We need to face the reality: the profession of journalism, which was always more apparent than real, no longer exists.
Ethical practices have been abandoned; the 'rules' are only mentioned when one is slamming a reporter for writing or broadcasting a story one doesn't like. For example, the right wing was all over Rather for his poorly sourced story on Bush's TANG records. They have no such problem with right wing papers and media who do the same thing every single day.
We need to support truly independent press and media, including blogs and other internet sources.
We need to withdraw our support for the corporate press/media by declining to subscribe, purchase, watch or listen.
This will not be easy, but we can de-fund the corporate media. We no longer need them.
Posted by James E. Powell at October 13, 2005 10:51 PMI went to your link and sent each of them a link to the "What Judy Did" series. That should be good for a laugh.
Posted by obsessed at October 13, 2005 10:52 PMI agree with your analysis. it's a crying shame to give any award to that total neo-con in journalist's clothing, judy miller. is there no shame?
Posted by michael72 at October 14, 2005 02:28 AMJudith Miller honoring and presenting an award to Mark Felt? How sick is that! Someone in Felt's family should tell the SPJ that he will accept no award if Miller is the presenter.
Posted by Judith at October 14, 2005 05:26 AMI guess the only requirement to receive the SPJ award is to spend time in prison. Scary, down right scary.
Posted by Judith at October 14, 2005 05:31 AMh yh, frgt th lft s th rbtr f th 1st mndmnt nd wht s ccptbl jrnlsm.
[Editor: ignore=off]I'm constantly amazed at Bendito's inability to differentiate between offering criticism and attempting to limit free speech.
I'm guessing 12, maybe 13, years old?
Posted by snark at October 14, 2005 06:04 AMWhat better place to celebrate WHORING than Las Vegas. It's legal there, isn't it?
Posted by Sharon at October 14, 2005 06:20 AMJames, I'm working on it. Earlier this year I cancelled my daily and Sunday subscription to the Chicago Sun Times and made sure to write a letter to the publisher, John Cruikshank letting him know that as long as Robt. Novak draws a paycheck, I won't be back. I'm still trying to give up the Tribune, but it could happen if it gets much worse.
Posted by weinerdog43 at October 14, 2005 06:38 AMWhat better place to celebrate WHORING than Las Vegas. It's legal there, isn't it?
Technically, no.
But some are working to change that.
Currently prostitution is prohibited in Clark County, the home of Las Vegas, because it's population exceeds the legal max of 400,000 residents allowable to establish brothels.
Of course none of this means that one can't obtain a lady willing to escort you to your hotel room if so desired. But that's not uncommon in any large metropolitan area now is it?
As far as Las Vegas in general is concerned I think it's a great place. I think legalized gambling was better when it was available in only limited locals. I'm a low limit gambler. I enjoy playing cards and I'm fairly good at choosing slot machines that are more likely to cough up some of the house's money. I enjoy it. I only do it in Vegas. Live in New York. Never been to Atlantic City. Only been to the Connecticut casinos twice (can't stand 'em). Vegas is an escape for my wife and I. It's an experience. You want to talk about a cross section of society! Won't find a better one then in a Las Vegas casino. Being from the east coast it was real interestin' when we were there for the National Finals Rodeo! Yehaw! People watching in Vegas is great. The restaurants are great. The weather is great (if you like hot and dry). It's about as detached from reality as you can get. And everyone needs to detach from reality every now and then.
If you've never been to Vegas you should go. Either you'll love it or you'll hate it. That seems to be a general rule in my experience.
I like to call it Disneyland for grown ups.
Posted by snark at October 14, 2005 07:05 AMOn a lighter note: I just watched Charade with Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant (yum). So weinerdogs's reference to someone named Cruikshank kinda freaked me out, as ultimately Grant's character was named that. Earlier he had other names, and Walter Matheau said he was part of the CIA..... I'm hearing the theme to the Twilight zone right now.
Posted by Sharon at October 14, 2005 07:06 AMWhat has this country come to?
It's not the country, it's journalists.
Didn't international journalist organizations rush to defend Judy?
Posted by liberal at October 14, 2005 07:42 AMMiller's being feted because she is what the rest of them want to be -- famous, well-paid, well connected.
'Honest', 'fair', and 'hard-working' aren't on the list.
The whole thing stinks -- like a 'scholar-athlete' awards dinner in the SEC.
Posted by at October 14, 2005 07:57 AMI wrote a letter to the SPJ. I don't know why Judy Miller is up for this award, as she is clearly not a journalist, but a writer of fiction.
Posted by madamab at October 14, 2005 08:22 AMDear Mr. Harper:
I aplaud the work of your organization, but am very concerned about your plan to award Judith Miller from the New York Times a "First Amendment Award." She could very well be a deserving recipient, but the facts of this case are not yet known to the public and it is folly to make the award until those facts are part of the public record.
