Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm thinking bbboy has infiltrated the american lawyer.
|
I'm thinking West has advertising in the american lawyer, but I'm sure that would be studiously ignored.
Anyhow, to pull the discussion back into abstraction, it appears to me that "journalistic ethics" such as they are are in flux, and are slowly shaking down to be much more like legal ethics: zealous advocacy for your client. Someone else will zealously advocate for the other side if it can pay; some half-assed web-blogger will advocate for a side that can't afford press junkets and color advertising, if he has time and finds out about it; and people seeking to impartially judge the truth of the matter will assume that everyone is artfully lying to them and producing biased shite and 9 times out of 10 they will need to sort out the facts from the advocacy all by themselves and come to a conclusion somewhere in between - or just side with whoever confirms their own bias.
That's sure as hell the way I consume the media these days.
edited to add: there's no other explanation for the incredible incompetence of the New York Times, the complete inability of Fox and MSNBC to quit screaming long enough to even make a gesture at impartiality, the cretinous hack-jobs that pass for "intelligent" commentary at once respected journals like Harpers or the Atlantic. The only mystery is if or when the media will fess up to it, or continue to pretend to independence.
