Do you still believe in journalistic integrity?

[mcHAPPY]

In 2011 the State Department, under the ethical guidance of Hilary Clinton, dictated the content of an interview with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on 60Minutes.

New government doc states @60Minutes planted government questions to shape @Wikileaks interview. If true, sad to see. pic.twitter.com/IJxK8tlfr8

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) October 1, 2015

Ironically, throughout their conversation about free speech and the freedom of the press, Kroft was feeding him questions straight from the mouth of government — more specifically, a government agency with a probable vendetta against Assange for releasing embarrassing information.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-1...ipulates-media

What makes this really incredible is it is 60-freaking-MInutes...the gold standard of investigative journalism.

Same way in the sports world as the 'bloggers' were attempted to be discredited, you had the same thing done with news sites like ZeroHedge.com. Reality is, the 'bloggers' have been right all along. Hopefully more 'mainstream' people start to realize they have been had for a very long time.


It is dangerous times we live in when the press is nothing more than a government mouthpiece.

[slaw]

I can't remember the name for the phenomenom but there is a rule about how when you read the newspaper (for example) on topics you know something about, you realize that the stories are incorrect, incomplete, misleading, etc. Then, you flip the page and without question believe the truth of everything else in the paper.

I remember years ago starting out in business and I used to read the financial papers religiously. Then I saw an article on the front page of the Report on Business where they spelled the name of a bank wrong (they kept calling The Toronto-Dominion Bank by Toronto Dominion Bank). I thought nothing of it - just a typo. Then they did it the next day and the next and I realized that the reporters and editors couldn't even bother to learn the proper names of the businesses they were reporting on. When I asked someone at the bank about the story it turned out it was all backwards and incomplete.

People should consume all media with a critical eye because the reporters and editors aren't experts and often don't understand what they are reporting on or they have very particular biases you have to acknowledge. It's easier to do in Europe where the press has never claimed to be objective and the major outlets all are known for supporting certain politicians and parties, etc. Harder over in North America where many of them claim to be objective when they are clearly not.

[Joey]

I can't remember the name for the phenomenom but there is a rule about how when you read the newspaper (for example) on topics you know something about, you realize that the stories are incorrect, incomplete, misleading, etc. Then, you flip the page and without question believe the truth of everything else in the paper.

I remember years ago starting out in business and I used to read the financial papers religiously. Then I saw an article on the front page of the Report on Business where they spelled the name of a bank wrong (they kept calling The Toronto-Dominion Bank by Toronto Dominion Bank). I thought nothing of it - just a typo. Then they did it the next day and the next and I realized that the reporters and editors couldn't even bother to learn the proper names of the businesses they were reporting on. When I asked someone at the bank about the story it turned out it was all backwards and incomplete.

People should consume all media with a critical eye because the reporters and editors aren't experts and often don't understand what they are reporting on or they have very particular biases you have to acknowledge. It's easier to do in Europe where the press has never claimed to be objective and the major outlets all are known for supporting certain politicians and parties, etc. Harder over in North America where many of them claim to be objective when they are clearly not.

The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. As coined by Michael Crichton - its a pretty interesting take on things.

Here's how he describes it:

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

Always ask questions.


Where I might disagree with his theory though, is purely with the understanding that Journalists are not experts, and therefore should not be expected to fully understand everythign they are reporting; however, they should have experts vet their story to ensure it is at the very least accurate and unbiased.

[Wild-ling#1]

The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. As coined by Michael Crichton - its a pretty interesting take on things.

Here's how he describes it:



Always ask questions.


Where I might disagree with his theory though, is purely with the understanding that Journalists are not experts, and therefore should not be expected to fully understand everythign they are reporting; however, they should have experts vet their story to ensure it is at the very least accurate and unbiased.

For those of us old enough (or do they still teach it .. or something equivalent?), this stuff is Orwellian.

War is Peace. Love is hate. The book of course: "1984". But, while I am not a conspiracy theorist (I don' think) - I think the era is now.

It's partly politics .... but partly because of the technologies. E.G. Privacy is now, much more than ever, something that can be taken away .... completely .... for everyone. This is new ...

[mcHAPPY]

The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. As coined by Michael Crichton - its a pretty interesting take on things.

Here's how he describes it:



Always ask questions.


Where I might disagree with his theory though, is purely with the understanding that Journalists are not experts, and therefore should not be expected to fully understand everythign they are reporting; however, they should have experts vet their story to ensure it is at the very least accurate and unbiased.

I think we can all agree (at least I hope) the media, at least one proclaiming itself to be independent, should not be taking talking points directly from the government - especially when the subject is producing evidence of wrong doing by said government.

