Michael Barone likes to say that he started out as a lawyer (he would have made a superb one), became a political consultant, and ended up as a journalist. He then says that if you graphed the honesty and integrity of the three professions, the line would go steeply down.
I can't opine about political consultants. The only one I ever got to know at all (other than Barone) was Joe Trippi, whom I consider very decent.
But as to lawyers and journalists, Barone is spot-on. I've known some slippery lawyers. But with only a very few exceptions, the lawyers I dealt with in a 35-year career stack up favorably against most journalists I've encountered in terms of honesty and integrity.
There are two broad criticisms of mainstream media journalism. The first is as you describe, thr various and assorted ways it molds bends and distorts facts to create the reality it wants to create. This includes taking at face value the statements of known liars (Like the White House or the "Gaza Health Ministry." The other is in some ways just as if not more dangerous. The entire industry seems to have eliminated any standards of proof necessary before running a story. It is my understanding that in the past, serious journals would have to find two sources of proof before running a claim. Now there doesn't even have to be one. The old standard was "only print what's true and we need two sources at least to verify it." The current standard is "print whatever. All we need is someone to state it is true without regard to their credibility." Under current standards the NY Times could quote Joseph Goebbels for the assertion that WWII was orchestrated by the Jews.
Michael Barone likes to say that he started out as a lawyer (he would have made a superb one), became a political consultant, and ended up as a journalist. He then says that if you graphed the honesty and integrity of the three professions, the line would go steeply down.
I can't opine about political consultants. The only one I ever got to know at all (other than Barone) was Joe Trippi, whom I consider very decent.
But as to lawyers and journalists, Barone is spot-on. I've known some slippery lawyers. But with only a very few exceptions, the lawyers I dealt with in a 35-year career stack up favorably against most journalists I've encountered in terms of honesty and integrity.
There are two broad criticisms of mainstream media journalism. The first is as you describe, thr various and assorted ways it molds bends and distorts facts to create the reality it wants to create. This includes taking at face value the statements of known liars (Like the White House or the "Gaza Health Ministry." The other is in some ways just as if not more dangerous. The entire industry seems to have eliminated any standards of proof necessary before running a story. It is my understanding that in the past, serious journals would have to find two sources of proof before running a claim. Now there doesn't even have to be one. The old standard was "only print what's true and we need two sources at least to verify it." The current standard is "print whatever. All we need is someone to state it is true without regard to their credibility." Under current standards the NY Times could quote Joseph Goebbels for the assertion that WWII was orchestrated by the Jews.
Its not that they Lie, its that they lie Stupidly. It appears they STILL don't understand there 1000's of eyes watching them.
The 14,000 babies was refute in about 47 seconds after it was published.
Dear Corporate Media
GET A CLUE!