Comments on: The public press: Transparency is our goal

By: Andy Freeman

Andy Freeman — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:05:13 +0000

Oh, the horrors of Fox.

The right will be happy to give fox to the left in return for the “inadequate” left-leaning press. You know, the major US dailys, magazines, the big three networks, CNN, etc.

By: robertdfeinman

robertdfeinman — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:43:11 +0000

I guess this means that biased organizations are OK as long as they are “open” about it. So Fox will give up its “Fair and Balanced” slogan and replace it with “Mouthpiece for the GOP since 1986″.

The point of slanted “journalism” is to make it appear fair and open. So we will still have the propagandists masquerading as news organizations and the “real” news organizations pledging to uphold an impossible standard. No matter how transparent an organization is, their prejudices will still be reflected in what stories they chose to cover, who they interview for them, and how they frame them.

Everyone has an agenda, some are more aware of it then others. The solution to biased media is more media. At least this increases the chances that slanted reporting or missed stories will be covered elsewhere.

The problem now is that Fox reaches millions and “The Nation” 100,000. It would take a pretty big scandal uncovered by “The Nation” to be picked up by Fox. In fact the recent shilling for the Pentagon by retired military men was covered by the NY Times and has yet to be covered by any of the broadcast outlets that enabled this deception.

Several are still using the same shills without acknowledging their conflicts of interest. Propagandists are not going to reform, they have a mission.

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:42:01 +0000

Alex.
We will all draw our own lines. We ask people not to tell things we say to them. That’s life. But as journalists, that should not be our starting point. And when life is public, the default is public.

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:41:08 +0000

AB,
No, as i say, there’ll always be off-the-record. My point is that we should try to reduce it as much as possible and use it as little as possible. I complained at a session at Davos about OTR in my blog. That should be the starting point of discussion.

By: AB

AB — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:22:53 +0000

So does this mean no more participation in OTR sessions at Davos?

http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/28/davos08-what-happens-in-davos-stays-in-davos/

Or does that not qualify as public? I think big gatherings marked private are particularly problematic. Sometimes it seems that their main purpose seems to be elitism.

By: alex

alex — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:13:32 +0000

here’s what i still don’t get: if journalists are journalists everywhere they post online, and anybody online can be a journalist, are we all always on the record? there may be some wisdom in having lines…and it’s got zero to do with the club vs. democracy debate.

By: Craig Newmark

Craig Newmark — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:42:52 +0000

Jeff, thanks! This does give me a lot to consider.

Are you still at the Apple Store, camped out for iPhone 2.0?