Not quite a eulogy, especially in the comments. How widespread is that feeling? I think most many Americans still think of him as the most trusted man (if at all).
Quite to the contrary- questioning Gvt. decisions is the prime job of the reporter- upon examining the evidence. Otherwise, it becomes a "mutual admiration" club. Who will stand to defend the public interest? The Government itself? The politicians? Who?
The case of Vietnam war is illustrative- the politicians lost it, not the military or the "opinionated" reporters. Don't blame the messenger for your own faults. Poor Nixon, poor Palin, poor Clinton...
If his/her opinion somehow coincides with someone else's it doesn't mean they are shills automatically. If 50% of the country doesn't support something- there's got to be at least a few reporters who come to the same conclusion than this group of people. Does it make them dishonest, biased, corrupt or stupid? Moreover, hypothetically speaking, if this group of people happens to be right on many levels, what is this reporter to do- play dead, so not to upset the other 50%?
What is this a popularity contest?
Meantime Socrates had to bite the bullet for being right.
questioning Gvt. decisions is the prime job of the reporter
No; it's the job of a citizen. We are all citizens (in this sense), but we also have professions, and when we service in the professional capacity we need to adhere to the standards of the professions.
For example, a doctor should treat his patient even if he thinks of him as a bad human being (or excuse himself on that account; but not kill him or maim him). The same doctor, when attacked by bandits, can defend himself, including lethal force.
The problem with the journalists is not that they tend to think one way (it may come with the profession). The problem is when they pretend to report but instead either deliberately misreport or editorialize. The former does not happen too often to threaten the profession (in my opinion), but the latter is so bad that the reputation of the whole profession suffers.
However, when Cronkite was at the helm, journalists were still trusted. And what this non-eulogy says (and what I say, incidentally) is that he abused this trust.
Now regarding blaming the messenger. Remember the Soviet press? Can I blame them for presenting a distorted picture of the reality, or should I just shut up because they only talked about it?
Citizens do not have jobs as such- they have responsibilities- taxes, voting etc.
Soviet press can't be seriously even mentioned in this discussion. And yes you can blame them for everything. Just like you can blame American liberally biased media for everything: lost Vietnam war, the great meltdown, Bush, Iraq etc. It's not Goldman or Lehman, it's NY Times fault! Ah, only if Rush and Bill were on the major networks, life would have been different.
Funny thing is that we call editorializing everything that we don't like personally.
And you certainly don't have to shut up, particularly in your own LJ.
On the other hand, I think I overstayed my welcome.
When the press does not inform or misinforms citizens, the citizens cannot vote properly, and this is one of their primary responsibilities, as you mentioned. (In addition to not being able to make other decisions wisely based on misreported facts.) The role of the press is very important in the modern world, especially so in democratic societies, and especially so until the most recent times with the Internet, blogging etc giving the voice to regular citizens, not just to those who report by profession (as a job).
You have not overstayed your welcome, why would you think so?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
As far as Socrates, the difference between them was not so much in who was a better patriot but who was better informed or simply smarter.
no subject
The case of Vietnam war is illustrative- the politicians lost it, not the military or the "opinionated" reporters. Don't blame the messenger for your own faults. Poor Nixon, poor Palin, poor Clinton...
If his/her opinion somehow coincides with someone else's it doesn't mean they are shills automatically. If 50% of the country doesn't support something- there's got to be at least a few reporters who come to the same conclusion than this group of people. Does it make them dishonest, biased, corrupt or stupid? Moreover, hypothetically speaking, if this group of people happens to be right on many levels, what is this reporter to do- play dead, so not to upset the other 50%?
What is this a popularity contest?
Meantime Socrates had to bite the bullet for being right.
no subject
No; it's the job of a citizen. We are all citizens (in this sense), but we also have professions, and when we service in the professional capacity we need to adhere to the standards of the professions.
For example, a doctor should treat his patient even if he thinks of him as a bad human being (or excuse himself on that account; but not kill him or maim him). The same doctor, when attacked by bandits, can defend himself, including lethal force.
The problem with the journalists is not that they tend to think one way (it may come with the profession). The problem is when they pretend to report but instead either deliberately misreport or editorialize. The former does not happen too often to threaten the profession (in my opinion), but the latter is so bad that the reputation of the whole profession suffers.
However, when Cronkite was at the helm, journalists were still trusted. And what this non-eulogy says (and what I say, incidentally) is that he abused this trust.
Now regarding blaming the messenger. Remember the Soviet press? Can I blame them for presenting a distorted picture of the reality, or should I just shut up because they only talked about it?
Now, now...
Citizens do not have jobs as such- they have responsibilities- taxes, voting etc.
Soviet press can't be seriously even mentioned in this discussion. And yes you can blame them for everything. Just like you can blame American liberally biased media for everything: lost Vietnam war, the great meltdown, Bush, Iraq etc. It's not Goldman or Lehman, it's NY Times fault! Ah, only if Rush and Bill were on the major networks, life would have been different.
Funny thing is that we call editorializing everything that we don't like personally.
And you certainly don't have to shut up, particularly in your own LJ.
On the other hand, I think I overstayed my welcome.
Cheers!
Re: Now, now...
You have not overstayed your welcome, why would you think so?
Re: Now, now...
Re: Now, now...