SHOULD JOURNALISTS ENABLE THE POWERFUL, OR REPORT THEIR WORDS AND ACTIONS? [+] serious ballot by Mithrandir ACTIVE Sat Mar 08, 08 - Sun Mar 08, 09 The fall-out of one of Obama's aides calling Clinton a monster was an interesting interview between Tucker Carlson from MSNBC and the journalist who reported the incident. Carlson was quite angry with the British reporter asking "what do you think the effect is on the relationship between the press and the powerful? People don’t talk to you when you go out of your way to hurt them as you did in this piece." The reporter, Gerri Peev, said there was no agreement before the interview that anything was off the record, and that she wasn't going out of her way at all to hurt the aide, she was just reporting what she heard. Although as soon as she said it, the aide did try to say that comment was off the record because she immediately realized it was inappropriate. She did resign her unpaid post as soon as the remark went public. As a further example, during his testimony at the Libby trial Tim Russert testified under oath that when talking to government officials "it’s my own policy — our conversations are confidential. If I want to use anything from that conversation, then I will ask permission." In my mind, that doesn't make him a reporter, that makes an official leaker of information. So should journalists expose the truth and report facts, or should they protect the powerful and let them censor their reporting? Journalists should report facts, and expose truth Journalists should walk a middle line between reporting and accommodation Journalists are there to act as conduits of information for the powerful Other (please comment) Ballot #123509 : SEE RESULTS Comment: show your vote with comment?

v 2.0

© BESTANDWORST.COM

smile bank: