Columnist Robert Novak has ties to Anti-Kerry book

What a waste of a good apple.

So, are we clear now? Journalists, a rare and diminishing breed, have an ethical obligation to their readers/viewers/listeners to reveal any conflicts of interest they might have concurrent with their subject at hand. It's just the decent thing to do.

Splitting hairs over whether a relative at a benefiting firm is on salary or commission is just that, hair-splitting, as any reasonable person can see.

Pundits, a species still not recognized by those whose job it is to write actual factual reports of events (see journalists above), seem to believe that as long as they have a strong belief about a circumstance whatever they say is within the bounds of ethical conduct. They are deeply incorrect and as the line is blurred between news and infotainment (what am I saying? That line was wiped out years ago!) the people lose the most important link between themselves and their world: knowing what's true.

Free societies cannot be built on partisan opinions.

Joe

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

What a waste of a good apple.

So, are we clear now? Journalists, a rare and diminishing breed, have an ethical obligation to their readers/viewers/listeners to reveal any conflicts of interest they might have concurrent with their subject at hand. It's just the decent thing to do.

Splitting hairs over whether a relative at a benefiting firm is on salary or commission is just that, hair-splitting, as any reasonable person can see.

Pundits, a species still not recognized by those whose job it is to write actual factual reports of events (see journalists above), seem to believe that as long as they have a strong belief about a circumstance whatever they say is within the bounds of ethical conduct. They are deeply incorrect and as the line is blurred between news and infotainment (what am I saying? That line was wiped out years ago!) the people lose the most important link between themselves and their world: knowing what's true.

Free societies cannot be built on partisan opinions.

Joe

We are not clear, no one answered my post least of all blatham. The issues I addressed should be answered before we can say "are we clear now".

0 Replies

I find the eagerness with which many liberals here embrace the flimsiest of connections with which to weave conspiracy theories quite remarkable. Novak is a columnist with a fairly well-known point of view, perspective and political bent. His advocacy of Kerry's critics is neither unusual nor worthy of any of this indignation. Columnists of various political persuasions - including liberal - have such connections all the time - it is the rule, not the exception.

Some of the liberals here do tend to confuse their own preferences and prejudgements with eternal verities - perhaps this explains some of this hyperventillating..

0 Replies

I have actually decided that the proclivity of the mainstream Dems to embrace really far out conspiracy theories is in part the reason they are having a hard time getting elected.

From Gore, Kennedy, Sharpton, Dean, Daschel, Micheal Moore (yeah, he counts), McKinney, ... They seem crazy, and unstable.

I have to say, 'vast right wing conspiracy' fading--the Clintons seem to be the only prime time Dems who haven't lost their credibility. And good ole Joltin' Joe.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I find the eagerness with which many liberals here embrace the flimsiest of connections with which to weave conspiracy theories quite remarkable. Novak is a columnist with a fairly well-known point of view, perspective and political bent. His advocacy of Kerry's critics is neither unusual nor worthy of any of this indignation. Columnists of various political persuasions - including liberal - have such connections all the time - it is the rule, not the exception.

Some of the liberals here do tend to confuse their own preferences and prejudgements with eternal verities - perhaps this explains some of this hyperventillating..

Nah, that's bullshit george. Please get real on this one. Novak is in clear conflict of interest here, and there is every reason he should make known this affiliation and NO GOOD REASON NO TO.

And anyone in his position likewise, regardless of affiliation. We count on the press for a certain sort of information, and we give them extraordinary priviledges in exchange (before the courts, for example). They owe us something in return. And honesty/forthrightness are what they owe us.

0 Replies

Quote:

The issues I addressed should be answered before we can say "are we clear now".

Which issues haven't been addressed? What part of conflict of interest do you not understand?

And it's not about any conspiracy theory, it's about ethical disclosure of a journalist to his consumers, that's all. You guys just don't want transparency, might show just how deep the bias is. And don't get me wrong, bias is good. Just reveal where you are coming from so we can make the call on whether you have any credibility or are just hacking for your side.

BTW, which of you are GOP hacks?

Joe

0 Replies

In Burma, what do you think the chances are that media authorship/ownership is transparent?

How many writers the Chinese press feel any obligation to point out their family connections with party officials, or their own connections with party?

Transparency is a key indicator of the health of a democracy. Secrecy and deceit and unannounced relationships mark the sort of states which are anything but democratic.

Democracy means far more than the fact of polling booths.

This isn't a partisan argument, it's an argument about keeping a nation free from covert control and manipulation by WHOEVER is in power.

You guys are letting your guard slip on a fundamental process of a truly free state. And you are doing so for reasons of party affiliation. It is unprincipled, and it's an example of what frightens me about the US right now. Devisiveness is being fostered to such a degree that you happily justify or minimize this falling away from such a principle.

When Rush Limbaugh headed to court to fight against the release of his medical records, his legal position was supported by the ACLU. That is principled. What you are doing is dangerous.

0 Replies

Conflicts of interest, of the type Blatham decries, have long been so common and pervasive among the liberal media, academic institutions, book publishers, and other hangouts of Liberal elites that they are no longer even noticed - they have faded into the backgroung and become an accepted part of the scene.

However when one with right wing or conservative leanings does something like it, suddenly righteous indignation arises in the liberal hearts as accustomed to their own brand of venality as they are intolerant of it in others.

0 Replies

Name three liberal pundits or commentators who have lauded a book which is profitable to his immediate family.

0 Replies

george

For a smart guy, you get really dumb sometimes.

