The National Enquirer must have been ready to run with much more stuff if Edwards was willing to admit the truth. The Inquirer makes the MSM look pretty bad on this. I'm sure the New York Times will still consider the story "uncomfirmed".
I think the NYT is afraid to admit that the National Inquirer is more trustworthy than they are Yet another case of Science Fiction becoming science fact. Remember in Men In Black where K was gathering up the gossip rags and saying they had the best investigative journalism around.
I wish I had a subscription to the NYT. Then I could cancel it. And when they called to ask why, I could truthfully state "I needed the money to subscribe to the National Enquirer, arealnewspaper".
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank aSoldier. - My barber
Did something like that with the local rag. They called asking if I wanted to renew my subscription. When I said "no", they asked why. I said becaus of their liberal bullsh!t. Felt good. :)
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
I know a lot of people are giving that very reason (I did with the Boston Globe a few years back). I wonder if/when this particular reason is going to start registering with these idiots, or whether they simply say "Whew, don't have to put up with him again" and they simply enjoy conservatives leaving because it "purifies" their readership?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank aSoldier. - My barber
It never would have got that far. Some Dem competitor would have found and leaked it long ago. Democrats eat there own when it would make them look better.
The National Enquirer scoops all the MSM papers and turns out to be more trustworthy than any of them and including the Networks.
FoxNews is the only big news outlet who can hold their head up and say that they covered the story correctly when it broke. The rest were obviously part of the attempted cover-up by Edwards as well as damage control.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
I think the top 2 of the 5 are correct. But I would phrase the answer to the question this way: "Because of a double standard. If it makes a Republican look bad, report it. If it makes a Democrat look bad, don't report it."
Another way to put it is, "When it comes to scandals for the GOP, make mountains out of molehills. When it comes to scandals for the Democrats, make molehills out of mountains." However in this John Edwards affair, the MSM completely ignored it. So molehills is not even accurate here. And I think the reason they chose to COMPLETELY ignore this is because they are trying very hard to get Obama elected in November. And since Edwards is a DemocRAT, the MSM doesn't want the news of his incredible sleaziness to cause DemocRAT Obama to lose any votes.
With the Democratic convention coming up they didn't want to create any negative press. Besides, he's one of their poster boys.
Thank God for places like this, FOX and other conservative outlets. For without them (you), the truth would never come out about the Communi...er I mean, Democrats.
"we should immediately give every working family in America a
$1,000 energy rebate, and we should pay for it with part of the record
profits that the oil companies are making" Barak Obama, Communist
Just wait - the media will work feverishly to put a positive spin on this, and place most of the blame on the woman. The MSM will conclude that she likely slipped a roofie into his chablis, and when he came to, she was having her way with him, and he was helpless to stop her. Olbermutt will proclaim her "Worst Person", and she will be vilified by the world henceforth.
This has to be the most bizarre explanation on why the press is not covering this story. Here's what he said: "Well, I almost screamed myself when I read thebizarre assertionthat John Edwards is 'a major political figure.' Oh, yeah? As relevant news goes, talking about this also-ran's personal life is like gossiping about, oh, I don't know, Gary Hart or somebody. Make a case to the contrary if you think you can, but don't expect me to stay awake for it..."
Note how he hits all the liberal press's home runs? PERSONAL LIFE -- that's all this is, apparantly. It's not like he did this while running for president, and then lying about it. IT's ALL PERSONAL. And, of course, he's an also-ran. Was he an also-ran in 2004 that would not run in, say, 2008? And how about 2012? Nope. According to this fool, Edwards is a non-public also-ran. Aways was. Always will be.
Believe it or not, this man actually draws a salary writing for a newspaper that charges its readership money for that privlege.
Any time someone like Mike Barnicle tells me again that I'm not qualified to comment on current events because I'm not a "journalist", I'm going to puke all over my screen.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank aSoldier. - My barber
Who, what, where, when, why and how; my opinion, leave out details I don't think are important, add "facts" that I think are necessary even if I have to make them up, trust all sources because who would lie to a journalist?, don't forget lying is a First Amendment right and shield if you are a journalist, you're newspaper's lawyer has unlimited resources so you're immune from prosecution, and finally being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry.
That's like reading Marx to become an entrepreneur.
I think the answer here is clear in that if you're a major news organization, you make it a rule to never print anything from the tabloids alone. I mean, last week in the Globe I saw they reported Obama had a lovechild too... why isn't the MSM all over that?
