> Anyway lets not forget that many journalists themselves have felt > under attack in recent years. If you arent embedded with the army in a > war zone then you may get killed, shocking numbers of non-embedded > journalists got killed in Iraq. Dan Rather came on UK telly a while > after 9/11 and talked about the climate that had been created, the > fear of saying the wrong thing lest a burning tyre end up around your > head. And in the UK it was not the politicians who lost jobs because > of Iraq War, but the head of the BBC and a tabloid newspaper editor.
Let's be careful to not muddy the waters on this. This is not about journalists. I feel for them. They can't say a damn thing or they wind up like Ashleigh Banfield. Making this about personal Journalistic endeavors muddies the waters. Journalists are pawns. They are the wigs and pasty made-up faces that are the fronts for corporate media. They are victims as much as us. Hell, they are us, just schooled, driven and focused. > > Recently there was a report by a UK Ministry Of Defense thinktank, > looking at possible future threats. Flash Mobs, Citizen journalism, > and the decline of 'quality news' were a few of the things highlighted > as possible destabaliszing factors in the world of tomorrow. Do you have a link to this report? I'd love to see it. I believe that the citizen media danger is clear and present to our 'leaders'. I think this group of people right here, on this list, are very, very scary to the Establishment. Hudack, Verdi? Scary? You bet! Zooming in a bit... I wonder why they would think this? Can any of you imagine why? I think I know why. There is a stark difference between perception and reality, and citizen journalists bring a bit too much reality and too little perception to the table. The institutions, personalities and organizations running the show right now depend upon the predictable reactions of market based institutions. AMB's moral fortitude in refusing to air that footage and passing it off responsibly throws a monkey wrench into the whole operation. Socio-political calculations cannot be made on a cost benefit form, and that's a serious problem. > Well whatever happens, media institutions have proven themselves just > as incapable of maintaining credibility as many of the other > institutions & powerhouses of the world today. Still its unlikely that > any of these institutions have been credible to the whole populace at > any time, just certain classes/subcultures of society. For example its > questionable how much the BBC's 'lets be decent thinking, non-racist > people who appreciate art' aims have ever really deeply penetrated > some sections of the working class. And this is one of many reasons > that the world and opinions Im shown on UK TV rarely match what I find > out there when I talk to people going about their 'average lives'. This is a real problem for me, as I understand that the institution and the guiding principles that I advocate, distinctly American principles I believe, never really existed. All I want is the country I was taught about in High School. That shouldn't be too hard. Cheers, Ron Watson On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On Apr 20, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: > Yeah the BBC point out occasionally that UK polls show journalists as > being less trusted than politicians. Not that I trust polls either ;) > > 90's UK TV satire of news, such as The Day Today and Brass Eye, helped > me to understand and come to terms with some of these issues, theres > loads of it on youtube if anybody is interested. > > It just keeps getting worse, the 'war on terror' has created a > thousand excuses for sensationalist, psychologically brutal, wall to > wall hype horror coverage. I grew up in the 80's UK where the BBC & > ITVs stuffy news reporting had yet to be influenced too much by the > USA news style, or the likes of Murdoch. I remember when we got > satellite and they showed the US program 'cops'. At the time I was > oblivious to the effects of such things, now I view them with great > suspicion. Not that I think the UK stuff pre-US influence was any less > potentially damaging, the tone and sombreness seemed more > 'appropriate' to me, but this is probably a cultural thing. I seem to > recall the Daily Show's Rob Courdry doing a good joy of this after the > London bombing, complaining about the English getting on with their > lives quite quietly, and how Americans like their grief in t-shirt > form. > > Anyway hardly a month goes by where there is not some equally > disturbing treatment of a story by the mass media. Those Guerilla > marketing LED cartoon character devices that were suspected of being > bombs, just look at the nature of the coverage of that. It was hardly > good for credibility. > > The (I assume USA-based) Society of Professional Journalists has a > code of ethics which includes this section: > > "Minimize Harm > Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human > beings deserving of respect. > > Journalists should: > > Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news > coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and > inexperienced sources or subjects. > Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of > those affected by tragedy or grief. > Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause > harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for > arrogance. > Recognize that private people have a greater right to control > information about themselves than do public officials and others who > seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can > justify intrusion into anyone's privacy. > Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity. > Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of > sex crimes. > Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal > filing of charges. > Balance a criminal suspect's fair trial rights with the public's > right to be informed." > > from: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp > > Anyway lets not forget that many journalists themselves have felt > under attack in recent years. If you arent embedded with the army in a > war zone then you may get killed, shocking numbers of non-embedded > journalists got killed in Iraq. Dan Rather came on UK telly a while > after 9/11 and talked about the climate that had been created, the > fear of saying the wrong thing lest a burning tyre end up around your > head. And in the UK it was not the