On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Joe Hass <[email protected]> wrote: > In the current environment, it is perfectly acceptable to report that > another outlet is reporting something, provided you identify that outlet. > That said, it's spectacularly lazy and I would ask the editors who make that > decision if they're willing to accept another editor's opinion without the > knowledge to back that up. Because as you note, people don't give a rat's > ass if you're just quoting another agency: they just know you're reporting > it.
People wonder why the bills to label genetically modified foods didn't pass. I don't wonder. We are living in a society thriving on ignorance. People in general aren't interested in either being educated or educating themselves. They certainly have no interest in who is actually providing the "facts" offered in the news. It is the concept now embedded in society where it is believed all voices are equal. Where the uninformed stands side-by-side with the informed, and both carry the same weight through the prism of media. Scribblings etched into the toilet paper dispenser in the men's room of a truck stop are treated no differently than a scholarly thesis that took a decade to research and several years to compile and edit. The guy on the street corner shouting that the end of the world is nigh merits his own cable talk show. OK... done venting... for now. -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
