|
|
May 19, 2013
|
|
|
|
 No Freedom of Speech for AP JournalistsPosted on Jul 9, 2011
A deputy managing editor at The Associated Press has issued a formal warning to the company’s employees after two journalists voiced their opinions on New York’s approval of gay marriage and the Casey Anthony murder trial on social media sites. “These posts undermine the credibility of our colleagues who have been working so hard to assure balanced and unbiased coverage of these issues,” wrote Deputy Managing Editor Tom Kent in an email. For its “bad faith” insistence that reporters should publicly divorce themselves from any and all thoughts and emotions that arise out of their work and behave strictly as instruments of the press—a common view among members of the mainstream media—the remark should have Sartre spinning in his grave. —ARK
> Advertisement TAGS:
|
The Lotto Symbolizes the False Promises of Barracuda Capitalism
 . '/' . substr('9780805043815',-6,3) . '/' . '9780805043815' . '.jpg'; ?>)
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By D.R. Zing, July 9, 2011 at 11:16 pm Link to this comment
the street drivers fear
the echo of the jack boot
the night of broken glass
they do not see
that the soles of patent leather
reflected in the plate glass eyes
of skyscraper executives
have a much more sinister resonance
than any government heel
ever did
July 10, 2011. D.R. Zing. Business Heels: General Guidelines and Social Network Policies
Report thisBy Napolean DoneHisPart, July 9, 2011 at 4:01 pm Link to this comment
Who cares?
The journalists ( if they can be called that, for their lack of true reporting is always lacking substance ) should be giving their opinions of the economic and political wranglings and shenanigans the world over… maybe some honest opinions from the keepers of the narrative and of revision is what can wake more people up… but that is a no no for the hegemony.
My how these people know how to further WMD’s ( Weapons of Mass Distraction ) and sift every last drop of dumbing-down drama from media circus stories like Casey Anthony.
Report thisBy Gary B. Larson, July 9, 2011 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Our constitutional First Amendment right freedom of speech (and press) protects us from the government preventing us to say or print things. It also protects us from the government telling us what to say or print.
That protection, however, doesn’t apply to a private organization, such as the Associated Press, telling its reporters what to say and write. As a trained journalist (who moved into public relations years ago), I was fully aware of the limits I needed to accept to protect my credibility as an unbiased, fair reporter. As a voter, I could (and did) express my point of view privately. I wasn’t certain then about whether I should express myself privately in letters to my elected representatives; now, I think I could have. On the other hand, because financial contributions can become public information, making them could become a problem for a reporter who’s trying to appear unbiased.
All that said, I eventually became concerned about carrying objectivity to the extreme. Is it fair and honest to treat two (or more) sides on an issue equally when one side (or more) is presenting false or incorrect information (perhaps intentionally) and basing its opinions on that information?
Reporters and the news media have limits in space and time to present all available information, so they must make choices on what to report. Is it fair and honest for reporters and the news media to present information without acknowledging—with public acceptance—that choices, analysis and judgments have been made in reporting certain facts and opinions?
Report this