Hi MM > >That's an old myth, Fred, and much as the entire media establishment > >strives to maintain it, it's a myth nonetheless. You must be > >objective, hm? How're you going to manage that? And Heisenberg > >doesn't apply to journalists, we're not part of what we observe, we > >stand aloof and play no role in it other than merely to record, a > >mere conduit, a pipe - what a joke! > >Some followup thoughts on this very interesting post of yours. I >don't have a sense if the previous poster really warranted the whole >thing being directed at what he was saying, but in this case no >matter.
Well, just briefly, what he said was this: >As far as the other part is concerned. There is no dilemma. You are >there to record history. not be a part of it or change it. >I've gotten in trouble for this a few times myself. So it seems like he's a member of the profession, yet he's still promoting this specious cop-out view - "gotten in trouble"? You have to make your decisions and stand your ground, fight for it if you have to, and if they show you the door, you walk - not just avoid getting into trouble. That exactly is the trouble - the whole thing is polluted by blame-avoidance. >My thoughts are to what you were saying: > >In addition to what you've said, there is another way to see this: >turn it around and try projecting a story where one makes absolutely >no decisions, has no input, basically does nothing. I don't think >it's really possible. But that's the pretence - journalist-as-pipe. How it so often works out is that such journalists may talk about their "sources", but to those sources these journalists are resources, used for purposes and ends that can be very contrary to the role of the fourth estate. >Story choice (what is a story, what is >newsworthy, what's crap) is perhaps the most important thing of all, >and perhaps the first thing before anything else, and how do you do a >story without choosing what the story is? > >But beyond this, I think there's a trend in philosophy and >intellectualism and policy-criticism toward defining a "hands-off" >view (in politics... laissez-faire.... in morality perhaps this would >be let-others-alone) as a do-nothing view. But this is *wrong*. For >want of better words, I think someone should be "pro-active" in >journalism and politics. Of course. >But, of course, this is super-dangerous. Yup. >What if they are "proactive in politics in a way that enslaves me, for >example? This is the question in all the professions, no? It's the same issue we were discussing recently over ethics and the commercial production of biodiesel. What it boils down to is that most people can't or won't do ethics because it means taking responsibility in circumstances where you can't be certain of the outcome. Hence "morals", a set of rules you can follow where if it comes out wrong at least you can say "But I did the right thing, it's not my fault." In fact I think most people could do ethics, but it's not encouraged, or rather it's positively discouraged. >So, what I mean is sort of that I don't define what I want from a >Politician, or somebody else that I employ, that they should sit and >do absolutely zero to avoid doing anything wrong, and only to do what >they're told. So, we have this trend toward saying.. ok, they haven't >been an adulterer, they haven't embezzled, therefor they're 'good'. >Nope. > >I'd rather see them try to figure out what their job is, and to come >up with some ideas, to discuss them, to be an adult and admit when >some of them don't turn out good, and then to take the good ones and >try to implement them. > >In journalism, this is sort of why I voiced that I don't think USA >Today's recent coverage of some energy policy issues sucks.... because >I think there is some ethic at that publication (perhaps I'm wrong) of >trying to figure out what a story is before they're "told".... of >trying to ask some questions and seeing what comes of it. Nothing >interesting? Ok, throw it away. Something interesting? Ok, bring it >out. Hard to define "interesting". Ok, so, that will take some work. > >This, I think, is how to get a story. Waiting to be told by the >E-channel that some alleged celebrity has allegedly done some >supposedly scandalous thing, and then rushing over to cover it with >1000 other people is not my idea of the whole story in journalism, >though undboutedly being responsive to demand, if there is some demand >for that story, is part of it. Again, "demand" is not some given that exists in a vacuum, it's created and manipulated. To go back to this: >Story choice (what is a story, what is >newsworthy, what's crap) is perhaps the most important thing of all, >and perhaps the first thing before anything else, and how do you do a >story without choosing what the story is? So who chooses? Journalists do choose, yes, or it's decided at the daily news conference and the journalists are told what to do. But who really sets the agenda of what's "news" and what's not? Blame-avoidance at every level is a major factor. For instance, there's the fear of what the opposition will do - which stories they'll choose and how they'll run them. I've seen the definition of news described like this: "But the Post didn't have it." Or, worse, "The Post had it, why didn't we?" I once (more than that) saw Britain's two big tabloids running their first editions with opposite angles of the main story of the day, and in the