[BS10]

I can't remember the name for the phenomenom but there is a rule about how when you read the newspaper (for example) on topics you know something about, you realize that the stories are incorrect, incomplete, misleading, etc. Then, you flip the page and without question believe the truth of everything else in the paper.

I remember years ago starting out in business and I used to read the financial papers religiously. Then I saw an article on the front page of the Report on Business where they spelled the name of a bank wrong (they kept calling The Toronto-Dominion Bank by Toronto Dominion Bank). I thought nothing of it - just a typo. Then they did it the next day and the next and I realized that the reporters and editors couldn't even bother to learn the proper names of the businesses they were reporting on. When I asked someone at the bank about the story it turned out it was all backwards and incomplete.

People should consume all media with a critical eye because the reporters and editors aren't experts and often don't understand what they are reporting on or they have very particular biases you have to acknowledge. It's easier to do in Europe where the press has never claimed to be objective and the major outlets all are known for supporting certain politicians and parties, etc. Harder over in North America where many of them claim to be objective when they are clearly not.

That's often how I feel when I read articles on the Raptors by our media. Sometimes its good stuff but its mostly or 90% really bad. Thats why I prefer to watch videos on our players and hear what they have to say personally because its a better indication of whats going on with the team and they're on the inside of the team so they're far more credible.

In general, I try to read everything but I try to take everything I read with a grain of salt-- almost always. There's generally little nuggets in a lot of these poorly written articles but you first have to sieve through a lot of garbage. Its both frustrating and rewarding at the same time.

I also always read multiple sources on the issue or topic and that usually helps me get a better indication of what's going on in or I just go straight to the source and get my information. It helps me formulate a better opinion and know the various sides of the issue. I sometimes read people's comments because it shows their opinion on the issue and allows me to agree or disagree depending on if I feel its worth responding to.

[mcHAPPY]

Can you tell truth from lies in mass media? RT’s Miguel Francis-Santiago delves deep to try to understand the intricacies of information war. He meets media experts and puts together the Mosaic of Facts, showing how public opinion is manipulated, not just over the Ukrainian Crisis but throughout the world.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-1...-mass-delusion

Documentary on information war.

Keep in mind the source, RT, but also keep in mind the film maker is an American.

[Miekenstien]

i live in china journalistic integrity means that the ccp is right at all times right?

[BS10]

RT's sole purpose is to undermine and discredit anything American. It's highly entertaining and often eye-opening on what's really going on in the soil of the red, white and blue. However, issues concerning Putin, it's extremely bias and generally represents him with far more integrity and more candour than what he's actually like as an individual. But he owns/funds RT so it's not surprising.

[JimiCliff]

That's often how I feel when I read articles on the Raptors by our media. Sometimes its good stuff but its mostly or 90% really bad. Thats why I prefer to watch videos on our players and hear what they have to say personally because its a better indication of whats going on with the team and they're on the inside of the team so they're far more credible.

In general, I try to read everything but I try to take everything I read with a grain of salt-- almost always. There's generally little nuggets in a lot of these poorly written articles but you first have to sieve through a lot of garbage. Its both frustrating and rewarding at the same time.

I also always read multiple sources on the issue or topic and that usually helps me get a better indication of what's going on in or I just go straight to the source and get my information. It helps me formulate a better opinion and know the various sides of the issue. I sometimes read people's comments because it shows their opinion on the issue and allows me to agree or disagree depending on if I feel its worth responding to.

When I started watching post-game interviews, and then went and read the post-game articles, and I was stunned at how often players' words would be twisted and taken out of context to create meaning that wasn't originally there.

[mcHAPPY]

As I wrote at the time of the airliner’s destruction, the Western media already had “the-Russians-did-it” story ready the moment the airliner was reported to be shot down. This story was very useful to Washington in hardening its European vassal states into sanctions against Russia, as there was some dissent. What Washington has never explained and the Western media has never asked is: What motive did separatists and Russia have to shoot down a Malaysian airliner?

None whatsoever. The Russian government would never allow such a thing. Putin would have immediately strung up those responsible.

Washington’s story makes no sense whatsoever. Only an idiot could believe it.

What motive did Washington have? Many. The demonization of Russia made it impossible for European governments to resist or abandon the economic sanctions that Washington is using to break economic and political relationships between Europe and Russia.

The Russian manufacturer of the Buk missile has proven that if a Buk missile was used, it was an old version that exists only in the Ukraine military. For some years the Russian military has been equipped with a replacement version that has a different signature in its destructive impact. The damage to the Malaysian airliner is inconsistent with the destructive force of the Buk missile in Russian service. The reports were given to the Dutch, but no effort was made to replicate and verify the validity of the tests conducted by the manufacturer of the missile. Indeed, the Dutch report does not even consider whether the airliner was downed by Ukrainian fighter jets. The report is as useless as the 9/11 Commission’s report.

