Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal jcast's Journal: Stolen Honor v. Rathergate 23

Journal by jcast

It strikes me that the difference between Stolen Honor and Rathergate is: the controversy about Rathergate wasn't over whether CBS should air that kind of program, but over whether their documents were authentic. The controversy over Stolen Honor isn't over whether the film is accurate, but over whether Sinclair should air that kind of program. CBS got whacked for relying on bad sources; for all Sinclair's opponents are saying, it is getting whacked for relying on good sources.

Rathergate: news media shouldn't lie.

Sinclairgate: news media shouldn't tell the truth.

Which political affiliation goes with which scandal is left as an exercise for the reader.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stolen Honor v. Rathergate More

Stolen Honor v. Rathergate

Comments Filter:

  • It strikes me that the difference between Stolen Honor and Rathergate is: the controversy about Rathergate wasn't over whether CBS should air that kind of program, but over whether their documents were authentic.

    60 Minutes has a decades long history of trying to pursue the truth in a reasonable, fair, balanced way.

    The controversy over Stolen Honor isn't over whether the film is accurate, but over whether Sinclair should air that kind of program. CBS got whacked for relying on bad sources; for all

    • 1. shows he is willing to throw journalistic standards out the window is a big leap from and suggested revisions. Specifically the leap is in assuming that the "suggested revisions" involved "throwing standars out". Maybe the suggestions corrected errors? I don't know, and neither do you, at least based on what you quoted.

      2. Moore vs. Sinclair - The implication that People volunteer to watch F911 and people are being forced to watch Stolen Honor... Uhm... The "off" switch comes to mind.

      3. Broadcasts about a

      • Maybe the suggestions corrected errors? I don't know, and neither do you, at least based on what you quoted.

        Gavin tells Moon he reviewed the "overall tone and factual contents" of Inquisition before publication and suggested revisions. ... In addition to silencing our critics now, the book should be invaluable in persuading others of our legitimacy for many years to come."

        You are suggesting that Sherwood was only showing the book to the subjects as a courtesy, so they could correct errors? In t

        • But they don't do it by letting the subject vet their manuscript. Frankly, I am very surprised that you don't recognize this as abnormal.

          The fact that you chose to bold some text does not change the quotes. Yes, he let a "subject" of his book review the manuscript before publication, and make comments. He chose to act on some of those comments, for whatever reason. Your quote doesn't show that he omitted anything true, nor that he inserted anything false. Oh, and the "subject" had an agenda he was trying

          • Yes, he let a "subject" of his book review the manuscript before publication, and make comments... Your quote doesn't show that he omitted anything true, nor that he inserted anything false. Oh, and the "subject" had an agenda he was trying to advance...No, I don't "recognize that as unusual".

            I do not believe this is how investigative journalists are supposed to work. If you get cozy with your subjects, you lose your objectivity, and what you are doing is no longer real investigative journalism. Si

            • I do not believe this is how investigative journalists are supposed to work. If you get cozy with your subjects, you lose your objectivity, and what you are doing is no longer real investigative journalism.

              I'm sorry. Did you not read the part where I asked you why you thought it was an expose or investigative journalism? The fact that the book was titled "Inquisition" and that YOU claim he had ties to a Moon enterprise make me think it probably wasn't....

              What about the FEC's rules? That is one the challe

        • Different rules apply to press journalism (and cable journalism) than apply to broadcast journalism.

          So you support different (and more restrictive) rules for broadcast than for print? That's a position which RedWarrior and I disagree with. Incidentally: I don't care what the law nominally is. This is an issue about whether the attempt to restrain Sinclair's actions legally is a violation of free speech, or not. Free speech is (obviously) not defined by the law.

          So: are you saying that free speech rig

    • In 1980 Sherwood was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize. But, if the PBS documentary was accurate, Sherwood's book for the Unification Church shows he is willing to throw journalistic standards out the window. Real independent journalists don't tailor their work to please the subjects of their investigations.

      Beg pardon? Journalists who write books don't always write them as journalists. Consider, oh, Bias, Peter Jennings' (I think) book about racial districting, etc. I see nothing wrong with app

      • Beg pardon? Journalists who write books don't always write them as journalists.

        Didn't you ask what was the difference between "Rathergate" and Sinclair's plans to broadcast Sherwood's "Stolen Honor"? 60 Minutes, even if they get fooled by dishonest sources, are attempting to practice honest journalism. Whether Sherwood deserves the benefit of the doubt as to whether he is a legitimate journalist is, now, well, questionable.

        So you support different (and more restrictive) rules for broadcast than f

        • Whether Sherwood deserves the benefit of the doubt as to whether he is a legitimate journalist is, now, well, questionable.

          I claim to be a legitimate programmer. But, unfortunately, I have posted many comments on /. that were not programs. So, clearly, you cannot give me the benefit of the doubt about that.