politicians who lost jobs because > of Iraq War, but the head of the BBC and a tabloid newspaper editor. > > I assume that in reality, being a journalist has always involved > compromise. Theres many an old tale of having stories pulled for > financial or political reasons. I assume one of the hopes of citizen > journalism is that they may not suffer quite the same shackles, but I > do not like to get too carried away with this idea, independents are > still prone to commercial, audience size, money issues. They can still > be threatened legally or with force of one sort or another. > > Recently there was a report by a UK Ministry Of Defense thinktank, > looking at possible future threats. Flash Mobs, Citizen journalism, > and the decline of 'quality news' were a few of the things highlighted > as possible destabaliszing factors in the world of tomorrow. > > Well whatever happens, media institutions have proven themselves just > as incapable of maintaining credibility as many of the other > institutions & powerhouses of the world today. Still its unlikely that > any of these institutions have been credible to the whole populace at > any time, just certain classes/subcultures of society. For example its > questionable how much the BBC's 'lets be decent thinking, non-racist > people who appreciate art' aims have ever really deeply penetrated > some sections of the working class. And this is one of many reasons > that the world and opinions Im shown on UK TV rarely match what I find > out there when I talk to people going about their 'average lives'. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > --- In [email protected], Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It's the question of what's "Journalistic" that's the big thing for > > me. I think it's held up as this glorious unassailable thing - as if > > it's a part of our countries' constitutions - but i think it's > deeply > > flawed and broken. > > > > This is a really, really big subject, but I have serious > reservations > > about the way that journalists use principles like Truth and > > Objectivity to justify doing things that the majority of people find > > unacceptable. I think it's very dangerous to the moral fabric of our > > society. > > > > I think one of the potential benefits of citizen journalism is that > > it can afford to be more humane. > > > > The overwhelming majority of people i've talked to and read in the > > last couple of days have said how wrong and disgusting and > > unnecessary and unnewsworthy and even potentially harmful it was to > > release those tapes. > > > > They don't think it was the 'duty' of NBC to release them. They > > think that that's bullshit politician-speak justification and > pretext > > to cover the fact that in the end, they prioritised financial gain > > over morals. They couldn't afford to be Good. > > > > "I'm just doing my job, regardless of morals and humanity," is > not an > > excuse that goes down terribly well with most people, post WW2. We > > ALL have a responsibility to apply our moral judgement to everything > > we do, and morally question what we are told to do by others. > > > > i don't know the figures in the States, but in this country the two > > least respected professions (as found repeatedly in polls) are > > journalists and politicians. even parking wardens get a better > rating. > > > > i personally think that a lot of that has to do with a perception > > that journalists leave their humanity and compassion at the door > when > > they go into work. > > > > And that although one might think that this would lead to a clear > and > > unbiased view of the world (as is touted), it actually exposes them > > to moral corruption, because they're not allowed to use their moral > > judgement, empathy, compassion, humanity in a corporate environment > > that is motivated entirely by the quest for audience and profits. > > > > You said it's a hard lesson to learn. Isn't that because it's > > unnatural, because it goes against the grain of what it means to > be a > > responsible compassionate human being? It's being learnt in the name > > of some cold intellectual principles that are supposedly a crucial > > part of our system of political checks-and-balances, even though > your > > employers ultimately have no principles. > > > > Added to which, journalists' employers are deep in bed financially > > with those people they're supposedly there to protect us from. As > > a journalist, you've got to be careful with that kind of stuff. It > > exposes you to being happily played by your employers, exploiting > > morally questionable stories with a human cost for financial gain, > > and rationalizing it on the pretext that The Truth Must Always Out > > For The Health Of Our Society. > > > > You only have to look at the wasteland of modern American news media > > to think, "Hang On, I thought they said this was a great and noble > > profession which is there to save us from the lies, corruption and > > tyranny of our rulers. Was that a joke?" > > > > In this context, when i hear journalists using great principles to > > justify doing morally questionable things like releasing those tapes > > in the name of The Holy Truth and The Newsworthy Story, i often feel > > that it devalues both the principles and the profession. > > > > And I hope that the arrival of more non-professionals and > independent > > people with local, personal agendas will inject a good dose of > > humanity into our media. I think as many people will appreciate that > > as the minority who are sucked into rolling news's addictive > > storytelling and deferral of gratification soap opera style > > journalism, masquerading as Telling It How It Is. > > > > Rupert > > http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ > > http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ > > > > > > On 20 Apr 2007, at 15:15, Irina wrote: > > > > heath, > > i agree with you that there are no answers and this is just a > tragedy. > > but again, it's not the reporters job to be empathic, just to > report. > > having worked in a newsroom for 5 years, this was a hard lesson for > > me to > > learn. > > > > On 4/20/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > But the problem is that it is going beyond simple reporting and > going > > > into the realm of explotation. Cound the same story have been told > > > without showing the videos? Probably and while I agree that a > > > reporter's job is to report on the news, I