October 2, 2008 at 9:49 am
jcrawf02 (10/2/2008)
Gov't reports on Gov't all the time. Check and balances.
I think you put far too much trust in there...
Honor Super Omnia-
Jason Miller
October 2, 2008 at 9:54 am
Jason Miller (10/2/2008)
jcrawf02 (10/2/2008)
Gov't reports on Gov't all the time. Check and balances.I think you put far too much trust in there...
Don't really have another option. I'm not really talking about judicial versus legislative, etc. More like this: http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/08/21/did-medicare-fudge-numbers-on-fraud-crackdown/
Auditers auditing the auditors.
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
October 2, 2008 at 10:33 am
Someguy (10/2/2008)
The college I attended years ago had a nationally ranked school of journalism. One evening, I attended a talk presented by a well known activist. The next day I read about the speaker in the student newspaper. I was shocked at how different the article was from what I had heard the previous night. ... You just need to make sure you have a competent and honest journalist. Unfortunately, finding one does not seem to be as easy as you might think...
Totally correct. I think part of the problem is also that the journalist is trying to summarize events and activities on a short schedule (late news is no news). It is compounded if the writer has little or no background in the topic, so may misunderstand or mishear some of what is going on.
This happens even in arenas where you expect quality information. I am very interested in history and science, so I read a lot of books on topics of interest and watch a lot of the History channel, History International, Discovery, etc.
The other night I switched off a History International program before it was five minutes into the program. The scriptwriter had tried to summarize a complex political situation in a few sentences, which included a statement which I knew to be false. If the lead includes something I know to be incorrect, I can't trust the body to provide information on topics unknown to me.
October 2, 2008 at 10:42 am
jpowers (10/2/2008)[hrThe other night I switched off a History International program before it was five minutes into the program. The scriptwriter had tried to summarize a complex political situation in a few sentences, which included a statement which I knew to be false. If the lead includes something I know to be incorrect, I can't trust the body to provide information on topics unknown to me.
I had that happen in school, my dad is a big WWII buff, so I've seen all the footage, listened to the radio broadcasts ad nauseum, etc. We watched a video on the European conflict, and the teacher asked if we had any comments. I asked him why there was footage from Midway, Iwojima and the Philippines, and what else was incorrect. He had no clue what I was talking about.
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
October 2, 2008 at 11:54 am
We need whistleblower protections and more media outlets to report on government. As long as you're not endangering lives or national security, which needs to be proven in the courts, no free passes to CIA/FBI/DHS/etc.
It's hard, but I'd like to think that having more people reporting, does two things. Raises the chances that something is better reported (assuming they're not all reporting off the same source) and reduces the power of any one outlet.
October 2, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Steve Jones - Editor (10/2/2008)BW needs to (loudly) sue the company.
What a shame it is that innocent people and businesses have to sue irresponsible people like the press to recover their damaged reputation from the trash bin the press threw it in without clear facts.
We need to come to the point where freedom of the press does not mean that the press is free to destroy the innocent.
Miles...
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
October 2, 2008 at 12:36 pm
...Maybe instead of the escrow being to the press, there is a third party (more government, I know) that administers these issues and releases findings after a timeframe in which companies should show action.
Just what we need, a ministry of official information. One sided news.
While government sometimes reports on government, often a great deal is 'overlooked' especially when no one else has noticed. Many of the government investigations into itself only occurred after private parties investigated and threw the information in front of the public.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
October 15, 2008 at 11:56 am
Steve Jones - Editor (10/1/2008)
Comments posted to this topic are about the itemFrom the article:
..I feel bad that Best Western might lose business because of this, and that could affect employees' jobs. Especially if the reporting wasn't true, but I'd rather see this happen than it not be reported. Besides, Best Western can always sue the paper for libel, and guarantee their side of the story will get out...
Steve - The problem with this mindset is that when an error is made by the reporting entity, it is the inocent and wrongly accustomed who ultimately pays the price as several replies have already gioven examples of.
This however doesn't mean that no reporting should ever occur only that it needs to be responsable. There used to be a time when the editor and his reporters took pride in being accurate and when they were wrong, they didn't spend more time on damage control then on clearing the name of those wronged by their newspaper/magazine.
Kindest Regards,
Just say No to Facebook!October 15, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Jouranlistic entities from newspapers to magazines to periodicals need to be more responsable in what they print and use of opinion pieces by these reporting entities should be outlawed. When people read the newspaper or news based magazines like Newsweek & Time, there is a level of trust and assumption that due dilligence on the part of the reporter(s) and their publisher has been taken to ensure truth and acuracy when the truth is that more time and effort is spent on presentation and content then on accuracy.
"What happened to accuracy and honesty in reporting? They became a problem, a problem of profit. It used to profit a journalist [and his paper] to seek the truth and do his best to report the news as accurately as possible. Sadly neither of these profitted the owner(s) or the shareholders. In the end accuracy became a luxury that was no longer affordable and honesty an forgotten trate. It became far more profitable to ask for forgiveness [in the form of a retraction on the back page] then expend resources on searching for the truth."
~A 20th century editor in chief of a top selling newspaper, responding to a 21st century historian
Kindest Regards,
Just say No to Facebook!October 15, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Good comments and I do agree. The initial reporting should be better done, and we strive to try and do a good job here when we announce something.
All we can do is earn your trust. Hopefully people will stop watching those places that misreport, but I'm not too hopeful.
Viewing 10 posts - 16 through 24 (of 24 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply