Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I think that has to do with what I think is a misconception (at least at the extremes) of the appropriate role for a journalist and/or the demands imposed by journalistic ethics. The exposure of the international banking surveillance program was a bad call, as I think I said at the time.
|
I'd be happy if the press took one role consistently, and stuck to it, no matter which party was running the war. Problem is, the press, instead, seems to decide "the proper role of the press" based on which party called the shots. I'm not recalling the nightly vids of the East Timor massacre Clinton chose to ignore. 10,000 or so - wasn't that news? Could hardly hear about it here. And, the instant disappearance of the 9/11 vids - they weren't news? The press decided that other values trumped the news value. Heck, Rather, who was in agreement that the 9/11 vids were "too divisive" to air in spite of their news value decided that fake memos supporting his hatred of Bush were appropriate "news." No, the press doesn't need to be cheerleaders, but they also don't need to be active campaign workers.
Quote:
|
As for Foley, how old are your boys?
|
One, at least, is what our society (in several states, including the ones pertinent to the Foley mess) term "of the age of consent." Do I have problems with that? To some extent, yes. But, that's the law, right? Or, are there different classes of kids, and some of "those others" can go get laid, but not our dear little (lily white, suburban) page-material kids? (I may have a misconception on this, but it strikes me that an initiative to lower the age of consent to 16 would likely have been a liberal one, not a conservative one, but here we have the liberals decrying someone talking about sex to someone who they deem can go have it without question. If, however, the lowering-age thing was actually a conservative initiative, then I'm wrong about this.)
