Posted on 10/13/2010 10:25:37 AM PDT by Nachum
Press bookmark.
Uhhh, part of doing my part was to ping a few media watchers with some ping lists of their own. Can I get a DUH!
I loved the, "You're not even a reporter"
Don't violate the temple of the media. They're reporters! More like clowns.
Let’s just hope that a now-chastened Kelly doesn’t suddenly become so remorseful that he decides to crawl into the trunk of his car, tie himself up, and then put some bullet holes in the back of his head. It’s happened before...
Natchum, no offense meant to you, but I don’t think the person who wrote this “counts” English as his or her native language. It says, “Emmanuel didn’t account for unassuming Kelly to fire off ...” when obviously what is meant here is that Emmanuel didn’t count on Kelly firing off questions. Then the third paragraph starts off thus: “Kelly didn’t account for was the manner in which Chicago reporters behaved...,” which doesn’t seem to be a complete sentence, and again, what is meant is that Kelly wasn’t counting on Chicago reporters behaving that way. Are there no editors left on the planet? Is this writer being paid for his or her work?
I must remember to email the station (or post to their website) and ask them if the station’s chief correspondence job requires prior WWF experience. One would assume it is a must.
Pathetic. These Chicago “security guards” have been around a long time. They control the news in Chicago and the faithful tune in daily to see what is news.
Best choice I ever made was to leave the place.
True enough. I think the video was indictment enough :)
"Mayor Emmanuel, why do people like you so much and think you are so great?"
And if Jay Levine sported a single muscle, those could have been considered terroristic threats, instead of comedy.
Real reporters should check their sixes early and often. Just ask Emily Miller.
See, that's just the trouble - so many informed, educated and public spirited people (like you) actually believe that reporters are a separate class from "we the people."There is nothing in the First Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution, which says or implies any such thing.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Just because journalists call themselves "the press" does not put them in a class separate from "the people." What, can I call myself "speech" and become privileged in some way over you? Do you not have the right to buy and operate a printing press? Are your rights lesser than someone else's, just because you haven't bought a printing press yet?The actual problem is that the wire services have unified and homogenized journalism. Starting with the Associated Press, which began in 1848. Adam Smith famously stated that
"People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices." - Adam SmithThe "association" of newspapers via the AP performs the function of bringing journalists together in such a way as to enervate the competition among them. Why is it that no reporter will disagree with the thesis that "all journalists are objective?" Simple - journalists changed the business model of the newspaper business when they joined the AP. The AP gives each newspaper a cornucopia of news stories, but it is expensive and the newspaper must get value for that expense. The only way to do so is to vouch for the reporters on the other end of the wire whom the newspaper does not employ and may not even know. How does the newspaper do that? Simple - by promoting the conceit that "all journalists are objective."The massive propaganda campaign in which we have all been immersed all our lives, to the effect that "all journalists are objective," is nothing other than " a conspiracy against the public." It is a conspiracy to promote the conceit that journalists are better citizens than you or I, with the implication that the country should actually be run by journalists, with "the people" going to the polls pro forma and simply rubber stamping the decisions of the journalists.
Well, guess what! Journalists are a special interest.
Journalism's interest is in promoting the credulity of the people in accepting the confidence game I just outlined. "If it bleeds it leads," "Man Bites Dog rather than Dog Bites Man," and "There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper" are defining characteristics of the interest of journalism (which lies in interesting the public) which is an entirely different matter than "the public interest." Many things would interest the public but would be illegal, precisely because they are deemed to not be in the public interest. Reports of bad news generally interest the public - but of course the incidents themselves are not in the public interest.
The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . .The public interest would be far better served if the public learned to treat journalism with a lot more "incredulity." And with full understanding that journalism, even when true, is not generally all of the truth - and that "Half the truth is often a great lie."It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity,
and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith
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.