Whoops!
is how it should read.
“Free press” was encased within quotations for two purposes.
First, to highlight the sanctity and protections that the press is afforded by the United States Constitution.
Second, to highlight a degree of sarcasm that is warranted when the press abuses that sanctity and Constitutional protections, as CBS most certainly did.
The forged document fiasco went a little further than a mistake, as you say. With the best possible light shown on the incident, CBS was willfully negligent as they were warned of the possibility of forgery. CBS chose to ignore the warnings in their haste to air a less than flattering expose of President Bush, for the purpose affecting the outcome of the election.
As for reforms, CBS’s actions were so egregious as to warrant FCC sanctions.
Dog-fucker
Well, if you want to discuss the issue seriously, I’m game.
I’m afraid I don’t understand that approach. Doesn’t the use of quotes in this manner typically indicate irony, i.e. the reality of a concept is not matched by its literal meaning? I can imagine stressing a phrase with capital letters, or italics, or boldface, but quotes?
Then your second purpose contradicts your first. Is the “free press” “free”, or not? Has it taken more freedom than the Constitution covers, or something? Is that even possible?
Well, put that aside as a mere semantic quibble. As for the CBS incident, I don’t see actual abuse, just clumsiness; CBS rushed a story before verifying it.
If you have a problem with CBS, why make it an issue against the entire “free press”? I’m suspicious of dubious claims that the media has a problem that must somehow be fixed. Any restriction put on CBS, even a well-intentioned one, would end up affecting journalists like Coultier, for example, or Matt Drudge, or both sides of Crossfire. The remedy isn’t restrictions, but George Bush suing CBS for slander, if he chooses.
Well, I think it more likely that they thought breaking a scandal about Bush would boost ratings. I don’t see signs of willful negligence in the sense that CBS had reason to believe the documents were probably faked, but then reported on then anyway. They cut a corner and got hammered for it. Good. I hope they’ll be more careful in future.
But I don’t accept the idea that attempting to “influence the election” is inherently bad. By that logic, any political reporting that cast either candidate in a positive or negative light is trying to “influence the election”. For that matter, any pre-Tuesday threads on this message board that were about the (then) upcoming election could be said to be trying to “influence the election”. Your accusation is not specific enough to be damning. Can you define “influence”? Are there good and bad types of influences? When did CBS cross the line? Should using “influence” be restricted or penalized?
Were they? I can’t find a reference to this event on the FCC website, and the only Google hits on the subject are about poeple who want the FCC to impose sanctions. Does the FCC even involve itself in matters like this?
In fairness, I’ll let that slide, though as I said, if you’d like a serious discussion on the responsibilities of the media, I’m game. We’d likely have to take it out of this thread, though.
The role of the press is to inform the public. The Constitution prevents the government from infringing on the press’s right to inform the public. Therefore, we have what is referred to as a “free press”.
For the press to abuse the sanctity, privileges and protections that the Constitution provides it, by manipulating information to influence the election of a President, is not technically a violation of the Constitution, but it is a violation of the public trust, something that the press should hold in high esteem.
What CBS has done, is violated the public trust and, instead, regarded the public as cattle to be herded into the media approved corral.
But they rushed it with an agenda in mind other than informing the public. That would be abuse.
I’m not in favor of restrictions, just accountability. When I mentioned FCC sanctions, I had fines in mind. A good stiff fine for such negligence would have the effect of curtailing said negligence accross the board.
You almost sound like some of these mothers that you see on TV, defending a delinquent child…
“But he’s a good boy. He would never do that on his own. He was led astray”
No, it’s not inherently bad, as long as the reporting is accurate. It is bad when false information is reported.
It’s like yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater. It’s not bad as long as there is a fire.
Come on, I don’t need to define “influence”, do I? I didn’t think so.
Influence is fine, as long as it is based on truth. The line is crossed when the element of truth is violated. And that would include holding negative information from the public, even if factual, for the purpose of maximizing its effect. And here we come to CBS, yet again.
CBS planned to air the story of the missing explosives on “60 Minutes”, the Sunday prior to the election.
CBS deliberately sat on the story to air it at a time too close to the election for a refutation. CBS got caught again when information surfaced that much of the explosives were already missing and much more had been removed by our military. Think CBS was holding the story for ratings?
Man, how’s that for irony. I’m chastised for violating the decorum of Great Debates, and now I’m going to have to go back.
Come on now, ain’t no fifth-grader can turn a phrase like 'at. I’m wha’cha call one a 'em wordsmiths.
Poor spelling aside, I don’t believe that even deserves a true response, and I refuse to dignify it with one beyond this:
You, sir, need help. I’m not being facetious. If this is truly your idea of civil discourse, you might like to take a step back from the computer for a moment and absorb the world around you. Tensions may run high on the internet, but you’re likely to find society itself is a little less forgiving of “Your mom’s a smelly whore” jokes.
