I did this in the 1980's with a married man to further my career.
My colleagues and I do this to the Moose-Shooter to further our political agenda.
Do you Freepers know what this makes us?
Posted on 11/11/2008 2:46:57 PM PST by Zakeet
One way to discern journalistic ethics is to ask journalists if they would apply the same standard of scrutiny to themselves as they apply to national politicians. Would that be fair? For example, the media was flagrantly attracted by anonymous McCain aides spinning ridiculous fairy tales about Palin as a "diva" and a "whack job," going "rogue" and disobeying campaign bosses. She was a vicious, paper-throwing princess, a geographically challenged idiot who thought Africa was a country, and some sort of Desperate Housewives character who answered knocks on her hotel door wearing nothing but a towel.
These were people whose cloak of media-awarded anonymity allowed them to start up a high-speed, heavy-duty manure spreader and drive it like a drunken teenager across the Governor’s lawn in Juneau. But it did not matter how ridiculous this imaginary Queen Sarah was.
Liberal outlets like Newsweek and the New York Times leaped on the story. ... But this kind of anonymous back-stabbing is not a game that the media would find honorable or professional if it was applied to them.
Let’s remember Katie Couric, and the harsh unauthorized biography written about her by Ed Klein that came out in August 2007. ... Klein used anonymous sources to make claims like Couric was so calculating that cynics at NBC took bets on how long it would take her to exploit her husband Jay Monahan's death. "Some said 72 hours; others just 24 hours," he wrote. He asserted Couric had an affair during her time at CNN in the 1980s with a married man who could advance her career. ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC all predictably passed on that one. They don’t always skip out when Kitty Kelley manufactures trash against the Reagans or the Bushes, but they passed when the target is a journalist.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
I did this in the 1980's with a married man to further my career.
My colleagues and I do this to the Moose-Shooter to further our political agenda.
Do you Freepers know what this makes us?
The “facts” of the day (or at least the ones anyone’s going to remember tomorrow) can usually be summed up in a few paragraphs. Since the MSM machine runs 24 hours a day, it has to do something with the rest of its time. So it analyzes and it speculates. But mostly it gossips. Gossip, gossip, gossip. That’s the life-blood of journalism.
What other journalist is best known for filing an 'on the scene' report while undergoing a colonoscopy?
I'm sorry, but am I the only man here who can't get that image out of his head?
Wow. This is the first I have heard of this book. That was quite an effective blackout.
“Because power corrupts, society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.”
- John Adams -
Couric “ I was told scwoowing a mawwied man was a way to get to the top, even if he is a senahtor”
Physician finds Katie's head during Katie's colonoscopy - Diagnosis: Cranial-Anal Inversion; Prognosis: Poor because Ms. Couric's condition is a product of her "profession."
Can anyone tell me why these “news” outlets can’t be sued like the gossip sheets at the supermarket have been sued? What are they doing different, they are spreading vicious rumors and, as you said, gossiping. If someone would sue them, they would at least have to try to find some substance. Is there a law that protects them?
It’s called the First Amendment. Libel suits are also very difficult to prove as well.
Understood but the Enquirer has been sued for defamation. Whether it can be proved or not, it at least makes them somewhat accountable for what they are reporting.
Nah! I would venture to say that most red-blooded American men couldn’t get that image out of their heads once they heard that. LOL
She’s a beautiful lady. I believe that’s another thing that tickes the liberals off!
Before the case advances, the judge must rule as a matter of law whether the statement is defamatory.
A public figure or public official suing for defamation must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant published an offending story with “actual malice,” a term of art in defamation law defined as “knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth.” “Actual malice” is not common-law “malice.” The increased-evidentiary-burden and the actual-malice requirements exist because, as Longhair_and_Leather stated, such a case implicates the First Amendment. Because a plaintiff is extremely unlikely to satisfy these two requirements, he will not prevail.
A private person, not involved in a matter that would cause him to be a public figure of any type, suing for defamation must prove by a preponderance of evidence that a defendant made or caused to be made the actionable statement. The libel case where a tabloid, such as The Enquirer, loses typically involves a private person.
Finally, litigation is expensive. Defamation cases are notoriously so, particularly when the plaintiff is a public figure or public official. What seems initially so simple cascades and expands as plaintiff’s counsel begins to see the discovery problems created by the increased evidentiary burden. The plaintiff almost always sues a media defendant. The media defendant hires multiple attorneys who generally specialize in First Amendment cases. If a plaintiff does not draft the complaint carefully, the court will often dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In many jurisdictions, such a dismissal allows the defendant to collect costs and attorneys' fees from the plaintiff.
Thanks, that was very informative.
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.