second edition each had adopted the other's initial angle. I once heard an anguished cry from a news editor under deadline pressure: "The Government Information Services line is down - how the f*** am I going to produce the paper??" Disgraceful! Another news editor got a call at midnight on New Year's Eve from one of his reporters, off-duty and in town to celebrate, to say the crowds packing the narrow streets in the main entertainment area had got out of control and a whole bunch of people had been crushed to death - but he didn't believe her because there'd been nothing from the police. He didn't believe his own reporter on the scene, because it didn't have an official stamp on it. This kind of pressure has become much more severe as newspaper ownership has become more concentrated and more corporate. (Fox and the Bovine Growth Hormone story, eg.) "Competition" with television doesn't help either, or at least the way it's often approached doesn't help. I posted this some time ago: >Not that paper is immune. A while back I was working for a newspaper >quite widely known as "the best newspaper in the world" (though that >caused a lot of in-house chuckles and puzzlement). One day a page >from The Spectator appeared on the notice board, with an article >written by someone who'd proposed writing an obituary for our >paper's weekly medical page. The man who'd died was a prominent >scientist who'd made a significant medical breakthrough, and the one >who wanted to write his obit had worked with him at the time and >knew him well. The medical editor asked him: "Have you been on >television?" He hadn't - why did she ask? She'd been instructed not >to accept contributions from non-journalists who were not "media >personalities". Aarghhh!! Hence "infotainment". So when it comes to deciding what's "news" and what's a "story" what you're left with, largely, is a vacuum. And my, what it sucks in! According to Stauber and Rampton, 50% of the *news* items in the US mainstream press originate in a PR agency's office. I find it easy to accept that figure. It's easy to do this. Get a talking head with a suit and a doctorate, get some half-decent looking letterheads and post and fax an announcement for a "news conference"... There's a formula, all you have to do is follow it. "But it's not my fault, he's a scientist!" It's perhaps no mere coincidence that it's a perfect scenario for the soundbyte "science" of the neo-conservative and "Wise Use" think-tanks funded by the rightwing foundations, on the one hand, and on the other, the completely predictable gross narrowing of focus and the failure to ask the right questions (or any questions) in the US media that since Sept 11 has seen millions of Americans seeking their news elsewhere, overseas, via the Internet, and many millions more being led up the garden path in prescribed ignorance - "ignorance" very much being not what you don't know, but what you think you know that's wrong. And of course the vested interests get to have it their way, they get the plain sailing craved by their bottom-lines. Sure, there are many exceptions, but, honourable though they be, that's all they are, exceptions. There's no sign of anything that might break this log-jam, or at least not within the media, but very hopeful signs in the two-edged freedoms of the Internet. That's a sort of macro-view, but there's another side to it. It's quite interesting what journalists say about feedback to their work. Especially prior to the Internet, it could be difficult or impossible to tell what effect a story might have, and so easy, if painful, to conclude that it didn't have any effect. But so many times I've seen old newsroom cynics having to eat their words after sneering at young reporters still labouring under alleged illusions that they can make a change. "Maybe there's ONE person who'll read your story and be changed by it," was what I told young journalists I was training. "And probably you'll never know it, but don't let that stop you." I told them what my teacher had taught me - drummed into me: "When you've got all your facts, you're ready to write the story, you put the sheet of paper in your typewriter - stop, ask yourself: 'Why am I writing this?' If you don't have a good answer, don't do it until you find one. 'The news editor told me to' is not a good answer." I gave one trainee an assignment to investigate factory accidents, a sort of ongoing bloodbath in that city. She turned out to be a really good researcher, good sense of pattern, she could weave things together. But the other reporters told her the set of stories she was writing were too long, it was boring, nobody would read it... Don't listen, I said, just do it, you'll see. Then it was published, a whole broadsheet page. The next day she came leaping across to my desk, totally thrilled - a man who owned a string of factories had called her, asked a lot of questions, and kept thanking her because she'd given him lots of ideas on how he could improve safety for his workers. Wow - that doesn't happen often! But it does happen, even if you don't get to hear of it. So in another sense, regardless of how insignificant the exceptions who do take responsibility and do ethical journalism might appear compared with the monolithic might of the mainstream press, that's no way to judge it. They're not insignificant, they're most important - and somewhere in there lies the straw that will