Yeah, with a dangling participle, i before “e”, except after “c”, and don’t end a sentence with a preposition.
You fabricated it.
You directed it at me.
You’re deluded if ya think ya can weasel out of it.
And you lost the exchange.
I suppose you call this civil discourse:
Oh, and ‘ol lady don’t necessarily mean yo’ mamma. But then you probably like to celebrate Mardi Gras down on the corner of Bourbon and Dumaine. Get it?
Understood, though I hope there’s no further need to put the phrase in quotes.
Well, unlike doctors and military personnel, reporters don’t actually take an oath of any kind nor, as far as I know, are they required to hold a license or belong to a specific professional association. A reporter’s right to say things is really no different from any citizen’s, and any citizen, if he so chooses, can establish a newspaper or magazine or other means of disseminating information. If the citizen prints deliberate falsehoods, or fails to retract stories that were later discovered as falsehoods, that citizen may be sued for libel, as could any professional news organization. The only real difference between CNN and some guy handing out poorly-photocopied socialist leaflets on campus is budget. As far as I know, neither has a legal superiority over the other, or greater rights and obligations.
The “public trust” you refer to is not a formal entity, though the informal counterpart is credibility. CBS, by reporting a story and then retracting it, can expect to have future viewers doubt it, as happened to NBC after that side-impact story and the New York Times after Jayson Blair was exposed. It’s certainly in the interest of a money-making organization to get (and keep) an audience, as well as minimize legal exposure (and thus make themselves look more credible than the leaflet-passer). As a result, they tend to self-impose codes of ethics and behavior over and above the normal responsibility of anyone to avoid committing libel. I don’t believe the government does, or that it should, impose some kind of ethical standard in the name of the “public trust.”
CBS violated its own standard and got sloppy, as did NBC and the Times and numberless news organizations before them. It’s hardly a shock that they screwed up.
Statements like this diminish your credibility, I’m afraid. They suggest some larger, evil motive at work when a major screw-up is more plausible. I suggest you shy away from paranoid-sounding rhetoric, unless you have access to some CBS News internal memo that described the viewers as “cattle”.
The alternate agenda was making money by releasing a timely and scandalous story, getting higher ratings and thus boosting ad rates. I don’t find this particularly shocking, and CBS is now likely to lose viewers in light of the retraction. The “abuse” accusation is a little trickier. I think you’d have to show actual malice (i.e. they knew for a fact the story was suspect when they initially reported it) and even then, the slanders laws are being violated, not the so-called public trust.
Well, I’m not sure the FCC is the correct agency to impose fines for negligence of this type. They nailed CBS for some $550,000 for the Super Bowl incident, and I’ve read where they became involved in an incident at CBS where an alleged “joke” on The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn showed a picture of GWB with the phrase “SNIPERS WANTED”. The correct venue for slander/libel cases is the civil courts, though, not the FCC.
Well, that’s not an accurate assessment of my stance, so I’ll ignore it, though I ask that if you want a serious discussion, grow up.
That makes no sense at all. If there is a fire, then yelling “FIRE” is perfectly valid. If you know that there is no fire, then yelling “FIRE” is a crime. All indications are that CBS thought there was a fire, but didn’t check it out thoroughly enough. They rushed to a conclusion, rather than told a lie.
I’d prefer that you did, actually. I get the impression you think “influence” is defacto immoral when used by reporters you disagree with. If so, I’d like to know what, if any, difference exists between the “influence” of CBS and the “influence" of Rush Limbaugh.
Well, then we’d have to stifle any editorial/opinion pieces that might have “influence”.
Of course CBS was holding the story (if that’s what actually happened) for ratings. CBS is not a non-profit organization. They air their stories with an eye on maximizing viewer impact (or “influence”, if you prefer).
Ironically, though, 60 Minutes didn’t actually run the story on their Sunday, Oct. 31st broadcast. The New York Times ran it Monday morning, no doubt with an eye on selling newspapers.
I’m gathering info on exactly what happened, and in light of what else is going on in Iraq, the looting of Al Qaqaa might be relatively trivial. I don’t see any evidence CBS or the Times have said anything untrue, though.
It’s not irony at all, nor is it accurate. I suggested a serious discussion should take place “out of this thread [which was dedicated to bashing you]”, not GD specifically. You don’t “have” to go anywhere.
As for decorum-violating, I frankly doubt your ability to carry on an extended discussion at GD without eventually violating the “no insult” rule (in light of your other warnings, I expect the next such violation will get you banned). I actually doubt your ability to carry on an extended discussion on any subject in any forum without personally insulting your opponent. In the Pit, at least, that’s accepted as normal.
You’re drinkin the Kool-aid.
I imagine that’s an attempt at an insult, but it’s so lame, it hasn’t even left the starter’s gate, so I’ll see if I can help it along.
Does my statement show I’m a… let me guess… cult member or something? Who’s playing the Jim Jones role here? CBS?
No, don’t bother explaining. Just deal with me as an adult, if you can.