Like many Americans, I was confused by the conflicting information leading up to the invasion of Iraq. I wanted to make a non-partisan, informed decision before either supporting or protesting the invasion and relied on the New York Times to provide coverage not influenced by administration political pressure. Judy Miller's coverage was instrumental in convincing me that the threat from Iraq was real. The fact that her reporting was terribly inaccurate and highly biased when the topic was of such importance calls into question much of her behavior in the last months. As I said, I have no idea whether or not her actions in protecting her source were noble or self-serving, but there is certainly good reason to wait until the facts are in before rewarding what could turn out to be an egregious abuse of insider information. You risk the credibility and reputation of your organization--this could be the equivalent of the "Medal of Freedom" debacle for journalism.
Sincerely,
Michele Manion
Minneapolis, MN
michelemanion@gmail.com
If you chack out the background of many of the reporters and editors from the so called major corporate media outlets, you'll find that many of them went to exclusive, often ivy league schools. It's very rare for someone like Peter Jennings to come up from a humble beginnings and reach the most prestegious level anymore. That's why you gets sophists like Dick Cohen saying that Fitzgearald should get out of his town. They really do think that they're part of an elete and the traditional adversarial role that should exist between the press and the government has been replaced by an insiders club.
Posted by rlp at October 14, 2005 08:38 AMReporters should be protected from revealing the identity of their source when their source is exposing corruption (i.e. Mark Felt).
Reporters should not be protected from revealing the identity of their source when their source IS the corruption (Libby, Rove, et al.).
Miller didn't go to jail to uphold a noble principal, she went to jail to protect a future stream of inside information and to be able to claim she spent the longest time in jail to "protect a source" on the cover of her new book. More like protect a scumbag.
Posted by coltergeist@comcast.net at October 14, 2005 08:54 AMYou mention that Bruce Sanford of Baker and Hostetler is going to be on the panel with Victoria Toensing.
I have been commenting on this nepotism over at TPM Cafe - link above. (in response to Larry Johnson's response to Cohen's piece, to make a full circle...)
What is interesting to note is that Victoria Toensing and Bruce Sanford wrote an op-ed piece together in January, 2005 in the Washington Post, which was limned in Media Matters on January 14. (Links are all in the TPM Cafe post)
Baker and Hosetler was the law firm who wrote the Amicus Brief on behalf of 36 media organizations asking that Cooper and Miller be not compelled to divulge their sources. (link also in the mentioned post). Victoria Toensing was the lead attorney. She is a close personal friend of Bob Novak.
To summarize, they all have the same interests and feather their own nests. You just have to dig a little deeper to see the links.
Posted by DJBaker1537 (seeTPMCafe) at October 14, 2005 09:04 AMCrap! Posting too much today
I meant "Judy Miller" not "Victoria Toensing" Sorry about that!
Posted by DJBaker1537 (seeTPMCafe) at October 14, 2005 09:05 AMI meant "Judy Miller" not "Victoria Toensing"
How can you tell the difference?
Posted by benjoya at October 14, 2005 09:13 AMJournalism died with the unfortunate births of Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black. May plague and pestilence visit both of them, and soon.
Posted by tempus at October 14, 2005 09:33 AMthis issue is utterly crucial to our democracy, and we need to start framing the debate in its principled terms and get away from the pedestrian notions of 'source protection'.
LEFTCOASTER, YOU; PAY ATTENTION HERE!!!!
you and all your journalist buddies who risked exploding heads agonizing over judy's visit to the slammer, YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT!!
democracy is doomed if journalists continue to insist on 'source protection' as some founding principle that renders themselves and their sources infallible and immune.
nowhere, NO WHERE does the First Amendment guarantee source protection, or reporter protection. so where would such a notion come from? clearly we must step back and examine the principle that IS embedded in the First Amendment to see how any form of source protection might be considered, and how that principle defines, shapes, and limits the application of source protection, which is and must always be interpreted in terms of the larger principle at stake here.
The value of source protection can only be understood when considered within the larger framework of the purpose of the First Amendment in general, and the Free Press in particular. The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the people from overreach of governmental powers; the purpose of a Free Press is NOT to protect any and all sources from any and all information exposures, and NOT to protect any and all reporters from consequences of revealing those sources. The purpose of a Free Press is to protect the press from the influences of power, particularly governmental power, so that they may freely expose abuses of that power; in this way, and in this way only, will the people be protected from those abuses by being fully and truly informed, and democracy be allowed to flourish.
ironically, judge hogan clearly demonstrated his sensitivity to this distinction when he explained to miller that he was sending her to jail because "this is not a whistleblower case....it's a case in which the information she was given and her potential use of it was a crime....this is very different than an whistleblower outing government misconduct."
fitzgerald also demonstrated this same sensitivity when he explained to sidney blumenthal that miller was not protecting a whistleblower, but someone in the government who had attacked a whistleblower.
first of all, those of you like leftcoaster who suffered such cognitive dissonance at judy's jailtime can hopefully now be comforted in the nirvana that justice - acting in the interest of our democracy and each of us as citizens - was actually executed here.
