The first article appears to be much like a character piece where the authors are addressing the suggested character flaw that McCain trusts his own integrity so much that he doesn't see if he is moving over a line.
That part is interesting only in context of the apparent concerns of his staff to keep him from a lobbyist who may or may not be anything more than a friend.
The third element of concern was if she helped write, or influenced the writing of Telecommunications legislation.
To me the first article [the NYT piece] WOULD have been nothing, would have not received RED Drudge Headlines if it had not been for the extremely strong pushback from the McCain campaign.
Now I know that if there were an insinuation against me I would do the same so I can't fault them for that approach but everything in the article is just too easily proven, too easily shown and the article goes out of its way to say that the "affair" was just a rumor, a concern and denied by all [including third parties].
So what was the focus of the article? The rumored affair? Flawed character judgment? Lobbyist influence?
And I certainly agree, there is precious little from which to get traction.
Are you suggesting that vetting a story is the same as proving it? I hope not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
I am strongly suggesting that vetting the facts of a story of this magnitude equal proving it. If you can't vet the facts, the story would not hold up for print. If you can vet the facts, that is the proof.
This conversation got me thinking last night so during this morning's NYU conference call on one of my Media and Culture classes I decided to bring it up since the NYT article was pretty much the opening topic of conversation prior to starting anyway. I posited the question "In modern Journalism is the quality level of vetting of facts in a story of the magnitude of this type of political piece equal to proving the story as factual?" The debate took all the 90 minutes plus longer for some of us who stayed on as long as we could.
The consensus was that first tier print media tends to be much more deliberate and concise in their vetting of stories as they take time to build a story with multiple sources and multiple resources, each cross checking themselves. The conversation brought up both Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass and how their conduct pushed print journalism to new levels of self scrutiny. Janet Cooke was also used as an example.
Broadcast media, with their 24/7 headline mentality seems to have less respect within the community for their vetting quality. Examples of errors were literally coming to fast for me to take notes. Suffice to say that Foxnews got the brunt of the criticism and one of their executive producers is a member of our class. He was somewhat quiet, though pointed out that in many cases the 30,000 foot level stories were correct even though the details were not always up to snuff and they considered "getting the story out" the top priority.
The primary example of vetting issues was the Dan Rather experience and how it went wrong, why and the ramifications both to the integrity of the media AND to how the media now vets material for broadcast or publication.
The general consensus on the NYT article was 1) the article spent too much of its time on the rumor aspect, 2) the focus should have been on the "potentials of impropriety" and 3) they would not have published without having all their ducks in a row.
This conversation got me thinking last night so during this morning's NYU conference call on one of my Media and Culture classes I decided to bring it up since the NYT article was pretty much the opening topic of conversation prior to starting anyway. I posited the question "In modern Journalism is the quality level of vetting of facts in a story of the magnitude of this type of political piece equal to proving the story as factual?" The debate took all the 90 minutes plus longer for some of us who stayed on as long as we could.
The consensus was that first tier print media tends to be much more deliberate and concise in their vetting of stories as they take time to build a story with multiple sources and multiple resources, each cross checking themselves. The conversation brought up both Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass and how their conduct pushed print journalism to new levels of self scrutiny. Janet Cooke was also used as an example.
Broadcast media, with their 24/7 headline mentality seems to have less respect within the community for their vetting quality. Examples of errors were literally coming to fast for me to take notes. Suffice to say that Foxnews got the brunt of the criticism and one of their executive producers is a member of our class. He was somewhat quiet, though pointed out that in many cases the 30,000 foot level stories were correct even though the details were not always up to snuff and they considered "getting the story out" the top priority.
The primary example of vetting issues was the Dan Rather experience and how it went wrong, why and the ramifications both to the integrity of the media AND to how the media now vets material for broadcast or publication.
The general consensus on the NYT article was 1) the article spent too much of its time on the rumor aspect, 2) the focus should have been on the "potentials of impropriety" and 3) they would not have published without having all their ducks in a row.
Excellent.
I will add that these issues, true or not, cannot be ignored and should not be covered-up. It is the news media's duty to investigate & report, come what may. It is our job to put them in perspective.
having said all that, I wish that the reporters had spent less verbiage on the sleaze, innuendo and unnamed sources. Using unnamed sources is cowardly and borderline dishonest.
B
__________________
I wasted my vote on the Libertarian Candidate. Who did you waste your vote on? -- Immodorator
No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible. ---- Voltaire
We believe in free markets, individual liberty, private property and, most of all, strictly limited government.
---Robert Levy
I will add that these issues, true or not, cannot be ignored and should not be covered-up. It is the news media's duty to investigate & report, come what may. It is our job to put them in perspective.
having said all that, I wish that the reporters had spent less verbiage on the sleaze, innuendo and unnamed sources. Using unnamed sources is cowardly and borderline dishonest.
B
We discuss that part all the time. Unfortunately it is the only way to get some valid information out.
I know that I have been used as "unnamed source" a couple of times in corporate stories where the questions asked of me were valid, the answers I provided were valid but had I provided my name I would have either been fired or move off project. I also know that in both instances other people were also interviewed to corroborate the information. I know that in some instances "Unnamed source" is a composite. Most news sources have to go to extra lengths to verify the information [in my case, I gave my name, position and connections to both the reporters and editor under a signed document that they would not use my name]. I was not just chit chat.
We discuss that part all the time. Unfortunately it is the only way to get some valid information out.
I know that I have been used as "unnamed source" a couple of times in corporate stories where the questions asked of me were valid, the answers I provided were valid but had I provided my name I would have either been fired or move off project. I also know that in both instances other people were also interviewed to corroborate the information. I know that in some instances "Unnamed source" is a composite. Most news sources have to go to extra lengths to verify the information [in my case, I gave my name, position and connections to both the reporters and editor under a signed document that they would not use my name]. I was not just chit chat.
Not saying unnamed sources are always wrong, saying they should be used sparing and onlyif the story is sufficiently compelling to warrant them. In my (ahem) editorial opinion this particular story would have been just as sleazy with or without the "unnamed sources. In this instance, the unnamed sources lent the story greater credibility than it deserved.
Not saying it should have been suppressed. Downplayed. Or leave it for a less reputable paper to run. It's the New York Times for crissake.
That story is (so far) just a whole buncha noise about nothing. It comes across as a blatant, baseless and shameless attempt by the media to influence the election, and nothing more. Damn the authors, not the subject.
In other words: A typical New York Times hatchet-job!
It's enough to make me want to vote for the guy! She's not bad for 40+!!
__________________ Don't believe everything you think http://www.kcmbca.org/ Kansas City Mercedes-Benz car club
The only thing worse would be if there were no free speech and no intense public scrutiny of the candidates.
But trying to defend this NYT hatchet-job as a free speech issue is just plain ridiculous! Hell, they're giving the National Inquirer a good name!! Free speech my ass!! It has nothing to do w/ free speech!
Linear Mode
