|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 17, @06:44PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh, I like this woman. She's cool.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like her too! Here's a quote from the article:
"This was the start of the old continuum-of-violence school, which pronounced all men a little bit guilty and responsible for what Lepine did, and all women a little bit victimized for what had happened to their sisters at the ƒcole Polytechnique."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the whole, I really like this article, but there is something about it that bothers me, though it doesn't relate directly to egalitarian issues. Perhaps I misunderstood, but in the article, the author states, "he asked if he could tell me something off-the-record. Nope, I said, but he was persistent and I finally relented -- just in case there was some mitigating circumstance I should know about."
It sounds as though she agreed that what he would say next would be off the record -- she said she relented. Nevertheless, she goes on to quote him. This strikes me as a severe breach of trust. A few years ago, the reporter Connie Chung committed this type of breach of trust with respect to an interview with Newt Gingrich's mother and I thought it should have resulted in the loss of her job, if not her career. (I don't know if she lost the former, but she certainly didn't lose the latter.)
This sort of thing makes me far less trusting of anything stated by the reporter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It sounds as though she agreed that what he would say next would be off the record -- she said she relented. Nevertheless, she goes on to quote him. This strikes me as a severe breach of trust.
That is bad, bad, bad journalism. If you go off the record... you specifically agree to being off the record... it is completely irresponsible and unethical for you to quote anything imparted to you while off the record. Naturally, as a reporter, you want to try to find other ways to get the information ON the record, and you'll likewise try to convince your original source of the off-the-record information to go on the record (anything from being an anonymous source to finding different ways of phrasing the same information), but you NEVER print something that was imparted to you off the record.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In fairness to her the individual in question isn't named, he's just referred to as a press aide. Given the seriousness of the main debate I don't think it's a good idea to get distracted by minor points like this. Besides, what the man said was very telling, and very typical of a certain attitude, a certain mentality. You have to wonder why he'd want the remark he made to be off the record. From the build-up I was expecting him to say he disagreed with the flag-lowering policy.
If it's journalistic integrity you want to get riled about, how about all those journalists who routinely regurgitate feminists' false statistics on domestic violence, or who collude with feminists in turning women who kill their husbands into 'cause celebres' for the domestic violence movement.
The number of words written about this minor aspect of the article already significantly outnumber those written about the main point of the article. Please, let's not continue that trend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
he's just referred to as a press aide.
This occurred to me, though it might be trivial to figure out who he was, especially if you work with him.
Please, let's not continue that trend.
This sounds like a good idea, so we can discuss the topic of the article. Nevertheless, in the future I will apply an additional touch of skepticism to anything that this author writes.
An aside -- Had a migraine today and took a long, late nap. Now I can't sleep. Insomnia sucks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it's journalistic integrity you want to get riled about, how about all those journalists who routinely regurgitate feminists' false statistics on domestic violence, or who collude with feminists in turning women who kill their husbands into 'cause celebres' for the domestic violence movement.
The number of words written about this minor aspect of the article already significantly outnumber those written about the main point of the article. Please, let's not continue that trend.
My intention was not to take this off-topic, Uberganger, but AS a journalist, I feel I must clarify points like this when they are made. As for the feminist leanings of mainstream media, you are correct about them.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
