RICHARD NIXON'S REVENGE

Dan Rather made a mistake. But at least you've acknowledged the journalistic integrity that existed with these older newscasters.

What I find interesting is that, although the memos were determined to be fake, then why was the content of the memos never really in question? Don't you find that a bit strange? In other words, if the fake memos ALSO contained nothing but false information, then I would imagine that Rather wouldn't have a job at all. Afterall, we're still waiting for a single individual to claim rewards put out by progressives who can state unequivocally that Bush was were he was supposed to be during the time in question. Let's not forget the subcontext behind this story. It isn't just about fake memos and Dan Rather smearing the President. That's why a setup would have been just enough to quell the Bush National Guard controversy, while at the same time allowing the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies to continue pounding away unrelentlessly at Kerry in order to further deflect attention away from Bush's problems with his recollection of the past.

(http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/4/143054.shtml). Are you aware of Jon E. Dougherty? He's just another glaring example of what Joe Nation was pointing out on this thread (http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=47086&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=110), and is relevant to this topic.

If it's all about journalistic integrity and objectivity, than why quote an article from him?

I take it that when you began as a journalist that the vast majority of reporters were college-educated and a substantial minority had a grad school degree in journalism (which I know to be the case today)?

I understand that in the 60s most reporters didn't have college degrees in journalism, almost none had a grad degree in journalism, and many were journeymen who never went to college.

I understand that in the 40s the majority were journeymen who never went to college.

I'm happy to be wrong, of course. Am I?

I don't know what the demographics were everywhere, Bayinghound. All the editors I ever worked with had degrees--whether they had advanced degrees I can't say; and all the reporters had degrees or were working on degrees. I did work as a reporter while I was in college, but at that level did not get what I considered important assignments. I have worked for five different newspapers, hosted one radio program, did a bit of time doing research for a TV station, and there was no question by any person with any of those organizations as to what the rules were and what we were and were not allowed to do.

Do all the news staff at newspapers, radio and television stations now have graduate degrees? I'm sure some do. I'm going to guess most don't.

But even if we go with your theory that the media is better educated now than is was 30, 40, 50 years ago, then how do you account for the fact the the ethical standards are so much less apparent now than they were then?

Well, most of my career has been spent trying to spin these guys, so I think I can fairly say that I haven't met a single reporter these days who hasn't a college education and that's from a broad base of papers, trade, radio, and TV.

But, I suspect that the professionalization of the now known as profession would be a key reason for why the ethical standards are eroding on some fronts.

Of course, I am not entirely sure that the ethical standards of yesteryear were so much better. Yellow journalism does come to mind.

I do think that the evolution of journalism into a respectable profession has had the counterintuitive effect of making journalists much less willing to work to expose the powers that be because that might well threaten their upper-middle class lifestyles. The Chiquita Banana scandal and the perception following that your paper could be dangerous liable if you use tried and true investigative journalistic techniques has also had the effect of making investigative journalism much more of a rarity. The fact that papers are no longer mostly run for the purpose of shoring up the status of their publishers but publicly-held corporations has made the question of whether something is entertaining rather more important than whether it is news. (Which is to return the papers to their pre-1900 state.) I also think that many have just become plain lazy given that there are so many press releases out there that basically do all the work for them. (How do you make a reporter bite on a political story? Pretend to involve him in the strategy ... the process. Make em feel relevant, baby.)

Who ever said that a better education would preclude a lapse in ethical standards amongst journalists today?

I would imagine that there are very smart journalists out there, albeit pretty stupid when it comes to the power of the bloggers, who have no problem following the myriad demands from their corporate slavedrivers to hedge the truth, if not outright lie in the hopes of getting away with it.

Objective journalism has been replaced with advocacy journalism. And it's happening across the board.

I would imagine anyone on the left OR the right would be against this phenomenon taking place today.

It's more than that I think. Journalism has always attracted the rebel, the idealist, the visionary. I would guess every one of us who ever prepared ourselves for the field tilted (or wildly yawed) left and we started out starry eyed with ambitions to change the world for the better or at least acquire a bit of personal glory.

But the rules were grilled into us, every day in school and at frequent staff meetings once we were on the job. Truth was not so important as accuracy. If it could not be verified by your own eye witness account complete with pictures or otherwise by at least two credible sources, you didn't run the story, especially if it in any way could affect anybody's reputation. The reporter's opinion, if allowed at all, was allowed only on the opinion page and was clearly labeled as such. That was one of the hardest things to do--be completely objective and allow no personal opinion of any kind sneak into the text. When it did, it was invariably caught by the editor and the copy was bounced back to us with a stern note to fix it, or the editor fixed it sometimes to the point our original copy was no longer recognizable.