And to make comments that the Enquirer has higher jorunalistic standards than the NYT is absolute bunk, regardless of the bias at NYT.
Seriously, if we start to lose our heads in the name of bias such that the Enquirer becomes a more reliable source than the NYT, then we've lost anything resembling standards in journalism. Period.
They've started a tradition of kicking some investigative ass, as the NYT has gone downhill. I was one of those to ask "what's the difference?" when it comes to those two, and I think the question's still a good one even if it upsets you. The NYT has quite a bit of reputation to regain due to their left wing agenda bias. At the same time, the Enquirer's investigations have been bipartisan over the years. What's scary is the fact that now people are logically able to critique the NYT in terms of The Enquirer. How the mighty have fallen.
JMR
The tax & spend drugwar looks racist in the real world.
And to make comments that the Enquirer has higher jorunalistic (sic) standards than the NYT is absolute bunk, regardless of the bias at NYT.
The Editor of the Enquirer confimed that they POLYGRAPH sources to make sure they are, at least, giving the semblance of telling the truth.
The New York Times printed a front-page "article" on John McCain, based on two unnamed "sources," who may have heard, or thought, he was shtupping a lobbyist. They gave no times, dates, eye-witnesses, or corroboration of any sort. Just innuendo and rumor.
I'll take the Enquirer's HIGHER standards of fact checking anyday.
"Seriously, if we start to lose our heads in the name of bias such that the Enquirer becomes a more reliable source than the NYT, then we've lost anything resembling standards in journalism. Period."
Remember Jason Blaire? The false Katrina stories of widespread rape? The false story of the "lost" explosives in Iraq? The various other false and misleading stories put out by the NYT over the last decade, which are far to numerous to list here? Seriously, it turns out that the NYT is NOT a reliable news source anymore. Period.
"They have too high of a proof threshold when it comes to Dems."
"They didn't think it mattered (since he's a Democrat)" is the runner up.
The "Public" & the MSM already knew. The "source" doesn't matter, think ... truthers, moonbats, and nutroots. The press is far from "lazy" they're working overtime to hype the cult of the O. They needed some time between Edward's endorsement before they could run the story with the audacity of hope that people would have forgotten.
and in this case they didn't seem willing to lift a finger to find the kind of proof that meets their threshold. The story did end up coming out, but the MSM...I'll put it this way: If you would have offered the choice *Too lazy to investigate because he's a Democrat* instead of merely *Too lazy to investigate* the lazy choice would probably have done better than the current 2%.
Or was it The Enquirer alone, not the rest of the media, revealing Monkey Business photos following denials of an affair by the lying sack of you-know-what politician? I seem to recall it my way, which sorta seems to fit the pattern this time, too...I think the problem with the Gingrich case is that sadly enough The Enquirer wasn't on it, which meant 0 competent investigative reporters on the Gingrich case, so I agree with you the media was soft on that one. But everyone in the news media except the Enquirer dropped the ball on Gary Hart, IMO.
JMR
The tax & spend drugwar looks racist in the real world.
That the MSM totally dropped the ball on the Newt humpin' Callista non-scandal scandal, and at a time when the Clinton sex scandal was in full swing, which pins the hypocrite needle. IMO lots of people on The Hill must have known about Newt bangin' his aide and kept it quiet anyway, which is something to think about. My solution? The Enquirer should, in the name of investigative competence, be allowed rent an office in the Capital Building. This would accomplish the twin objectives of insulting/upsetting the MSM and better covering politicians of both major parties who obviously can't keep it in their pants. :)
JMR
The tax & spend drugwar looks racist in the real world.
sarc...I haven't done any Hart/Rice google research, but my recollection is that the MSM was also pursuing the story fairly aggressively in addition to the tabloids.
I'll concede the National Enquirer has scored some impressive investigative coups--and it is clearly more reputable than most of the rumor rags, but I'm not quite ready to elevate it into the upper echelons of journalistic integrity.
I would say that the vast majority of the large dailies observe very high standards for publication. I think two of the best examples would be the conservative-leaning Wall Street Journal and the liberal-leaning Washington Post.
I would say that the vast majority of the large dailies observe very high standards for publication
See that's where I want to say...surely you jest...
Just don't want you to think I am attempting to argue with you...I'm not, I also thank you for your reply.
We just totally disagree.
