Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: What The Press Should Do 5

Journal by pudge

Now, I noted in my last journal that the media is way too full of itself sometimes. However, I am not anti-press, and I think this incredible egoism can be put to good use. For example, they could all walk out on the President, like they did to the Prime Minister in Canada.

We've had similar issues here, with prescreened questions or questioners, and so on. A bigger problem, I believe, is the off-the-record background briefings. But whatever the issue, if they believe it compromises their integrity or the integrity of the process, or if they believe it would be nothing but PR for the President and they are being used, the press should just walk out. Refuse to participate. Same thing with the secret trip to Baghdad. If you do not like how it is done, then don't do it.

The press cannot dictate how things should be done, but it can refuse to play along if something is done in a way they dislike. Heck, the Canadians did it.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What The Press Should Do More

What The Press Should Do

Comments Filter:
  • After the US forces shelled the hotel that foriegn journalists where staying in in Baghdad, a similar thing happened with the Spanish press (if I remember correctly). They went to an event of the country's leader (who was expected to chastise the US, but didn't) and instead of participating, they laid down their cameras and refused to cover the event. I think it gets the point across.
    • Hmmm... So the press shows up and hears what they don't want to hear, then refuse to cover the story? And they call that news? And I should trust these people why?

      The press's job is not to make commentary, it is to report what happens. If you want to change the world get into a business that is meant to change the world, not report the changes.

      As far as the press walking about on a speech or presentation by the president or some other public official, that is irresponsible. Unless the safety of the rep
      • Hmmm... So the press shows up and hears what they don't want to hear, then refuse to cover the story?

        Right, in the case of what cascadefx mentioned, I agree. I only think they should refuse to cover something if what is happening undermines the process itself, such as routinely providing certain information only in off-the-record background briefings.

        As far as the press walking about on a speech or presentation by the president or some other public official, that is irresponsible. Unless the safety of the
    • No... they didn't hear anything. They asked questions about the specific incident and the President refused to acknowledge those questions. So they laid their cameras down and refused to cover the event.

      If I am a reporter and I am called on by the president/prime minister/leader who then ignores my questions and moves on without so much as a "no comment," then what obligation do I have to cover the rest of his message? If I am just supposed to shut up and type whatever comes out of the president's mouth,
      • Many governements work at controlling the press now. In our own case, some of the wishy washy press coverage is due to the fact that the current administration acts like a petulant child towards reporters that ask hard questions and then refuses the all coveted "access" to those that have crossed the line between typing and reporting.

        But that is only because the press lets them get away with it by playing along.

        The press is so afraid of losing access that they aren't willing to risk pissing off the presiden

Slashdot Top Deals

Earth is a beta site.

Close