What is the alternative besides more free speech investigating the lies? Problem is, you can't make people believe what's true even if you lay it out before them.
Suspect arrested for murders of 4 Idaho college students.
- Thread starter RadishRose
- Start date
Before a suspect is identified and before trial, Yes, they do and should.
Sawfish
Member
- Location
- The bottom of the sea.
Yes.
What was different, maybe, was that the public seemed to recognize the difference between tabloids and prestige broadsheets. So, tabloids were for...AHEM!..."self-gratification", and broadsheets like the NYT were serious journalism.
There is no clear line now, and often what should be in the Opinion section is reported as news.
I was uppity enough to write an email to the editor of the major newspaper here in Portland (PDX) and expressed that sone of the journalists injected personal injected personal commentary and judgement into the news stories. She basically told me to blow it out my rear.
See? This is is another instance that she ignored this sort of objective criticism simply because she could, regardless of any possible validity of the criticism. She had the power to do so, and power is a heady thing.
Kinda like the 19th C Sioux and firewater.
officerripley
Well-known Member
- Location
- Porlock, Calif
One thing about possibly why the surviving roommates "never heard anything" while the murders were happening: somebody interviewed a guy who'd roomed in that house some years ago, on the same floor the surviving roommates were, and said that you couldn't hear a thing going on in other parts of the house. Is that really true? We'll find out maybe.
Sawfish
Member
- Location
- The bottom of the sea.
I'll start by saying that I've simply quit trying.
I observe it as a phenomenon with a lot of angles, complexities, and in all honesty, people are not being educated to analzye and make judgments, but to accept as "fact" information passed to them from a favored source: people kinda "shop" for news. This favored source is hence an "authority" when all they're doing is to express personal opinion. They are charismatic, often, so it ends up being a lot like a revival meetin'...
Not sure it was ever all that much different, fundamentally, within my lifetime, but it's worse now. I think most people could sorta see the difference, and with a sense of minor guilt chose the entertaining stuff, all the while knowing that they *should* be reading quality press, but tabloids were more fun. But now I don't think that 2 in 10 can even conceive of the idea that some reporting is superior in objective quality. They know nothing about this, no more than a pit bull knows about paying checkers.
Too, I sometimes play around with the idea that formerly--our parent's gen and earlier, public figure may have tended to have had a sense of "social mission" where they actually tried to do the "right" thing, in terms of 19th C traditional ethics. I think that when Nixon did his thing, right on the heels of LBJ trying to get us killed in Vietnam, this was the first serious undercurrent of mistrust of institutions.
This is all gone now. Opinion is totally democratized: everyone's opinion is equally valid, so we're now living in a society that would make Bedlam look pretty restrained.
Sawfish
Member
- Location
- The bottom of the sea.
Frankly, I've read it both ways: someone says you can, another not.
Lots of people looking for 15 minutes of fame, huh?
I couldn't agree more.
officerripley
Well-known Member
- Location
- Porlock, Calif
True. And as to the guy who said you can't hear things going on in the other part of the house; only way I can figure that being the case is if the house were built or remodeled to be a recording studio. So one wonders.
ElCastor
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern CA
Hmmm. There are clearly limits to free speech, but the First Amendment may well be the single most important element of the Constitution. There are some who would presumably like to redefine it. I hope you are not one of those.
Sawfish
Member
- Location
- The bottom of the sea.
I'm not sure I'd even agree that there are theoretical limits, but for the sake of social compromise I'd put it at directly causing demonstrable substantive harm--the kind that can be calculated in some fashion.
I'd also entertain the idea of prior restraint for a speaker who has been previously convicted of incitement to riot--although I'm not even sure about that.
So far as I'm concerned, hurt feelings don't warrant regulation of expression. Unpleasant, but so is being thrown of off forums for simply asking uncomfortable questions.
There. I guess that ought to answer any questions as to whether I'm one of those.
RadishRose
SF VIP
- Location
- Connecticut, USA
There are 3 floors in that house.
The couple slept on the top floor
The 2 females slept on the second floor
(The 2 other female residents slept on the bottom floor.)
So, there were just two to a floor.
Last edited:
Lewkat
Senior Member
- Location
- New Jersey, USA
Isn't this what happened to Prince Andrew who never has had his day in court?
Speaking in principle of course
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
I'd say that the majority of today's journalists don't investigate their stories any further than 3 or less mouse-clicks. Investigative journalism is dead, but I'm sure it'll make a come-back because people are getting sick of it.
That said, making mistakes has nothing to do with rights. Everyone makes mistakes. When journalists do it, they should publicize an apology and retraction and correction every time, and when it's a serious mistake they should be suspended. In fact, I'd like to see journalists get reprimanded, fined, demoted and suspended when they really mess up. Maybe then lazy journalism will die.
And @Sawfish, maybe then everyone will be able to tell the difference between journalism and sensationalism.
Last edited:
Trish
VIP OAP
That was a civil suit which can be, and was, settled out of court although, I agree that an extraordinary amount of information was released in the media.
It just seems to me that the presumption of innocence (innocent until proven guilty) is at odds with a media which can print so much information about a person who has not been charged let alone faced trial.
In this case, I hope they have got the right man so the victims' families at least know that the perpetrator will face justice.
SeniorBen
Senior Member
The idiom 'if it bleeds, it leads' has guided news media since its inception. Far fewer people are going to buy a newspaper with the lead story featuring a headline of 'EVERYTHING IS FINE.' We would just assume that it pure propaganda put out by a government engaging in shady activities.
Remy
Well-known Member
- Location
- California, USA
He kind of creeps me out just from the picture. I suppose much more information will come out. Still a tragedy all around.
Alligatorob
SF VIP
So you think Prince Andrew was involved? Sounds like a perfectly good conspiracy theory to me.
ElCastor
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern CA
Answer any questions? That is a hard question to answer. (-8
Last edited:
Lewkat
Senior Member
- Location
- New Jersey, USA
I think the requirement for a presumption of innocence just applies to juries. Ordinary citizens can think and say and presume what they like.
I agree that this line is crossed all the time these days and the public seems to favor those newscasters who add smirking opinion to all their reporting.
What we do still have are laws against libel and slander. I was very happy to see Nick Sandmann, the Catholic school student who was pilloried by the press for supposedly disrespecting a Native American elder, settled his suits against CNN, ABC and the Washington Post. A federal judge did dismiss some of the suits but others were settled for undisclosed amounts.
What amazed me when it happened was that an ordinary person could go to YouTube, watch the full incident on video and see that the sixteen year-old kid had not approached the man, blocked his way, or been disrespectful at all, in fact the kid was trying to stand politely in an embarrassing situation while the older man tried to intimidate him. Clearly the people reporting the news, some of whom interviewed the kid with obvious malice and disdain, had never watched the video. "Reporting," has become so easy with the help of everyone's cell phones, but the professionals don't even take the time to watch what's easily available.
Sawfish
Member
- Location
- The bottom of the sea.
"Smirking opinion!"
Says it all! Great one!
...and really, who in journalism could you call "professional" without a bit of a smirk, yourself?
There is no sense of proportion or any attempt at objectivity around anymore.
I don't think network news smirks. It seems straightforward. Cable though, that's a different story.
Good point, Pepper. I'm not always happy with the things Norah and Lester choose to cover but they don't smirk. When I picture smirking I'm thinking of certain cable shows with the smirkers sitting in a half circle and all the women's legs displayed to advantage.
And breasts. Sick of breasts hanging out on a news show. The men wear suits, the women wear as little as possible. On one cable network anyway. Women on the news should cover up and dress conservatively; it's not about them it's about the news. Hopefully.