The Washington Times is about the only one I can think of right off hand that fits the description....I like some who write for the WSJ...but the paper as a whole isn't my cup of tee...and WaPo, I'm not even going there....would make me too angry.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~Rush Limbaugh
It was the Herald. (I conflate them with The Enquirer in my memory, and as a regular Miami Herald reader at the time that's hilarious!) Anyway, until the photographs appeared, he'd done a pretty good job of denying the story IIRC. And memory's a funny thing, but I seem to recall Hart telling 60 Minutes something like "go after me, follow me, I'm innocent!" when accused of the Rice affair. Then, when it happened with pictures, he complained about the end of all privacy, of course. :)
JMR
The tax & spend drugwar looks racist in the real world.
NB is a drug, so don't even try to break the habit! :p
So, inquiring minds....
What news outlet/paper IS in the upper echelons of journalistic integrity these days?
And no, I'm not thinking things like Fox, but my point is, the junk that dresses itself up as real news and attempts to hoodwink the masses, is so far from anything with integrity.
How is tabloid news so far off? Are there distinguished lines that separate the two anymore?
What news outlet/paper IS in the upper echelons of journalistic integrity these days?
See my response to the same question from bt above.
How is tabloid news so far off? Are there distinguished lines that separate the two anymore?
Yes, but I fear the lines are becoming increasingly blurred. And, I agree with sarc that the Enquirer has made successful strides in improving its reputation and has largely separated itself from the pack of scandal sheets. I just don't place it on the same plane with the WSJ, WashPo, etc.
Democrats (and "journalists") don't have moral standards, so they can do anything and it can't be considered wrong. Republicans (well, ok, conservatives) have moral standards, and the Dems and "journalists" are on a hair-trigger to mete out severe punishment for any who violate their own standards.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
In the Cookie Jar
August 8, 2008 - 16:38 ET by allanfThe National Enquirer must have been ready to run with much more stuff if Edwards was willing to admit the truth. The Inquirer makes the MSM look pretty bad on this. I'm sure the New York Times will still consider the story "uncomfirmed".
The National Inquirer
August 8, 2008 - 16:55 ET by SGriffisI think the NYT is afraid to admit that the National Inquirer is more trustworthy than they are.
I think the NYT is afraid
August 8, 2008 - 17:04 ET by Dan The Man 2I think the NYT is afraid to admit that the National Inquirer is more trustworthy than they are Yet another case of Science Fiction becoming science fact. Remember in Men In Black where K was gathering up the gossip rags and saying they had the best investigative journalism around.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I wish I had a subscription
August 8, 2008 - 18:44 ET by ThisnThatI wish I had a subscription to the NYT. Then I could cancel it. And when they called to ask why, I could truthfully state "I needed the money to subscribe to the National Enquirer, a real newspaper".
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Did something like that
August 8, 2008 - 19:04 ET by RESTLESS 1Did something like that with the local rag. They called asking if I wanted to renew my subscription. When I said "no", they asked why. I said becaus of their liberal bullsh!t. Felt good. :)
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Because of their liberal BS
August 8, 2008 - 19:16 ET by ThisnThatI know a lot of people are giving that very reason (I did with the Boston Globe a few years back). I wonder if/when this particular reason is going to start registering with these idiots, or whether they simply say "Whew, don't have to put up with him again" and they simply enjoy conservatives leaving because it "purifies" their readership?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Now watch the scramble to cover Edwards
August 8, 2008 - 17:00 ET by ElyasMy prediction will be the MSM will try to report and forget. Either that or they will report but sympathize.
More than likely they will portray it as, "Edwards admits affair, fears that GOP will use go on attack"
Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying.
- Ronald Reagan
Man can you imagine the
August 8, 2008 - 17:06 ET by Dan The Man 2Man can you imagine the implications if this yoyo were the Presumtive Democrat party nominee?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
It never would have
August 8, 2008 - 17:35 ET by TjexciteIt never would have got that far. Some Dem competitor would have found and leaked it long ago. Democrats eat there own when it would make them look better.
Democrats Praising McCain Hillary's last clip should be played over and over.
Wow! Whoda thunk it...
August 8, 2008 - 17:11 ET by c5thenThe National Enquirer scoops all the MSM papers and turns out to be more trustworthy than any of them and including the Networks.