Don’t expect any acknowledgement of this by the Western media, a collection of people who lie for a living.

The reason that the West has no future is that the West has no media, only propagandists for government and corporate agendas and apologists for their crimes. Every day the bought-and-paid-for-media sustains The Matrix that makes Western peoples politically impotent.

The Western media has no independence. An editor of a major German newspaper has written a book, a best-seller published in Germany, in which he states that not only he himself served the CIA as a reliable purveyor of Washington’s lies, but that every significant journalist in Europe does so also.

Obviously, his book has not been translated and published in America.

NPR, like all of Western media, has lost its integrity. NPR claims to be reader-supported. In fact, it is supported by corporations. Pay attention to the ads: “NPR is supported by xyz corporation working to sell you this or that product or service.”

The George W. Bush regime destroyed NPR by appointing two Republican female ideologues to oversee NPR’s public function. The two Republicans succeeded in making job security, not reporting integrity, the motive of NPR journalists.

As a person who worked with President Reagan to end the Cold War and associated nuclear threat, I am dismayed that the Western media has failed life on earth by resurrecting the prospect of nuclear armageddon.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-1...uld-believe-it

Obviously an opinion piece but a pretty strong opinion....

Not claiming anything here. Just sad reading.

[mcHAPPY]

You likely won't see this response in Western media....despite the fact the question was asked by a US reporter.

[Apollo]

Apparently a lot of the Toyota trucks that ISIS are using came to them via the U.S.

Google it, it's mind blowing that this news has popped up multiple times, from multiple sources, and subsequently ignored in the mainstream media. Only independent sources are reporting on it in the west.

It's hard to maintain credibility when there is an obvious blackout of certain information. It's like they're telling a story instead of reporting on a story.

[mcHAPPY]

Apparently a lot of the Toyota trucks that ISIS are using came to them via the U.S.

Google it, it's mind blowing that this news has popped up multiple times, from multiple sources, and subsequently ignored in the mainstream media. Only independent sources are reporting on it in the west.

It's hard to maintain credibility when there is an obvious blackout of certain information. It's like they're telling a story instead of reporting on a story.

It is why the next step is going to be requiring a license to host a website and copyright infringement on even linking a news article.

Google it.

Both possibilities are being discussed.

[Apollo]

It's going to be a tough sell to enact copyright infringement for citing sources and honestly, who's going to come after those who cite articles even if they do? Those places where the truth is being reported or part of the truth which fits their own stance that's being reported, why on earth would they come after anyone citing them and directing traffic to their sites or media materials? It only benefits them, bringing in more ad revenue and notoriety.

It would be difficult to enforce and it would be difficult to get people/organizations to self police. Like I said in the beginning, it would be a tough sell to begin with. How can one write a non-fictional book or scientific paper or journal without citing sources? Copyrighting is there to prevent people from stealing others' work. It's to fight plagiarism and to promote integrity.

I see this as fear mongering and it would be political suicide for anyone who would attack freedom of speech on that level.

Edit: I searched and found nothing on a permit or license to run a website. I found little on linking besides this:

The owner of a website does not require authorization of the copyright holder to link to freely accessible copyright works on another site, even if Internet users get the impression that the work is appearing on the site that contains the link, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) said Thursday.

The CJEU provided advice to the Court of Appeal in Svea, Sweden, in a case pitting Swedish journalists against Retriever Sverige, a media monitor and aggregation company that provides access to information from newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, Internet and social media.

Retriever provided its customers with hyperlinks to articles written by the journalists that were published and freely accessible on the website of the Göteborgs-Posten. Retriever did not however ask the journalists for permission to link to the articles. Retriever presented the linked articles in such a way that gave the impression that they appeared on Retrievers site.

The plaintiffs wanted to be compensated for the hyperlinks placed by Retriever because, they alleged, the defendant infringed on copyrights by linking to the articles without paying the copyright holder.

If it were an act of communication to the public, the establishment of hyperlinks would not be possible without the authorisation of the copyright holders, because E.U. law provides that authors have the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit any communication to the public of their works, the court said.

The CJEU however decided in this case that while providing links to protected works constitutes an act of communication, that in order to violate the law the communication must be directed at a new public, according to the release. By a new public the court means a public that was not taken into account by the copyright holders at the time the initial communication was authorized, it added.

More here:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/20976...cjeu-says.html