personaly feel that the > > > job of the editor is to weigh and to look at all angles of a story > > > and then deciede what should be done. > > > > > > The problem always comes from is that you will always have > people who > > > want to look for answers, to understand "why" something > > > happened. "Were there clues, could we have prevented this, what's > > > wrong with his parenets, why wasn't he stopped or jailed" and > so on > > > and so on. > > > > > > The sad fact is MOST times there are NO answers. Life happens, > (I am > > > not saying that to sound cold or unfeeling, if you have seen > any of > > > my videos, you should know I am nothing like that) But what I mean > > > is that things will always happen that we do not understand. > > > Sometimes you can gain knowledge by digging or finding out > > > information but a lot of times it's just random. > > > > > > Me, personaly I would not have run it. I would have found a > > > different way to tell this part of the story because even > though I do > > > believe you have to report the news I would like to think we can > > > report the news and still have some remaing empathy. > > > > > > Heath > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > --- In [email protected] <videoblogging% > > 40yahoogroups.com>, > > > Irina <irinaski@> wrote: > > > > > > > > i have sat in many editorial news meetings deciding what is > going > > > to go into > > > > a story. > > > > > > > > NBC did its job in showing parts of the video on the news. > > > > it's not the reporters job to decide what's tasteful or proper > > > > it's not their job to protect the public or the victims from > > > anything > > > > their only job is to tell the story as accurately and > truthfully as > > > possible > > > > > > > > NBC was in its right to do this just as the families of the > victims > > > are > > > > right to > > > > say how much they hate NBC for doing it and for refusing to > go on > > > tv in > > > > protest. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/19/07, Heath <heathparks@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I must have missed the conversation on the solutions.. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > I think that it has to be more than just "citizen media" > making > > > the > > > > > changes though. For one because you will have a segment of the > > > > > population who does not trust "real" news people. I know > most on > > > > > this list would find that hard to believe but it is true. But > > I do > > > > > agree the best thing we can do to "force" change is to call > out > > > > > things like this. To not watch the programs and to stand up. > > Which > > > > > I know most if not all on this list do.....we just have to get > > the > > > > > rest of the world to change as well.... ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Heath > > > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected]<videoblogging% > > 40yahoogroups.com><videoblogging% > > > 40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > > > > > Rupert <rupert@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > No, I'm sure no one thinks you do agree with what they've > done, > > > > > > Heath. Totally understand your questioning, and you're right > > to. > > > > > > You said first of all, though, that you didn't think we > > provided > > > > > > solutions, we just complained about how bad MSM was - and I > > > don't > > > > > > think that's right - I think we talk about the solutions > non- > > > > > stop. > > > > > > And, my own opinion, there are no solutions to it in the > pre- > > > > > internet > > > > > > market. The solution *is* the internet and on-demand media. > > > > > > > > > > > > But now I'm repeating myself for like the twelfth time, > so I'll > > > > > shut up. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 19 Apr 2007, at 23:34, Heath wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > For the record I don't agree with what the MSM has done > and in > > > > > > paticular in deceiding to air the video....I was merely > wanting > > > to > > > > > > know "how" we can change things and how "we" can make a > > > differance. > > > > > > > > > > > > To be able to discuss things we have to look at multiples > > > angles, > > > > > > talk through situtions.....I think those things are > important, > > > it's > > > > > > the only way to counter ignorance, IMO... > > > > > > > > > > > > Heath > > > > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > > > > > > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED]<videoblogging% > > 40yahoogroups.com><videoblogging% > > > 40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > > "missbhavens1969" > > > > > > <missbhavens1969@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Absolutely positively no fucking way would I air those > > videos. > > > > > There > > > > > > > was no reason -- NONE -- none other than ratings and the > > > thrill > > > > > of > > > > > > > exclusivity for NBC to do so. Watching them gains us > nothing. > > > > > There > > > > > > is > > > > > > > nothing useful in them. The shooter is dead, and > really, what > > > > > else > > > > > > do > > > > > > > we need to know? It's beyond obvious he was mentally > ill, do > > > we > > > > > need > > > > > > > to see video proof, too? Oh, wait. Yes we do. Because the > > > > > American > > > > > > > television audience is as voyeuristic as they come. Forget > > > that > > > > > NBC > > > > > > > has played into the shooters hands. This is exactly > what he > > > > > wanted, > > > > > > > and he got it. He didn't mail the box to police, he > mailed it > > > to > > > > > a > > > > > > > television station. Now every angry, dejected, hateful, > > sullen > > > > > kid > > > > > > who > > > > > > > dreams of blowing away the school gets to see it, too. He > > > wanted > > > > > to > > > > > > be > > > > > > > a martyr and to a small dangerous set, he is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those tapes should have been held for a certain period of > > > time, > > > > > so > > > > > > > that authorities (whoever they are) could glean from them > > > > > whatever > > > > > > > they needed, and then available to anyone closely > related to > > > the > > > > > > > tragedy should they wish to see them. Families, friends, > > > > > counselors. