![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
yet more about press and publishing
I'm busy getting ready to go up to Vancouver, but I really, really, really wanted to point at this quote, posted by Glenn Greenwald this morning:
And that's pervasive. C.f. Mark Helprin's new book, Digital Barbarism, inspired by this desperately stupid column he wrote a couple of years ago on copyright, and the public reaction to it. Lawrence Lessig reviews the book here, and asks:
Oh, and what inspired Mr. Greenwald's post was the abrupt firing of the only Washington Post columnist (and blogger) known for actually questioning administration statements when they differed from reality, and calling Mr. Bush's torture techniques "torture." Apparently, that was "too leftist." Back to Greenwald:
And people wonder why these organisations are dying. According again to Sullivan, this morning's Washington Post had no stories on Iran - not even in International. None. What the fuck, guys? What the fuck?
"I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up [in the run-up to the war] and say 'this is bogus, and you're a liar, and why are you doing this,' that we didn't do our job. I respectfully disagree. It's not our role" -- NBC News' David Gregory, thereafter promoted to host Meet the Press.This is the MSM showing that it not only does but does proudly exactly what Mr. Colbert described so famously at the White House Press Corps dinner a few years ago: the government (or other power figure) dictates, the press transcribes it, and publishes it. Questioning, calling out obvious lies and errors of fact - "It's not our role."
And that's pervasive. C.f. Mark Helprin's new book, Digital Barbarism, inspired by this desperately stupid column he wrote a couple of years ago on copyright, and the public reaction to it. Lawrence Lessig reviews the book here, and asks:
this book is riddled with the most basic errors of fact. It would be an embarrassment were it an essay by a first year law student, let alone a major work by (at least what was thought to be) one of America's greatest novelists. So what exactly does a publisher do anymore? Are there no editors? Is there no one with the power to say to a raving author, "Mr. Helprin, sir, what you've said is actually just not correct."No, Mr. Lessig, there aren't. That's "not [their] role." Particularly not where the political press is concerned.
Oh, and what inspired Mr. Greenwald's post was the abrupt firing of the only Washington Post columnist (and blogger) known for actually questioning administration statements when they differed from reality, and calling Mr. Bush's torture techniques "torture." Apparently, that was "too leftist." Back to Greenwald:
To be a real establishment journalist (objective), you're not allowed to say when one side is lying -- even when they are. All you're allowed to do is repeat what both sides say and leave it at that (Colbert: "The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home"). Froomkin -- unlike David Gregory -- believes that reporters should actually point out when the Government is lying. That's what he did. That's why, to The Post, he wasn't a real reporter but, rather, an "ideologue." That's the sickness of American journalism in a nutshell.More on this here and here, at Sullivan, and here, at firedoglake.
And people wonder why these organisations are dying. According again to Sullivan, this morning's Washington Post had no stories on Iran - not even in International. None. What the fuck, guys? What the fuck?
no subject
i mean, i should graduate next June (it SHOULD have been last week, stupid freakin' hip *grumble*), with a BS in Journalism and a BA in Political Science.
where the *hell* am i going to find a job that i will actually do, working as a journalist? which pretty much leaves me the State Dept. which is also...
sorry. i know it's only personally relevant to me, and doesn't mean anything on the grand scale - except that i thought you might like to know that i have seen a definitive shift over the past 4 years in school - when i first went back to school, the journalism stuff was still focused on finding the truth, or at least not deliberately lying. sources were important (credibility, especially, but just *having* a source to back up claims was required then). now we are being told that we should take everything given to us as solid-gold truth - no questioning of officials, no fact checking what officials say, etc. we were told in the editing office for the school newspaper (actually, we were being YELLED AT) that we were *not* allowed to go and "check on" stories we were given by any official source - not just AP or Reuters, but the MAYORS OFFICE! for fuck's sake, they are now TEACHING JOURNALISM STUDENT'S how to just accept and print anything handed to them by the government, or government agencies, or orginizations (i was handed a story about a pro-life/forced-birther org that had given "facts" that included the Pill being abortion and that abortion has been *proven* to increase rates of ovarian and breast cancer by something like 40% (38% ovarian, 43%breast, but we were just supposed to say "40% increase in ovarian and breast cancer) and other BLATANTL FUCKING LIES, and i was expected to not just print word-for-word what the org. gave us, but i wasn't even allowed to add in the TRUTH, to say something like "while it is claimed A, B and C, there is no proof" or ANYTHING like that!!! which, by the way, i refused to do and got an "F" and had to withdraw from the class so i didn't get an "F" on my TRANSCRIPT)
so, it's deep. the corruption is spreading and going deeper.
no subject
seriously? What school?
no subject
and yes, seriously. OSU used to be one of the top journalism schools.... its been slipping in ranks for a while. i don't know that *all* the classes are like this - it may just be the specific ones i have, since they are specifically about political news.
basically, we have been being told for most of this school year (since the end of September 08) that "govermental agencies" do not need to be fact check, and neither do most not-for-profit orgs.
there are still the textbooks which outline various ways to "check" sources, and give reasons why and how and such, including how to fact-check governments. these chapters have not been gone over in the classes i have been in, totally ignored. the only sources we are supposed to question right now are anon. sources, and "on the street" sources (non-official sources) because according to the profs, these are the only sources that "need" to be checked, because gov't and similiar sources should be taken as "credible", and fact-checking a "credible" source is now a mortal insult...
It's gone to seed
no subject
This reminds me of this article (http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/), which Brad Delong linked to a few months back. (I saw it either here or mentioned (http://dougo.livejournal.com/135198.html?thread=705822#t705822) by
Now, reading the commentary on this incident, one thing that occurs to me is that, if newspapers, TV, etc. are just passing along whatever's handed to them, they're comparable to a singularly inefficient and wilfully obstructive blog aggregator service.
no subject
(Although the downward slide of journalistic credibility started long before 2000.)
As your post, (and its related links point out,) any reporter showing the faintest glimpse of integrity is either slapped down or fired by their corporate overlords.
People wonder if our democracy can survive the demise of the newsprint press. I can't help but think we'll all be better off.