Subj : Re: Links 'R' Us To : alt.tv.farscape From : Jim Larson Date : Tue Sep 06 2005 02:29:12 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape Trouble wrote: > John Iwaniszek wrote: > >> Nick wrote: >>> John Iwaniszek wrote: >>>> Jim Larson wrote: > >>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4214516.stm > >>>> We can only hope. I am not optimistic. People still tell that >>>> old knee- slapper about Gore claiming to invent the internet and >>>> that Kerry looks French. > >>> How does people telling jokes have any possible relevance to tough >>> journalism? > >> Those were repeated by "tough journalists" as though they were facts or >> even newsworthy. > > So you're saying that just reporting what they see (dying people) and not > immediately buying the party line (everything is fine) that's given to > them won't fix what's wrong with the news today, if they don't also > develop the research skills necessary to write a high school term paper? > > I'm being serious here > > Tough Journalism implies investigative journalism, people looking for > stories, what happened in NO is that people parroted what they saw, and > didn't parrot what they were told. > > I think John is saying they'll still need an influx of fact checking > skills, and to find stories in places other than press junkets, and the > nuggets dropped by schills from the administration. > > > Hey John, the reporters work for the networks, the networks are owned by > companies, therefore the safe journalism was a detante of sorts, none of > the networks could really break with the party line for the reasons you > have mentioned like no access to the president for bad press. > > However, this only works so long as no one steps out of line, when one of > them breaks with a 'true' story, they all have to run it, or risk losing > ratings. > > So though they have institutional reasons why the rules shifted to safe, > maybe they'll shift back to honest. > > Again fact checking and curiosity don't hurt > But, but...fact checking is hard. -- Jim .