For the president to abuse the sanctity, privileges and protections that the Constitution provides him, by manipulating information to influence his own election or to start a war or any number of other dishonest activities, is not technically a violation of the Constitution, but it is a violation of the public trust, something that the president should have held in high esteem–but clearly does not.
So, since there is one individual who is president and there are thousands of memers of “the media,” it is obvious that the president should have more accountability than some nebulous conept as “media,” yet you constantly natter on about the one and not the other. You need to get your priorities straightened out.
A “Kool-Aid drinker”, a la the Jim Jones cult, is one who willingly embraces a partisan blind-faith, in spite of evidence that would belie any partisanship from one who should choose to use sound judgement. That is what you are doing by insisting that CBS had no other motive than profit and ratings in the forged document incident.
You know, I tried to play nice with you. I quit. There is no dealing with you as an adult. You just come off as a little prick that thinks he is smarter than he really is.
And yes, I may eventually get banned. I made no secret about it, if you make a smart-added remark to me, you’re gonna get one back, in spades.
Tom, how many times do I have to say that I was against both of the Bush’s wars?
Well, you’re complete wrong on this one, becuse I don’t have “faith” in CBS, blind or partisan or otherwise. Short of evidence that someone at CBS News said “get Bush, no matter what”, the most LIKELY reason for the incident was that CBS jumped the gun on a story, trying to get it to air before fully checking it, and subsequently boosting its own ratings and profits. They’ve since retracted and apologized and no doubt lost some degree of viewer confidence, which is how it should be. As a side note, I’m not inclined to get angry at CBS, since the story in question was pissant muckraking to begin with (so Bush dodged Vietnam thirty years ago? who cares?). Had they screwed up on a story of actual significance, no doubt I’d feel more strongly on the matter. In any case, I don’t see how this proves CBS thinks viewers are sheep, nor does it say anything about the media generally.
Well, you can’t honestly say no-one gave you a chance to discuss a subject rationally. So far, instead of refuting anything I’ve said, your stance seems to be that MY stance comes from me being a sheep, or a cult member, or something. That doesn’t prove me wrong; it only proves YOU can’t (or won’t) argue a point without making it personal.
Okay, let’s assume I deserve all your scorn. Would you be interested in starting a fresh discussion on this (or any other) subject where neither of us makes any ad hominem attacks on the other? If you decide to start a new thread on any subject in GD, I’d be happy to contribute to it if I can.
And let’s not forget it’s also a thoroughly disgusting term, used either by idiots or those who were not yet born when Jones had his party. Its use is reprehensible, and IMO no better than calling someone a Nazi.
I dunno. It always seems like lip-service to hide your actual views when you do. You wander around posting hate-filled rants in GD against your odd concept of “liberals,” all the time, but you only get around to mentioning a mild distaste for Bush’s war when you are challenged about your own hypocrisy.
Perhaps you really do oppose Bush on this single point, but it would be hard to perceive that from a general reading of your posts.
Ha! Hey, jjimm, you’d better write that down. You “lost” the exchange. Remember to mark that in your “L” column. Mr. Sharp will mark it down in his “W” column, cause he won, see? You guys can compare how many exchanges you’ve won and lost at the end of the school year, and the winner gets a lollipop.
In this case, you’re drinkin’ CBS’s Kool-Aid with the rush to get out the “ratings and profit” excuse.
Ah, you just took a big ol’ gulp. See, the story was what, thirty plus years old? The only reason that CBS took any interest in the story, was because of the upcoming election.
Only because they got caught. Of course, tomndebb, he’s a Kool-Aid drinker too, he calls CBS’s getting caught, a “self-correcting mechanism”.
Well, I should hope so, but I don’t have much faith in the sheep. For instance, when NBC’s Dateline rigged the pick-up truck to explode on impact, for the purpose of maligning corporate America, how much credibility did they lose? They’re still on-the-air.
Hellfire, man, are ya listening to yourself? You just said that the story had no significance, but yet, CBS rushes to get out a story that has no significance, for ratings and profit. Now, you’re gaggin’ on the Kool-Aid.
Bullshit, all you ever did was put forth the excuse that CBS’s motive was ratings and profit. That’s the standard excuse allotted the media whenever the media, whether news or entertainment, is criticized for the product that they inflict on society. The Kool-Aid drinkers always come up with the canards, “The media is only giving the people what they want.” Or, “The media is just like any other business, they want to make a profit.”
Oh, is that right? Then tell me, why did Mel Gibson get turned down by every Hollywood studio that he shopped “The Passion of the Christ” to? I mean, the media just gives the people what they want. The media is just interested in making a profit, right?
I really don’t see how you can contribute anything when you emulate the ostrich to avoid anything that contradicts the reality that you have constructed for yourself.
Well, I was in my mid-twenties when Jim Jones had his party, so I guess that makes me an idiot.
Thing about being an idiot, you’re never lonely.