I'm sorry, Washington press corps, it's now OKAY for journalists not to be independent?

[Writer]

There have always been news organizations with slight ideological bents, but the major core of news, since the 1900's and the establishment of the SPJ, has been to strive for independence from political influence. At the moment, Fox News isn't meeting that standard, and neither is MSNBC. Is this an indication that journalists think that the SPJ Code of Ethics is somehow archaic and out of step?

Here is their code...

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

An administration has the right to rhetorically battle a news organization attacking it. The question of access is fuzzier: There are no rules prohibiting a government from restricting access, so the Obama administration needs to be careful about abusing that wiggle room. However, the bigger question is:

If it's "okay" for a news organization to operate with such a strong partisan perspective in today's media world, do we need to revisit SPJ's ethics?

[Eric J in MN]

1. spelling: "press corps" (NT)

NT

[Writer]

3. Thank you. That is a nasty misspelling habit of mine. n/t

[janx]

2. Good luck trying that...

:hi: I appreciate your ethics, but news networks--particularly cable news networks--are making so much money that they'd most likely refuse.

It's a drag. What passes for news now is a bunch of partisan, tabloid junk, and there's entirely too much of it.

[Writer]

4. They're not my ethics, but the SPJ's ethics. Should they now no longer apply?

Are they now "old-fashioned?"

[janx]

5. Of course they should still apply.

But there are a lot of journalists and wanna-be journalists who don't follow these standards.

[Writer]

8. Right. That's the question I'm begging. Is this now the time for a renewed debate

on journalistic ethics?

[janx]

12. The current administration seems to have kicked off an opportunity

to do so, but I'm not sure what is in store for us. All I know is that right now, and for at least the past ten years or so, it has been all about greed.

At least President Obama, Axelrod, and Gibbs are watching the media outlets and being honest.

Have you ever read some of the writings of the independent journalists in Harper's Magazine?

[OnyxCollie]

6. Kick. nt

[janx]

7. I'm very glad you posted that link, by the way.

It's amazing how far many media have deviated from that list, notably in the realms of sources, context, etc.

[SeattleGirl]

9. Actually, MSNBC doesn't advertise itself as a "news" organization like

Faux does. MSNBC's tagline is "The Place for Politics", and while there are people who do report news stories, they also don't try to hide the fact that a lot of the people they have on the air give their opinions. That's a big difference from what Faux does. They claim they are a news organization, yet they put out more opinion that news.

[janx]

10. MSNBC is not always "The Place for Politics," is it?

And they only started airing Olbermann and Maddow when it was monetarily safe to do so. They were just as negligent in their reporting during the run-up to the Iraq War as any other news channel.

[Writer]

11. Yes. In fact, they used to call themselves "America's News Channel." n/t

[janx]

13. I'm not sure that aping Fox is such a good idea.

The market was there, and they knew that, but sometimes Olbermann and Maddow seem too silly. Obermann was refreshing at first, but I'd like to see a more measured approach. While I agree with them ideologically, I'm not such a sucker as to appreciate some of the cartoon and voice imitation antics.

Take me back to the News Hour! ;-)

[Writer]

14. Jim Lehrer is the shiz-nit.

He's journalism ethos to the 'nth degree. Waaaaaaaaaaay.

[janx]

15. HAHA! True!

When my son was two, we were at his grandmother's house. She watched McNeil/Lehrer every night when she got home from work. When the music came on at the end of the newscast one evening, he said (as he stood in his "footie" PJs): "NO FINANCIAL NEWS TONIGHT!"

:rofl:

[SeattleGirl]

17. I'm not saying they weren't negligent. I just think it's a false comparison

to think MSNBC is doing the same thing Faux is.

[janx]

18. When it comes to advertising revenue,

it is not a false comparison.

[janx]

16. kickerooski

[Writer]

19. Heck I'll kick it.

:kick:

[janx]

20. I'll kick it again!