“Well, tabloids will never go away,” Totenberg said. “They are part of the history of at least a western democracy. But, it does show you when politicians and the news media are completely intertwined, not just get in bed together because they’ve always been in bed together a little bit, but their ownership is intertwined with the power of the press, it can get to be a very dangerous proposition, reading how frightened the leaders were to even challenge Murdoch.”
5 comments:
This administration(obama) has set in motion a slow process to turn our country into a socialist society. So far it is working , when done at a slow pace the majority doesn't recognize what is happening. As it stands now we have reached the point of no return(over 50%).
If you haven't noticed the government has it's hand in just about everything and will tax just about everything. This is from the federal level on down , they set the example.
We have become a country of over weight , lazy , non-caring drug using people.
We do not punish criminals , this leads to illegals comming here from all over the world , give me your criminals and we will support them along with all the other minorities. It makes me sick!!
Again I would like to thank our wonderful legal system. Thanks all you lawyers and judges for screwing up the country.
Why is the word journalist in quotation marks in your headline. The source article from Daily Caller uses a different headline entirely and does not refer to her has a journalist. Nowhere in the article is she referred as anything more than "Naitonl Public Radio's legal affairs correspondant."
Is this a editorial swipe at NPR, journalism in general, or just bad form?
Dan, in news-speak, a "correspondent" is a "journalist." Are you saying all the CNN "correspondents" in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't journalists?
I suppose we could get really picky here and say a "correspondent" is broadcast and a "journalist" is print, but that difference is about the medium, not the fact that they both deal with news. Some people just found "reporter" not lofty-sounding enough.
733-It was a swipe at a publicly funded organization. A publicly funded "news" organization talking about the bad reprecussions of an intertwined relationship between Gov't and Press. How you can't connect the dots is laughable. What are you employed by the current Mr. Magoo administration?
8:01 - I can connect the dots just fine, I was really questioning the decision by the SBYNews staff to editorialize in thier headline when the source material did not.
Now, the staff can editorialze wherever it pleases as it is their sandbox to do whatever they want. They have never hidden their biases, and I would not expect them too.
If the staff wanted to go after the Daily Caller for not pointing out the obvious in the story, that would make more sense. I get the joke here: a media organization partially funded by the government is criticizing government intrusion in media. Har har.
But, the only difference between the story at the source (Daily Caller) and the reprint (SBYNews) is the headline. Connecting those dots, it is obvious the SBYNews staff wrote the headliine - which leads to my original question.
Is the new headline is meant to lead readers down a path the staff believes the readers could not figure out for themselves? Is this a commentary on the Daily Caller's reporting? OR, is this just another vield swipe at NPR and any journalists that do not work for Rupert Murdoch?
The healine change seems unneccessary. I was wondering why it was done.
Connecting the dots further, 8:01, since you do not work for SBYNews (as they do not write their own Anon comments) then I was not addressing you.
Thanks though.
Post a Comment