Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (90653)	12/14/2004 6:57:18 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 793739

Just reinforces my impression that the old media couldn't care less about facts. More important to tell a good "story". People get hurt, tough. Don't think courts are ever going to fix this. Best hope is that the new media will provide enough competition to keep them honest.

To: Lane3 who wrote (90653)	12/14/2004 7:54:49 PM
From: Bridge Player	Respond to of 793739

<<Was there anything there that interested you?>> What interested me was the following paragraph: "When reporters who write stories, then go on the air to discuss" them, said Lucy Dalglish, executive director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, "things tend to escalate. . . . If their appearances are going to be used to craft evidence of malice and reckless disregard for the truth in a print story, we're in very dangerous territory. I think this will have very serious implications for journalists." If a TV appearance is now to be used to, quote, "craft evidence of malice and reckless disregard for the truth in a print story", then, IMO it is damn well high time. Dangerous territory indeed. So-called journalists who exhibit that particular failing should be brought to account regardless of the means used to do so. Lucy Dalglish notwithstanding.