Bylines anywhere but on the opinion page were rare. We would get a byline if we did particularly exemplary research on a story or was reporting on an interview with a famous persona, etc. But most news stories did not bear the reporter's name and the newspaper stood behind them 100 percent.

The code was verify, verify, verify.....never speculate...never make up a fact.....the public's right to know balanced against do no harm....and if we did print something negative about anything or anybody, it had to pass the smell teste for something called 'absence of malice'.

This all began to change in the 1970's and I give the Washington Post and New York Times a lot of the blame for the change.

These days print media is a shrinking industry and, in my opinion, they are hiring less well educated news room staffs; people who are willing to work long hours for low to mediocre pay. With shrinking budgets, few newspapers are doing any in depth investigative reporting anymore--the reporter picks up a police rpeort or pulls something off the wire and rewrites a version of it. Because all too often all levels of mainstream media will run the story based on the flimsiest rumor no matter how harmful it may be to the subject. Even if the newspaper runs erroneous information on the front page with a 60-point headline and inflammatory pictures and is later forced to print a retraction, the retraction too often goes in as small type below the fold on an inside page.

There are still journalists of integrity out there both on the left and on the right. But they are becoming an endangered species.

Why would you blame the Washington Post and the New York Times in the 70's, when it seems obvious that Network television news is the prime culprit for much of this phenomenon?

I think the Times and Post started the ball rolling though. Once they relaxed the standards and got away with it, everybody else started pushing the envelope a little more, then a little more. The most glaring example was 'Deep Throat" himself/herself. Once it was deemed acceptable to use only anonymous or unnamed sources, you could say anything about anybody with impunity. And voila, there were no more ethics.

You think? How did they specificlally "relax" the standards?

And where's the ethical "lapse" in using anonymous sources like 'Deep Throat?' Especially when corruption truly existed in the White House, and at least back the, it was easier to call an American administration on their egregious acts yet to be seen by the people?

I find it a little sad that you would rush to judgement on both the Time and the Post regarding this issue. Although, to be fair, even the Post and the Times are missing some amazing news facts (confirmed, of course) that should be desiminatd to the American people. But It is the corporate interests who are running the show now, and we unfortunately have to listen to the unbelievable hypocrisy and lies of Faux News to get our information.

That should scare anyone on the both sides of the aisle. That is, of course, unless your corporate lobbyists are footing the bill for your family's vacation.

Well that was a debate topic I helped coach awhile (a long while) back. In this case "Deep Throat" was the only witness to certain information Woodward and Bernstein were writing for publication.

How do you defend yourself against an 'anonymous source' when the First Amendment still protects reporters from divulging their sources for the most part? The reporter still cannot flat out lie--well until Rathergate anyway--but can use half truths, partial truths, and innuendo to gives a very specific impression that may quite inaccurate. Without knowing who said it or in what context, you have little or no recourse. You don't know who your 'enemy' is. It can wreck your reputation, your credibility, and your confidence and peace of mind and you have no way to combat it. It is evil, malicious, and destructive.

The process I was taught is that an anonymous source can be used only if the information is presented to the subject of the conversation and the subject has a chance to give his/her side before anything goes in the paper. If the subject is not convincing but denies everything, the reporter then goes looking for a source he can name.

Such is honorable journalism. It is almost a lost art.

Gee, Fox, I didn't know you coached a debate topic like this while back.

But honestly, Fox, if you insist on a partisan tone (i.e., Rathergate, of which I totally disagree with you on), then how are we to further this discussion?

There is much we can agree on. I'm really surprised how little you've touched on regarding all the fake news being put out these days. Are there no rightwing conservative websites and/or news networks you wish to use as examples? Or are you squarely blaming all of this on a liberal, progressive media, which (IMO) doesn't exist anymore except online and in the blogs?

Well I was discussing journalism ethics with Bayinghound and the topic of this thread is in that topic with the focus on Nixon, Rather, etc. So that is the example I used. I'm sure the group is ready for another thread on media in general, however, if you would like to start one. I would prefer not to highjack this one.

And yes I have been both a debate coach and debate judge in a former life. I actually did more with extemporaneous speech than debate though.