break the stranglehold the powers-that-be think they hold on our information. Yes, OUR information, NOT theirs, regardless of who "pays" for it. I can't think of an area where all this is more pertinent than in energy issues and alternatives today. As we can see, right here, all the time. regards Keith >Journalists make subjective > >decisions about what to write, what to write about, what not to write > >about, what's "relevant" and what's not, all the time, they do little > >else, whether they do it in conformance with media precepts and holy > >writ or not... and indeed it changes the outcome. Many journalists > >like the myth because it means no can for them to carry, the buck > >doesn't stop with them, they think. Many others, especially since we > >had all this out (again) in the 60s and 70s, are aware that the true > >role of the Fourth Estate is not served but rather obstructed by the > >required "objectivity", the journalist-as-pipe approach, and have > >both developed better ways and practised them, despite usually less > >than cosy relations with the likes of news editors (the reason about > >two-thirds of my working career has been as a freelancer). > > > >The back cover of Harold Evans's "Pictures on a page" has the > >headline: "Why is the girl in the centre smiling?" Below that is a > >photograph of a bunch of people on a beach, worried onlookers > >surrounding lifesavers and a medic treating a man lying unconscious > >on the sand, and the girl, kneeling beside him, smiling up at the > >camera. The caption: "Her fiance lies at death's door after being > >rescued from the sea. She smiles because she saw a press cameraman > >and knew her picture was going in the papers. The way > >photo-journalism changes - as well as reflects - the world we see is > >one of the themes of this fascinating book." > > > >>In Bush's case the best shot has to be as he goes under for the last > >>time. > > > >You'd wait for the "best" shot? > > > >>Best Regards > >>Fred > >> > >>On Wednesday, Feb 18, 2004, at 20:14 US/Eastern, Appal Energy wrote: > >> > >> > Actually, there is a third answer to this... > > > >What is it, Todd? Here's one possible third answer - I'm a lousy > >swimmer. And a fourth - journalist or not, I wouldn't take pictures > >of someone drowning, no matter who it was. Yet... as always, it > >depends... I have a file of most ghoulish and brutal photographs > >here, from all over the world, used in a 1991 campaign by Amnesty, > >very effective. "Only one power in the world is strong enough to say > >to the world's governments 'I will no longer allow this to > >happen.'... That power is public opinion." > > > >Hence perhaps the need to keep it shackled. "The 20th century has > >been characterized by three developments of great political > >importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, > >and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting > >corporate power against democracy." -- Alex Carey, Australian social > >scientist > > > >Regards > > > >Keith > > > > > > > >> > ............................ > >> > > >> > Moral Dilemma... > >> > > >> > > >> > This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. > >> > > >> > > >> > Please don't answer it without giving it some serious thought. By > >> > giving an > >> > honest answer you will be able to ascertain where you stand morally. > >> > > >> > > >> > The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation, where > >> > you > >> > will have to make a decision one way or the other. Remember that your > >> > answer > >> > should to be honest, yet spontaneous. > >> > > >> > > >> > Please scroll down slowly and consider each line - this is important > >> > for the > >> > test to work accurately. > >> > > >> > > >> > You're in Florida. In Miami, to be exact. There is great chaos going > >> > on > >> > around you, caused by a hurricane and severe floods. There are huge > >> > masses > >> > of water all around you. > >> > > >> > > >> > You are an Associated Press photographer and you are in the middle of > >> > this > >> > great disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. > >> > > >> > > >> > You're trying to shoot very impressive photos. There are houses > >> > afloat all > >> > around, people floating disappearing into the water. Nature is showing > >> > all > >> > its awesome power. > >> > > >> > > >> > Suddenly you see a man in the water - he is fighting for his life, > >> > trying > >> > not to be taken away by the masses of water and mud. You move closer. > >> > > >> > > >> > Somehow the man looks familiar. Suddenly you know who it is - it's > >> > George W. > >> > Bush! > >> > > >> > > >> > At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take > >> > him > >> > away, forever. > >> > > >> > > >> > You have two options. You can save him or you can take the best photo > >> > of > >> > your life. You can't do both. > >> > > >> > > >> > You can either save the life of George W. Bush, or you can shoot a > >> > Pulitzer > >> > Prize winning photo, a unique photo chronicling one of the world's most > >> > powerful men in a battle against the power of nature itself. > >> > > >> > > >> > Here's the question (please give an honest answer): > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Would you select color film, or instead go for the simplicity of > >> > classic > >> > black and white? ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