          What I support is following the rule of law.

          Well, I disagree. You see, on this side of the border, we have a doctrine that says you only have to follow constitutional laws. And freedom of speec

          • I claim to be a legitimate programmer. But, unfortunately, I have posted many comments on /. that were not programs. So, clearly, you cannot give me the benefit of the doubt about that.

            Lol. Okay, but to make this a meaningful analogy you would have had to have advertized those posts that weren't programs as good, trustworthy programs . Sherwood's hagiography is advertized and marketed as legitimate investigative journalism. Look at the editorial reviews on Amazon, and the reviews posted to friend

            • First -- how absolute are the protections of "free speech"? Could someone accused of treasonous speech say the treasonous speech was protected under "free speech"?

              Perhaps you can explain your idea a bit further? Are you telling me that an ordinary citizen should feel free to pick and choose which laws are or aren't constitutional?

              Yes. More precisely, no citizen should feel obliged to obey any law which, in his considered opinion, is not constitutional. Just as no court should feel obliged to enforce a

  • The film, apparently, quotes veterans who were POWs of the North Vietnamese during the War in Vietnam. Apparently these POWs say their captors used Kerry's testimony before the Senate Committee to justify making their incarceration and interrogation more brutal.

    You know the expression, about killing the bearer of bad news.

    I could understand the POWs being justifiably furious about Kerry's testimony about atrocities if they were all lies, if no Americans had committed atrocities.

    But, when I listen to

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • ...is that Sinclair knows what they're publishing is unfair.

      Um, do you have any evidence that is is unfair? Or that Sinclair knows it is unfair?

      CBS published what they did in the geniune belief it was correct.

      CBS published a Word document they claimed was a typewriter document, and you think they genuinely believed it was correct? They published a document which not one of the experts they showed it to said was authentic, and you think they genuinely believed it was correct?

      In any case: there has n

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Yeah, I know, I shouldn't be replying to you, but I can't avoid it.

          Given your next comment, I assume you're being ironic. In the off chance you're not, it strikes me as somewhat obvious,

          Ah. So your entire argument that Stolen Honor is unfair is that it is ``obvious''. No evidence is needed. Well, it's ``obvious'' to me that you are a lying liberal freak. qed.

          CBS didn't know it was a Word document

          You mean they never looked at the document either?

          CBS has built a reputation for credibility

          haha [amazon.com]

      • I'm curious what you think of this article. [mediachannel.org] The author was the film-maker who made the Frontline documentary I quoted earlier. According to him there is evidence Moon guaranteed Sherwood sales of 100,000 copies.

        Do you remember back in April Ted Koppel was going to devote an episode of his show "Nightline" to honouring the GIs who died in Iraq? Do you remember that one media comglomerate decided they would pre-empt that episode, because they regarded it as too political?

        Well, that media comglomerate

        • Do you remember back in April Ted Koppel was going to devote an episode of his show "Nightline" to honouring the GIs who died in Iraq?

          Um, no. What I remember was him devoting an episode to reading off the names of those who had died. If he had wanted to honor them, he would have said something about what each one died doing. He didn't do that. He didn't want the audience to think about what those men were doing, what they were accomplishing --- only the fact that they died. Sinclair decided, I think

          • What I remember was him devoting an episode to reading off the names of those who had died.

            That sounds familiar.

            If he had wanted to honor them, he would have said something about what each one died doing. He didn't do that. He didn't want the audience to think about what those men were doing, what they were accomplishing --- only the fact that they died.

            This is an interpretation. You can't know why he Koppel and his team chose that format.

            It seems to me that if this is Sinclair's justificat

            • Diehard proponents of the War don't want the dead to be honoured.

              This is an interpretation, and a slanderous one at that. Please do not slander my country's elected and appointed servants.

              When you say that Koppel was arguing against the war, are you basing this on articles he had published? Or on things he had said in other broadcasts? Or are you basing it soley on his announced plan to honour the dead during his broadcast?

              Based on his announced plan, and my knowledge of the liberal media. Just as

            • By the way, I think this thread has travelled unacceptably far from the subject of the original post (which, I remind you, was about the arguments of those criticizing Sinclair, not about Sinclair), so I will not be posting on this thread any further.
  • Howard Kurtz, who writes a column on the Media, for the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com], also hosts a show reviewing the performance of journalists on CNN. A portion of last Sunday's show was devoted to Sinclair's broadcast.

    Allow me to paraphrase what one of his guest said (cause I can't remember it exactly).

    The way things turned out shows our system worked. Sinclair wanted to air "Stolen Honor" in its entirety. But the marketplace spoke. In response to their controversial announcement their stock value started to

Slashdot Top Deals

To do nothing is to be nothing.

Close