Reply
Mon 16 May, 2005 12:39 pm
Do we need a mandatory 7 day waiting period on news stories?
Well, it has finally happened, the fourth estate has stepped over the line and become involved in a massacre. For those of you who object to the term ?'massacre', I will point out that numerous instances of school and workplace shootings with a much lower body count have been given that moniker.
For years we 2nd Amendment supporters have railed against the slow erosion of our Rights by gun control advocates who claimed that the restrictions placed upon gun owners were only ?'reasonable' in the face of the deaths that were caused by firearms. We were told that trigger locks save lives and a seven day wait before purchasing a firearm is a reasonable period to allow a hotheaded individual to ?'cool down'. None of these, we were told, was a violation of the Rights guaranteed in our Constitution. The ?'voices of reason' claimed that all these things were a measured reaction to the violence and death caused by firearms.
How many times have the voices of gun owners pealed forth with anguish over the lost Rights that our forefathers gave us and asking if ?'We the people' would put up with such restrictions upon their FIRST Amendment Rights? In reply, we would always hear in reply. "But Free Speech never killed people." Or. "No one ever got written to death". So now Newsweek has the blood of fifteen people on their hands, and make no mistake, the deaths are DIRECTLY attributable to the author of the story and the editor who approved it. The entire world has just witnessed fifteen cases of manslaughter. We know the victims, we know the perpetrators and we have the weapon in our possession, yet we all know that these men will never be brought to justice in any Court because the very broad and unrestricted First Amendment protects them.
So what is the reasonable thing to do now?
Do we institute a 7 day ?'cooling off' period on stories to ensure that the author isn't ?'jumping the gun' so to speak? It sounds almost reasonable to save some lives doesn't it?
Do we institute background checks on all news people to ensure that they haven't caused any harm to anyone in their past? Well, if it protects the public, isn't it worth a little restrictions on an ?'outdated Amendment'.
Do we start issuing ?'Can Write' permits to journalists who go through a class, and pay a yearly fee to prove they can be responsible writers?
· Do we start saying that only State sanctioned professional agents can write and publish stories? I mean, since ?'unrestricted' writers have proven the damage they can cause without proper training, wouldn't it benefit everyone to have those dangerous words kept out of the hands of ?'amateurs'?
If any of the above suggestions sent a cold shiver up your spine or made you squawk out loud, you can now get the least glimmer of understanding of the way we gun owners have felt over the past few decades as restriction after restriction was placed upon what we saw as our inalienable Rights.
Understand, I am not advocating ANY of the above restrictions on the First Amendment. This is because I feel that the free and unrestricted exchange of ideas is the hallmark of our society, just as I feel that the free and unrestricted expression of our Second Amendment Rights are essential to the protection of the First.
So, what is to be done in this case? In the past, the thousands responsible gun owners have been held accountable for the actions of a few irresponsible criminals who chose to use their weapons to harm others. Will we see the media calling their irresponsible and some would say, criminal brethren accountable for their actions in this case? I doubt it
Mores the pity.
From Florida,
Fedral
Unfortunately for your premise, the idea that Newsweek is responsible for any massacre is, shall we say, false.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1339612#1339612
Cycloptichorn
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857154/site/newsweek/
"May 23 issue - Did a report in NEWSWEEK set off a wave of deadly anti-American riots in Afghanistan? That's what numerous news accounts suggested last week as angry Afghans took to the streets to protest reports, linked to us, that U.S. interrogators had desecrated the Qur'an while interrogating Muslim terror suspects. We were as alarmed as anyone to hear of the violence, which left at least 15 Afghans dead and scores injured"
They were ALARMED to hear people died???
Two important questions:
1) Is there strong evidence that stories about the desecration of the quran are true? (It seems like in spite of the minor retraction of one source, there are numerous other sources that make the main allegations credible.)
2) Should a news outlet withold an important and controverial story because it may cause violence? (I think the news media have an important job to do in spite of the possible consequences.)
ebrown_p wrote:Two important questions:
1) Is there strong evidence that stories about the desecration of the quran are true? (It seems like in spite of the minor retraction of one source, there are numerous other sources that make the main allegations credible.)
2) Should a news outlet withold an important and controverial story because it may cause violence? (I think the news media have an important job to do in spite of the possible consequences.)
Regarding number 1. I offer NEwsweeks response--""Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Koran abuse at Guantanamo Bay," Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker said in a statement, a day after apologizing for the report."
Regarding number 2, If the report will put US forces at risk, the information should be withheld.
That story had been published by the BBC, Washington Post and Al Jazeera ages ago - with nil rioting effect.
I think tailoring news to how fanatics may react is a very slippery slope indeed.
Can you imagine where that would leave legitimate stories that a government does not like???
In some exceptional circumstances, where there is a far clearer likelihood that dire negative consequences will occur - well, that is certainly worth considering - but this hue and cry is right wing witch-hunting plus 20/20 hindsight and opportunism, I think.
By a government, or those who support it, which invaded a whole country based on false assumptions and - at the kindest interpretation - known to be dodgy intelligence.
Not that two wrongs make a right...
Wouldn't it just be better if the news agencies were to do actual investigative journalism and make damn sure that the stories are accurate BEFORE printing them? It seems that there is such a rush to put out the story anymore, that accuracy is what suffers. It seems that reaction to the story was by radicals and extremists mainly because they are radicals and extremists. If they weren't just going for their own coverage, maybe the signs wouldn't all be in English, but maybe their native languages.