second, i beg ALL of you out there to participate in elevating this debate to its appropriately principled level, and bring it out of the pedestrian 'source protection' streetcorner. this is utterly crucial to our free press, which is essential to our democracy. consider where that pedestrian debate is taking us:
novak and safire and bob dole (?!) among numerous other strange fellows have avidly jumped into this traditionally LIBERAL shield law bed. does that in itself not at least give one pause, if not the willies?
because the debate has been stalled at the 'source protection' concept, the federal shield law now making its way through congress will not only deprive the internet medium of journalistic identity and protections, but (and this part is really chilling) it will allow all the roves out there from now until eternity to mislead, misinform, and propagandize with impunity.
and neither they nor their unprincipled shilling mouthpieces will suffer any consequences.
think about it; this is the watershed moment, folks. not only will the elevation of the debate force principled considerations into the shield law discussions, but into discussions about 'pr in government', media ownership, and - hopefully - the return of the fairness doctrine.
then DO SOMETHING!!!
and as for you, bendito, get a clue. it happens that the entire existence of the first amendment is by definition, liberal!!! better yet, get a constitution. that, again, is a liberal document. and this is not about what is 'acceptable' journalism; this is about what is PRINCIPLED journalism. evidently the conservative faction is content with acceptable, as has been so clearly demonstrated by having them control all three branches of our government for recent years. what a peculiar standard: shoot for mediocrity and be happy with failure.
Posted by lll at October 14, 2005 09:34 AMJudith Miller is a greater threat to the First Amendment than Patrick Fitzgerald will ever be.
Where is the Main Stream Media (MSM) focus on Judith Miller and her bogus WMD stories in relation to Plamegate, Libby, Rove, et al? During her appearance on Lou Dobbs Tonight, he acted as if she were Joan of Arc and Mother Teresa combined. His statements about Patrick Fitzgerald and Judge Hogan were amusing yet disturbing, especially when he said, "I will not forgive Fitzgerald for what he did to you. I think it is an onerous, disgusting abuse of government power, and that of Judge Hogan, straightforwardly." That "First Amendment" argument was an impressive act, but tanked at the box office. If a source of mine manipulated me, and in the process broke the law to smear somebody, I'd out them no problem. They would have violated my trust and my ethical standards. The exception of course would be if I was in on it. Then I'd probably draw my line in the sand; I'd huff and I'd puff and I'd...you see where I'm headed. Reporters have only their reputations, and if that reputation is you're a crony, a soft touch, or a liar, then you're not much use as a journalist and need to move into the columnist arena with the likes of Bob Novak. In my humble opinion, Judith Miller is just another bad reporter with an agenda, and needs to be exposed for the phony she is, like Janet Cooke, Patricia Smith, Jay Forman, Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair were before her. When FAIR and AIM agree that she's a sham, then the MSM needs to stand up and take notice; not enable Miller to continue her charade. If reporters in Indonesia can unite against their journalistic charlatans, then so can the country that founded the First Amendment, and the New York Times who fostered her lies.
while it may or may not make you feel better, unethical, sensationalistic journalism has a long (and sordid history) of influencing public decision. from Wikipedia's entry on yellow journalism:
The Yellow press
The sensationalized human-interest stories of the yellow press increased circulation and readership heavily throughout the 19th century, especially in the United States. Early practitioners, such as Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, seem to have equated the sensational reporting of murders, gory accidents, and the like, with the need of the democratic common man to be entertained by subjects beyond dry politics. Two early yellow newspapers were Pulitzer's New York World and Hearst's New York Journal American.
The term derived from the color comic strip character The Yellow Kid, who appeared in both these papers. (See also symbolism of yellow)
[edit]
Hearst
While most early newspapers tended toward expressing a viewpoint, the prototypical example of yellow journalism was the late 19th century Hearst Newspapers' consistent and deliberate falsification of whole incidents, claiming a humanitarian crisis among Cubans at the hands of Spanish troops. Hearst had personally written or directed the production of a number of sensational stories that exaggerated the claims of Spanish cruelty toward their Cuban subjects. The stories, combining both a sense of urgency and moral outrage, were wildly popular, and Hearst directed his papers to market and exploit this trend to the fullest.
Having contributed to rallying public support for the cause for war, Hearst tried to influence the political vote as well. Along with the destruction of the U.S.S. Maine, this reporting sparked a public outcry that led to the Spanish-American War. Americans would soon find themselves taking over control of both Cuba and the Philippines from Spain, and Hearst found himself courted by politicians seeking his powers of influence.
his money quote, in sending photographer to Cuba, was:
"You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."
So, in sum, yellow journalism is nothing new...
Now, on todays' topic of Judy Kneepads and the Vegas junket, I think the appropriate response would be to stage a counter-convention of bloggers, at the same time and place, to show the public the difference between the two groups...
hm. leftcoaster, after reading your post more closely, it appears i read the lamentations of atrios as your own; my deepest apologies. i will immediately let him know the caps were meant for his eyes/ears.
keep on this issue; it's huge.
Posted by lll at October 14, 2005 11:11 AMBut .. I thought they withdrew that award, or was that another convention/associaton?
Posted by Helga Fremlin at October 14, 2005 12:18 PM