Your generalities, unspecified, weren't worth your effort to type them. You forward cliches (liberal media elite) that you've picked up god knows where, and which you have gobbled down with no critical faculties intact, and which you will not go to the trouble of investigating with any rigor at all. Did you even, for example, take a look at the list of Regnery authors?

Find me such a comparable case. Find me just one. Has Maureen Dowd promoted a book which is published by her son and which will increase her own and her son's personal bank account? You do, and you can write any letter you want to the NY Times, and I'll sign it.

You've done exactly what I said you would do...excuse and justify and minimize. That is unprincipled.

And I'm really sick of the return of your 'liberals are' or 'liberals think' generalizations too. When I speak of the conservative camp, I try with some dilligence to lay out the diverse aspects to be seen there. I talk about individuals, and I quote them. I speak about connections between them where those exist, and I give specifics (as well as I can) on what those connections are.

0 Replies

BBB
I APPLAUD Blatham's principles; they are the foundation of the noble experiment of our democracy.

BBB

0 Replies

Oh, look, they do it too is such a stale argument. So point out where the conflicts of interests occur whether it is right or left. Three examples shouldn't be difficult. Or should it?

One I was disturbed by is Daschel's wife being a lobbyist for the airline industry but I can't find any comments made or bills Daschel has sponsored that was a gain for the airline industry.

0 Replies

LW...yeah! Exactly the sort of information that ought to be transparent (by law, if not integrity).

I don't care...god I don't...what party is involved in this.

0 Replies

Well, I have been goaded into rereading my last post here. I have thought a bit about it and concluded --- that I really like it. It was to the point, accurate, and (in my humble opinion) well composed, incisive, and persuasive (though perhaps not to some here). Though I have been a bit dumb a few times in my life, this was not an example.

Are you guys suggesting that book publishers, mainstream media, and academia are not overwhelmingly populated with people of a decidedly liberal and left wing bent? The symptoms of this situation confront us regularly, and through long familiarity we have all been conditioned to view it as normal and unremarkable, notwithstanding the bias - and even conflict of interest - in public information it generally produces. When one is confronted with an overwhelming, obvious reality, obsession with small, specific details, though otherwise laudable, is not a prominent virtue.

0 Replies

It's politic's bain to manipulate from both sides -- depends on whether one completely, lock-stock-and-barrel, falls for the manipulation. Gilliani made a joke about the Democrats also being able to be right but added they're mostly wrong. That could easily be turned around. It nearly always ends up in a pissing match.

0 Replies

I am bemused by the evident willingness of some here to create additional legal restraints on free expression and advocacy and a free press. Exactly what new laws or restrictions do you propose?

This is somehow reminiscent of the avid support some here put forward for the McCain Feingold campaign reform legislation, and then quickly follow with advocacy for the Soros financed Move On..org. All this reinforces my basic point.

0 Replies

Who said anything about legislating censorship? The exposure of Novak is sufficient. His endorsement was obviously compromised by his son's employment. Blurbs on the bookflaps and backs of dust jackets of books are always suspect -- naturally one who disagrees or does not like a writing will not be invited to contribute. Whether or not Novak or anyone else who lauds a book is doing it impartially is another story. We will always wonder if the conflict of interest is a factor and I feel in nearly all cases it would be.

There was a scandal a few years back in the movie industry that studios had planted movie reviewers within the media who were, in fact, paid by them to give good reviews of a movie. All of these reviewers were fired (or at least it's hoped they were all uncovered -- sometimes I wonder).

As I remember McCain-Feingold was not passed as originally written. Bush himself has advocated doing something about the loopholes.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Who said anything about legislating censorship?

michael powell's line up of the fcc is the only one that comes to mind for me.

my only problem with novak's is that he exposed the identity of a united states intelligence officer.

and for that, i think he sucks.

0 Replies

He unsuccesfully with his head held low rationalized that exposure. I wouldn't want to sit near him as he sputters and spits.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Well, I have been goaded into rereading my last post here. I have thought a bit about it and concluded --- that I really like it. It was to the point, accurate, and (in my humble opinion) well composed, incisive, and persuasive (though perhaps not to some here). Though I have been a bit dumb a few times in my life, this was not an example.

Are you guys suggesting that book publishers, mainstream media, and academia are not overwhelmingly populated with people of a decidedly liberal and left wing bent? The symptoms of this situation confront us regularly, and through long familiarity we have all been conditioned to view it as normal and unremarkable, notwithstanding the bias - and even conflict of interest - in public information it generally produces. When one is confronted with an overwhelming, obvious reality, obsession with small, specific details, though otherwise laudable, is not a prominent virtue.

george

I'm pleased that you are proud of your prose. That's a good start. But, more than any other Irishman I've ever met, you are in dire need of a Jesuit editor to rap you across the knuckles for fuzzy-headedness.

Book publishers are liberals... What on earth can you be thinking? 'Pride and Prejudice', 'How To Wire Your Home', 'The Cat in the Hat', 'Tex Ritter Rides Again', and 'Container Gardening'?

Mainstream media is liberal... This one at least MIGHT make some coherent sense as a claim, except that you are going to have a really tough time finding any credible study that backs it up, regardless of how many times somebody repeats it. You won't read Alterman's book, and I know why you won't but you don't.

Academia is liberal ... Classes on Beowulf are mills churning out radical unionists? Biology degrees mean more socialists? Composing 500 word papers on the Fool in King Lear turns red-blooded yankee boys into wussies who can no longer abide the sight of Bush?

Good god man. Crank up the Hoover and, either sucking or blowing, put it to an ear. And hire a Jesuit tutor. And I'd do something about being Irish if I were you.

0 Replies

Columnist Robert Novak has ties to Anti-Kerry book

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know