tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9042316.post3656499748510366028..comments2023-10-22T06:13:53.002-07:00Comments on Sea2Sea.blogspot.com: U.S. Navy: What's going on with this woman?Aliahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12811768631985140312noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9042316.post-38307223173357357302007-03-22T12:42:00.000-07:002007-03-22T12:42:00.000-07:00Dishonesty, lies and agenda in the media. One of ...Dishonesty, lies and agenda in the media. One of my main blog topics here, girl... Notice how many "media rants" postings there are for me, and that's just those I can find in the archives!<BR/><BR/>More and more I am of the belief that "journalists" must have some sort of prequalifications to "practice", Alia. Sounds radical in some ways, but here's the basics... and I'm still mulling over the "hows".<BR/><BR/>1: Journalists enjoy a brand of legal immunities the rest of us do not have for actions such exposing national secrets. Even in the CIA identities protect act from the 80s. Consequently, they can print lies and trash (and do) sans research and confirmation, protect their sources (who may have lied), and suffer no consequences. It's frightening to see anyone who can call themselves "the press" rise above laws. And heaven knows, there's enough "leaking" of intel and military strategy nowadays that this is really dangerous stuff. Every military campaign in this war has been broadcast in detail to the enemy months in advance. How smart is that?? <BR/><BR/>2. Major media have the power to influence and control public opinion with their reporting... and thereby elections and the direction of policy/polls/pols. The press is, in essence, the educator of voters. <BR/><BR/>Considering that we mandate education requirements from our teachers in public and private school systems, should we not also require some for journalists entrusted with this omnipotent power?<BR/><BR/>3: I also think that all journalists be required to disclose their personal opinions as a disclaimer with their news. As in debates, where you know from where each side originates, one can then assess their purported "news" accounts more accurately when you are aware of their personal views. <BR/><BR/>The point here is NO ONE is "objective and unbiased" unless they are completely in the dark about an issue. It's more likely that someone in the journalism field is far more opinionated than the rest of us by personal exposure.<BR/><BR/>I actually <A HREF="http://sea2sea.blogspot.com/2007/02/media-surrogate-or-servant-of-public.html" REL="nofollow"><B>blog-ranted on this</A></B> already. But I think it was a time you were buried under domestic stuff... LOL<BR/><BR/>Oddly enuf, it was about one year earlier that I <A HREF="http://sea2sea.blogspot.com/2006/03/jerusalem-post-lamenting-partisan.html" REL="nofollow"><B> also posted an article by ANSHEL PFEFFER if the Jerusalem Post</B></A> that echoes much of the same. I guess I must have absorbed that logic without making the connection when I did the February "media rant".<BR/><BR/>TMataHarleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10201059375849537682noreply@blogger.com