the session by suggesting that the trivialization of the press means that the public is becoming increasingly disengaged and is less inclined to vote. And because too much of the media is owned by corporations, much of the world isn’t being covered because of the costs.
Barney Frank, Congressman from Massachusetts (Democrat), USA, agreed. "Essentially there’s less news," he said. "Reporters used to come to the city hall and that is a thing of the past. The biggest change is in the corporate ownership. People used to put out newspapers because they wanted to be journalists. Nobody is doing that these days; they do it because they want to make money. Papers are in a circulation race."
The commercialization of the press is having its effect on the TV channels, too. Eason Jordan, Chief News Executive, CNN News Group, USA, said that his organization is under pressure to compete against entertainment-led cable outlets. For his part Richard Sambrook, Director, World Service and Global News, BBC World, United Kingdom, said that the suicide of David Kelly and the subsequent Hutton Report which criticized the BBC had resulted in a new commitment to the journalistic values of objectivity, transparency and accountability. "I think it’s going to become more important to divide the serious media from the others who are driving the bottom line," he said.
The importance of the media to democracy is nowhere more graphically illustrated in the world today than in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. As Gergen had pointed out in his introduction, the press has taken cameras to various dangerous places.
But it was the fifth panellist who reminded the largely Western audience of the key role that the media has to play in democracy. Abdullah Abdullah, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan, said his country now has its first free press since before the Soviet invasion. "The right of expression is now ensured for our citizens. We have 160 newspapers with only about 5 or 6 publicly supported," he said. "During the election there were debates going on that nobody would have believed possible a few years ago." And did he feel more accountable with a free press? "Certainly."
Related Link
Annual Meeting
News organizations face difficult decisions about which stories to cover, observed Eason Jordan, Chief News Executive, CNN News Group, USA. "We don't do everything right. We make mistakes," he said. But covering Iraq at the expense of Congo made sense: Iraq involved the world's only superpower in combat and the Congo did not. Mass media don't always fail to shed light on the plight of the forgotten, he added. Media coverage of Somalia played a part in convincing the US to intervene there, and later media coverage had a role in convincing the US and the United Nations to withdraw. Yet no matter what story an organization covers, its bias is reflected in its choice and in the language it uses. As such, Eason said he finds objectivity and impartiality to be outdated, tired terms.
I wouldn't mind seeing this tape too....
At Easongate.com, they've done a great job highlighting Jordans comments since 2002:
Check it out: http://www.easongate.com/archives/2005/02/an_abbreviated.php
What is wrong here? Recall that the Davos folks said they have a policy to not release videotapes. Now they are saying that Jordan's resignation closes the issue. But if they actually had a policy to not release tapes, the resignation wouldn't matter.
In other words, they lied somewhere to help cover up for Jordan. What a surprise.
Very well put!
FURTHERMORE:
Documented in post #50 here, IT SEEMS ODD, that if Jordan's comments were OFF THE RECORD, then WHY/HOW did they get in included in the "official" session summary? Unless someone was transcribing on the spot at the off-record session, it would seem more likely, someone transcribed from a tape, no?
"In a discussion that ranged from the disappearance of the county hall news bureau to the killing of journalists in Iraq, an informal consensus was reached that a healthy media makes for a robust democracy and one cannot survive without the other."
Found this:
Eason Jordon WEF Video (confirmed)
(...transcript from link...)
Mark Adams, Head of media at the World Economic Forum, replied today to my email from yesterday.
First, big kudos to Mr. Adams for the quick response! Please pass the word that I'm working this with him so please do not flood him with requests.
Second, he has confirmed that he has the video. He needs to make a copy. I have asked for it to be mailed to me by Wednesday next week. I'll update this post as more information becomes available.
That's from Feb 4th. He has since said that he will NOT supply the tape even though it was promised.
FC,
Did he say that to Sisyphus? Or to subsequent requests?? Do you know, or maybe a link?
A. We are in a war, and this group is clearly making scurrilous assertions which border on treason.
B. Does this group plan to use government programs (vis a vis pub ed) to bolster their "anti-impartial and anti-objective" news reporting.
C. Are Hollywood movie stars (aka: The Gods) involved with this shadow organization as psuedo-ambassadors to foreign countries while they are out on location shoots. Is this how Move-On.org and Hollywood considers itself a "political voice"?
D. How can any business organization GUARANTEE a return on investment to investors as well, if not, through a captive audience.
I have more questions: If the BIG MSM types assert they cannot parse out their media packages (Must Carry-Must Go) how then are, why then, are they asserting privileges of "specialness" in medium to an elite core? Sure, power of the buck. No problems there, and I understand that. But the same "people" are asserting the rank and file should be subject to the policies, ideologies of a shadow "government".
I don't think the issue is Eason. I think the problem is that his comments drew attention to the forum. Who was there, what the agenda is, what the WEF is "for", plans for the "new state of world governance". That's the issue, as I see it. And why it is important to them to not release the tape(s). These would be far more revelatory. Eason's comment is the mere "indicator" of what the conference was about. "A guaranteed return" to investors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.