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't wrong for NBC to edit those videos, it was > wrong of > > > > > them > > > > > > to > > > > > > > air to air them and to air them so quickly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It speaks volumes that families booked on The Today > Show have > > > > > > > cancelled their appearances because of the handling of the > > > video. > > > > > > Now > > > > > > > NBC has backpedaled and say they're going to be more > careful > > > > > about > > > > > > the > > > > > > > remaining footage that they show. Too little too late. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm disgusted by what NBC has done, and I find the idea > > > > > that "well, > > > > > > of > > > > > > > course NBC had to air the videos" repellent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bekah > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED]<videoblogging% > > 40yahoogroups.com><videoblogging% > > > 40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > > "Heath" <heathparks@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe I missed it but I still have not seem anyone > say how > > > they > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > have covered it. I only see and hear people saying > how the > > > MSM > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > covering it is wrong. So I ask out to the group, you are > > the > > > > > > news > > > > > > > > director you have the ablilty to shape how this story is > > > told, > > > > > > how do > > > > > > > > you do that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not trying to defend MSM, what I am asking is > "how" we > > > do > > > > > it > > > > > > > > differently, how do you balance it. Or any story for > that > > > > > > matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you mentioned my comment on the right to know vs > privacy, I > > > was > > > > > > > > speaking in general terms and not to this paticular > > > incident. I > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > no idea how I would feel, maybe I would want to tell > people > > > > > about > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > son or daughter, maybe I would retreat into myself, I > > > simply do > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Heath > > > > > > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED]<videoblogging% > > 40yahoogroups.com> > > > <videoblogging% > > > 40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > > Rupert <rupert@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Heath, > > > > > > > > > I guess my last post covered some of what you're > asking > > > here, > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > > > going to reply anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "And as far as the mainstream media's coverage, what > > > should > > > > > > they do? > > > > > > > > > How should they cover it?" > > > > > > > > > You're right - at the moment, this is the only way > they > > > can > > > > > > > > satisfy > > > > > > > > > their shareholders and funders. It's their way of > > > attracting > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > largest number of people. How they *should* cover > it, if > > > you > > > > > > were > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > prioritize humanity, morals, intelligence and > making the > > > > > world > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > better place, is a different matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "It's always a fine line between the right to know and > > > > > privacy." > > > > > > > > > In reference to this particular case, I really think > > you'd > > > > > have > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > hard time delivering this line to a victim of this > > > massacre, > > > > > or > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > any copycat massacre. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "I hear a lot of people on this list bash the MSM > but I > > > see > > > > > > very > > > > > > > > few > > > > > > > > > answers or way to "solve" the issues that they see. > How > > > can > > > > > we > > > > > > > > expect > > > > > > > > > anything better if we can't, won't or don't know a > better > > > > > way?" > > > > > > > > > That's *all* we talk about, even obliquely, I > reckon. The > > > > > > > > technology > > > > > > > > > we're pioneering here *is* the solution. We *are* the > > > better > > > > > > > > way. > > > > > > > > > As I said in my last post, I think things will change > > as a > > > > > > result > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > the economic threat to MSM bullshit that's > presented by > > > the > > > > > > > > internet > > > > > > > > > and on-demand media easily accessed from the couch > & TV. > > > When > > > > > > > > > there's no limit on channels and *everyone* can > compete, > > > the > > > > > > media > > > > > > > > > will want to reach out to a whole bunch of niche > > audiences > > > > > that > > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > couldn't afford to bother with before. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "And who says what is better or not better? We all > come > > > from > > > > > > > > > different backgrounds, belief's, etc. It's a balancing > > > act, > > > > > > always > > > > > > > > > has been." > > > > > > > > > Deep down, we all know what's better. We know when > we're > > > > > > buying > > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > > prurient not-public-interest press crap and > > > watching/reading > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > they want us to watch because it's too hard to do > > anything > > > > > > else. > > > > > > > > > When we consume our media differently, when there's no > > > limits > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > distribution and so no limit to choice of product, > we'll > > > > > choose > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > lot > > > > > > > > > more of the Good stuff, instead of the stuff that's > only > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > because of the imperative to maximize the > shareholders' > > > ROI. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rupert > > > > > > > > > http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ > > > > > > > > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 19 Apr 2007, at 15:59, Heath wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://geekentertainment.tv > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://geekentertainment.tv > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