It seems like media in general is suffering from ratings and sales addiction, and are not going to let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Good idea if it were possible to KNOW.
Do you think governments likely to admit to Abu Ghraibs and such before they are written about?
The whole point of journalism is sometimes to force topics out in the open, and find the truth then.
What they DO have a clear obligation to do is make an assessment about the reliability of sources, and state as much asa they are able to determine about the strength of a story's sources - and state what the claims are based on - ie to be transparent about what the story is based on. Complicated by often reliable sources speaking only confidentially, of course!
Kind of what I do whan I write a report.
I certainly am not disagreeing with you about the worst journalism and its sloppiness and sensationalism!
Seven days, purported to be the start of the world. Seven days, easy to end the world in that time, give certain access.
Well, let us have a seven day moratorium and a liedown, eh?
woiyo,
Regarding number 2.
If the story were true and backed up by evidence, would you still say it should not be published "if it puts US forces at risk"?
Would you say the abuse story at Abu Ghraib (for example) should not have been published?
ebrown_p wrote:woiyo,
Regarding number 2.
If the story were true and backed up by evidence, would you still say it should not be published "if it puts US forces at risk"?
Would you say the abuse story at Abu Ghraib (for example) should not have been published?
The so-called Abu Ghraib abuses and the reporting of it should have been reported but in proper context. The way that story was comminicated exagerated the "torture" but did not place soldiers at risk.
The Koran "story", if backed up sufficiently, if different. Once this story was translated and put out by Arab media, did have a direct results in death and mayham. That should have been anticipated by the publisher and in my view, should not have been published.
Freedom of the Press should be limited to the extent security is at risk.
I did not appreciate the media publishing troop movements and stratigic policies prior to the war even though they were briefed by the Military. They gave the enemy advanced wornings of our attack.
woiyo wrote:
Freedom of the Press should be limited to the extent security is at risk.
This is the statement I most vehemently disagree with...
I personally am never surprised to see the right deplore the freedoms we have, and which were promised to the people by the framers, lest those people reject the constitution which was sent to them for ratification.
After all, how inconvenient for the meddling authoritarian to have to respect freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of the people peacably to assemble to petition the government for a redress of greivances, freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, freedom from self-incrimination, the right to trial by a jury of one's peers (as opposed to trial by Fox News), the right to be secure in one's person and effects, the right to due process . . .
All those messy freedoms, they just get in the way of the righteous crusaders.
ebrown_p wrote:woiyo wrote:
Freedom of the Press should be limited to the extent security is at risk.
This is the statement I most vehemently disagree with...
The First Amendment does not allow you to scream "FIRE" in a crowded movie theatre.
If your actions (Like publishing
UNCONFIRMED rumours about the destruction of a Koran) can have NO result other than to cause a violent reaction among those who might read the story, where is the 'upside'.
Why was it essential that we hear about this story RIGHT NOW, was there a time sensitive nature to the information? Was it too much to ask that the editor ask for confimation before going to press with this? Or was it part of the new 'journalistic' culture of publishing the flashy story as big and loud as you can and if it turns out to be incorrect, place your apology and retraction in 4 point type burried on page 60.
Journalists enjoy unprecedenced freedom to do as they wish, they frequently hold other professionals (Like doctors, politicians, etc) to inhuman standards and jump on small mistakes that these individuals make and scream from the mountaintop for their heads when those errors are made. Yet when one of their own makes one of the most elementary mistake straight out of Journalism 101, they are given a free ride and not held accountable for those actions.
I think that this writer and his editor need to be fired as a warning to other journalists that they WILL be held to a basic standard of conduct with no free passes for irresponsible actions.
ebrown_p wrote:woiyo wrote:
Freedom of the Press should be limited to the extent security is at risk.
This is the statement I most vehemently disagree with...
Why??
Is the press free to publish information about when and where a attack by US forces is to occur so the enemy would be prepared? You think that is OK??
Setanta wrote:I personally am never surprised to see the right deplore the freedoms we have, and which were promised to the people by the framers, lest those people reject the constitution which was sent to them for ratification.
After all, how inconvenient for the meddling authoritarian to have to respect freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of the people peacably to assemble to petition the government for a redress of greivances, freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, freedom from self-incrimination, the right to trial by a jury of one's peers (as opposed to trial by Fox News), the right to be secure in one's person and effects, the right to due process . . .
All those messy freedoms, they just get in the way of the righteous crusaders.
As usual, you are exagerating.
Interestingly, a number of your right wing journo friends differ.
They like the reporter - who went after Clinton - and blame the editors.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180002
They are correct in laying blame on the editor. It si the editor who decides what gets published.
You can't have a Free Press that is subject to the will of, or defers to the needs of the government and the military.
That is a basic contradiction in terms.
ebrown_p wrote:You can't have a Free Press that is subject to the will of, or defers to the needs of the government and the military.
That is a basic contradiction in terms.
So in your world, if the Press had found out the time and place of the D-Day landings, they would have had a journalistic responsibility to report it, regardless of the fact that thousands would have died and the Nazi's would have remained in power in France?
Throughout history, during times of war, there have been small restrictions placed upon published information that could have a harmful effect on your nations soldiers.
Putting soldiers at risk for no other reason than you just HAVE to publish the story is not journalism, it's a ratings grab.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace