What's all this bullshit about "bravery" and "risk"?

[Stevendsmith]

It's "brave" to write a story about Rove? As if no one wants to touch the story about a Rove indictment? Christ, every journalist in DC is salivating over the prospect. I'm also hearing a lot about "sticking necks out" and "taking risks." If a story is true, what's the risk?

Give me an effing break.

[Make7]

1. I believe...

... they might mean that it is brave to report a story as true without either an indisputable primary source (e.g. Patrick Fitzgerald), or an overwhelming number of secondary sources with confirmation from other news outlets.

The risk would be that persons in the White House are "leaking" misinformation to possibly discredit those who report on that erroneous information. (Or perhaps there are other reasons...)

To report as a lone voice means that you must have confidence that your sources are actually relaying accurate information and are not just playing politics, or even relaying misinformation unwittingly.

We are all hoping this story is true - I imagine we shall know soon enough.

- Make7

[Stevendsmith]

2. What you have described is reckless irresponsibility.

I'm not saying that journalists never or should never take risks. And there is bravery in journalism -- war correspondence is one example.

But I heard the Leopold story characterized as a story that no one wants to touch, which is so absurd that it's laughable.

Anyway, I hope Leopold's got the scoop of the century.

PS: I just can get past the "24 hours to get affairs in order." Sounds like something you'd hear in a bad Stallone flick.

[Make7]

3. Is anyone else reporting that Rove was indicted? ( n/t )

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. No, and the conclusion one draws from that

is that there is no reasonable confirmation that he has been, not that the media cabal is conspiring to cover it up. At least that's the conclsusion that reasonable people draw.

[Make7]

11. I think I'll just wait for Mr. Fitzgerald on this one. ( n/t )

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. At this point, I wish Mr. Leopold and Mr. Pitt had done the same

...

[Make7]

18. We'll just have to wait and see if their sources are correct.

But in the meantime, let the debate rage on.

- Make7

[Media_Lies_Daily]

26. Same stuff, different day. That's all we get from you, isn't it?

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. Reporting for Duty

:eyes:

[ScreamingMeemie]

39. One could probably surmise that there were those who thought the

same of Woodward and Bernstein.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

[Inland]

44. Yes, and there's the rub. It's the same issue in a mirror.

There are those that wish Bernstein and Woodward had kept quiet, not because they were inaccurate, but because the truth was politically harmful.

That was wrong, because the truth is enough.

Conversely, there are those that applaud the article, not because it is accurate, but because the article is politically appealing.

That was wrong, too, in the context of journalism.

In both cases, accuracy is valued less than politics.

I don't think Leopold's article was a crime against man and god, but it was unwise considering the subject matter of a secret grand jury, for reasons I have posted and are now in my journal.

Clearly the hunger for a scoop, and a scoop on Rove, got the best of him.

But the really disturbing parts are the "defenses" that put truth below some other value, like "bravery" or "loyalty". It's much, too much like Fox viewers for me.

Leopold will take a smacking, but as far as I'm concerned, there's a deeper problem.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

27. Right. Keep thinking that.

[Snivi Yllom]

17. it's not brave if it's wrong or improperly sourced

It would be irresponsible journalism.

The reason the Media whores are not touching the story is they have nothing to back it up. If they did have anything, and I mean anything, it would be page one all over the news. They would love to report this.

Tell me which of the following makes more sense:

1. Jason Leopold scooped the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, the big 3 networks, Seymour Hersh, etc., and he has unique sources that the combined might of the previous mentioned media organizations are unable to contact and verify.

2. The reported indictment is incorrect and Jason Leopold's sources are either incorrect, lying, or nonexistent.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

4. How about the risk of losing your job as a journalist based on the....

...fact that the captive mainstream media is owned by major conservative corporations who would fire you in a heartbeat if you step out of line?

And if you get fired, how will you be able to find another job in the MSM?

If you're single with very little expenses maybe you could move on to an alternative news outlet and survive, but if you have a family and lots of expenses, you're going to be in major trouble.

[bryant69]

6. Than why do they allow any stories critical of the Bush Administration?

Just out of curiousity?

Or are you so far in the tank that you don't see any?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bryant69]

28. Thank you for that response

Very meaningful.

There have been stories critical of the Bush administration since the day it took office - not enough of them, and particularly in 2002, 2003 those stories were buried pretty deep.

You didn't asnwer the question, though - why do the corportist media masters allow stories critical of Bush on the air if they are so much in favor of him?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

31. Tell me how many stories critical of the NeoCon Junta....

...were reported prior to 2004 as opposed to the number of negative stories being reported today? And just how critical were the stories about the NeoCon Junta prior to 2004?

As far as answering your last question, why don't you call them and find out for yourself?

Also, while you'rew working on the first task, why don't also you compile a list of the major conservative corporate owners of the MSM and then find out to which political parties they donated?

[bryant69]

34. That's a lot of homework.

Particularly from someone so insulting.

The first project could take a month or so.

The second project isn't likely to succeed at all, as they woudn't talk to me.

The third project seems slanted - I would assume that not all corporate owners of the MSM are conservative. At any rate trying to find out whether or not conservatives donate to conservatives seems pointless. What do you expect conservatives to do?

I presume you are aware of the various studies that show how reporters vote, donate, and register?

Bryant

[Media_Lies_Daily]

38. "Insulting"?? The irony of you making that comment after....

...your earlier response which included the comment, "Or are you so far in the tank that you don't see any?", is truly incredible.

As far as the rest of your comments are concerned, I'll take them as an inability or unwillingness to answer my questions.

As to your last question, you presume correctly. But what does that have to do with the stories their allowed to report?

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. Ding Ding Ding

The silly posturing on these boards goes something like this: Nobody in the MSM wants to touch any story on the Rove indictment.

This position is so ludicrous that it barely needs explaining, but it is Gospel to some people here. The fact is, nobody in the MSM wants to say that Rove has been indicted if he hasn't, because that would be, er, foolish. To print such a story if it hasn't happened is not brave, it is stupid. Discretion, in journalism, is the better part of valor.

[Pale Blue Dot]

8. Yeah!

It's much braver for us to just type our opinions on a message board! :woohoo:

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. Would you agree that there is such a thing as recklessness?

Just in general, now. Is there recklessness?

[Pale Blue Dot]

10. In general, yes, "recklessness" exists.

So does "nitrogen", "imagination", and "Abba". All reasons never to leave the house.

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. Is it possible for some journalism to be reckless?

Just in general now. Clearly, recklessness exists in music. To wit: Abba. ;-)

[Pale Blue Dot]

16. In theory, yes, "recklessnees" can exist in journalism

That's why it would be best if nobody ever reported anything. Especially if you have confirmed sources. We are really much better off, much safer, sitting on our computers.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

35. Do you remember, once upon a time, when the MSM actually....

...raised important questions in newspapers, magazines, radio, and television?

Do you remember a time when editors and owners were willing to support the reporting of an important story...and be the first to do so?

Seems so long ago.

[symbolman]

45. I do, even Met Chronckite in person - I'm 53 years old

So then by your rational Will Pitt IS responsible for Leopold's article come what may, as the OP, and the one who made the decision that it was Bulletproof, and to run with it on His site?

Will Pitt is JUST as responsible for this story as Leopold is, they are joined at the hip.

Or do you deny the supposition you just raised?

[Make7]

15. Oh my God! The "nitrogen" is INSIDE the house! It's all over! ( n/t )

[Jeffersons Ghost]

13. it's Rove's new media program

[shadowknows69]

19. The whole "scoop" mentality

makes for sloppy journalism occasionally. I never saw the benefit of scooping a story which is going to be universally covered anyway when it breaks. If you have an exclusive that's where you earn your accolades.

[Inland]

42. Well, yeah.

"Scooping" a story isn't SUPPOSED to be brave and risky. For this article, it's something that's going to be released in two days' time.

It's not exactly the Pentagon Papers, or reporting from Darfur. It's getting a story first, and that's all.

This concept that bravery somehow makes it incumbent to defend the piece even if it is inaccurate is ludicrous.

[Maddy McCall]

20. If you ever wondered how Jim Jones or Adolf did it...

look no further than some of the threads in this forum. The dynamics have been, um, very informative.

The cult of personality is alive and well at DU.


(And some of you who have obviously applied zero critical thinking skills to the article in question, don't even start your tirade that I've compared Pitt or Leopold to Jones or Hitler. However, I am comparing people who unquestioningly place all of their faith in a figurehead to you.)

[Pale Blue Dot]

23. Wow! I'm in a cult!

I'm glad you're immune from insane generalizations. The important thing is that you see into my soul.

Now pardon me, Will Pitt wants me to drink some Kool Aid and Jason Leopold would like me to murder all members of a particular ethnic group and I'm only too happy to oblige.

[symbolman]

46. Nice reaction there

answer a valid question with actions only an insane person would commit.

How does that answer the question? It doesn't. It avoids it.

Nice work. Great dodge. What's for dinner, Red Herrings with Little Strawmen on the table for decorations?

Still doesn't sound rational to me, why not explain why some of the folks here aren't exhibiting all the signs of those from a Cult?

[charlie]

25. Everytime you doubt

a baby koala dies. Do you really want to be doing that?

Not me.

*Throws cape over shoulder, dons mask, juts chin, heroically faces the brickbats of naysayers*

[Media_Lies_Daily]

29. Yes, indeed....the "the dynamics have been, um, very informative"....

...those that are willing to trust liberal journalists that have been willing to report a story nobody else has the courage to touch, and those intent on denigrating them.

Those that are willing to accept a correction to a mistake, and those who obviously believe themselves to be completely infallible.

On which side of those equations do you fall, Maddy McCall?

[Maddy McCall]

30. On the west side of the Rhineland.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

32. I'll take that as a non-response.

[symbolman]

47. Man, you seem to be on the spot so often

that if I could hire you as a body guard I would. The only problem is that you appear to be saying that everyone is attacking them, while at the same time are actually attacking ANY questioning of Pitt, Leopold, Raw Story, Truthout.

The funny part about it is that for some reason you seem to believe that 95% of the entire media, DU'rs, other sites like Kos, world,etc are AFTER THESE GUYS..

It's approaching the speed of light in it's absurdity..

Okay, let's say that Leopold is wrong on this, are YOU going to apologise for all the people YOU have accused?

I think it's going to keep you pretty busy.

[mmonk]

21. Real journalism is always a risk

when new legal outlooks exist such as spying on news organizations to discover "leaks" that are not favorable to our RULERS.

[Maddy McCall]

22. I agree with that.

"REAL" journalism can be risky.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

33. How do you define "real journalism"?

[ScreamingMeemie]

37. You have to ask? In today's world? Where respected newsman

Dan Rather no longer graces the television, where is the risk? Why don't you ask Mr. Rather.

[Maddy McCall]

41. .

[DisgustedTX]

43. BRAVO!!!!!!!

We do not all shout SH!