FoxNews is the only big news outlet who can hold their head up and say that they covered the story correctly when it broke. The rest were obviously part of the attempted cover-up by Edwards as well as damage control.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
I picked the last choice,
August 8, 2008 - 17:37 ET by kevcadI picked the last choice, but really it is all of the above, for which you need to provide a button.
Start each day with a smile, then get it over with. - W.C. Fields
and....
August 8, 2008 - 17:49 ET by BarkerAdd this choice as well:
() MSM doesn't care if a possible president is subject to blackmail or not.
I think the top 2 of the 5
August 8, 2008 - 18:41 ET by HumanEventsI think the top 2 of the 5 are correct. But I would phrase the answer to the question this way: "Because of a double standard. If it makes a Republican look bad, report it. If it makes a Democrat look bad, don't report it."
Another way to put it is, "When it comes to scandals for the GOP, make mountains out of molehills. When it comes to scandals for the Democrats, make molehills out of mountains." However in this John Edwards affair, the MSM completely ignored it. So molehills is not even accurate here. And I think the reason they chose to COMPLETELY ignore this is because they are trying very hard to get Obama elected in November. And since Edwards is a DemocRAT, the MSM doesn't want the news of his incredible sleaziness to cause DemocRAT Obama to lose any votes.
I picked they didn't want
August 8, 2008 - 19:18 ET by mjgI picked they didn't want the public to know because it would be an embarrassment to the Dems, since the media is so tied in with them.
With the Democratic
August 8, 2008 - 20:02 ET by iconoclastWith the Democratic convention coming up they didn't want to create any negative press. Besides, he's one of their poster boys.
Thank God for places like this, FOX and other conservative outlets. For without them (you), the truth would never come out about the Communi...er I mean, Democrats.
"we should immediately give every working family in America a
$1,000 energy rebate, and we should pay for it with part of the record
profits that the oil companies are making" Barak Obama, Communist
I Would Vote...
August 8, 2008 - 21:07 ET by Wildcatter1980..for the media covering for Edwards because he is a Democrat.
Bad John
August 8, 2008 - 21:39 ET by Emma GrumpJust wait - the media will work feverishly to put a positive spin on this, and place most of the blame on the woman. The MSM will conclude that she likely slipped a roofie into his chablis, and when he came to, she was having her way with him, and he was helpless to stop her. Olbermutt will proclaim her "Worst Person", and she will be vilified by the world henceforth.
Exactly right!
August 8, 2008 - 23:00 ET by BarkerThere will be a lot of talk about 'homewreckers', gullible men, and the Scarlet Letter in the coming days.
MIA
August 8, 2008 - 22:48 ET by Sergeant ROCKI've noticed that the resident Kool-Aid® drinkers of the 'left' have little to say on the matter.
Indoctrinate-U
Our Education. Their Politics.
John Edwards is NOT a major public figure
August 9, 2008 - 08:07 ET by ThisnThatThis has to be the most bizarre explanation on why the press is not covering this story. Here's what he said: "Well, I almost screamed myself when I read the bizarre assertion that John Edwards is 'a major political figure.' Oh, yeah? As relevant news goes, talking about this also-ran's personal life is like gossiping about, oh, I don't know, Gary Hart or somebody. Make a case to the contrary if you think you can, but don't expect me to stay awake for it..."
Note how he hits all the liberal press's home runs? PERSONAL LIFE -- that's all this is, apparantly. It's not like he did this while running for president, and then lying about it. IT's ALL PERSONAL. And, of course, he's an also-ran. Was he an also-ran in 2004 that would not run in, say, 2008? And how about 2012? Nope. According to this fool, Edwards is a non-public also-ran. Aways was. Always will be.
Believe it or not, this man actually draws a salary writing for a newspaper that charges its readership money for that privlege.
Any time someone like Mike Barnicle tells me again that I'm not qualified to comment on current events because I'm not a "journalist", I'm going to puke all over my screen.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Journalism 101 revised for liberals
August 9, 2008 - 08:29 ET by BlueCat57Who, what, where, when, why and how; my opinion, leave out details I don't think are important, add "facts" that I think are necessary even if I have to make them up, trust all sources because who would lie to a journalist?, don't forget lying is a First Amendment right and shield if you are a journalist, you're newspaper's lawyer has unlimited resources so you're immune from prosecution, and finally being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry.
That's like reading Marx to become an entrepreneur.
The comments here are scary
August 9, 2008 - 10:56 ET by Remixer96I think the answer here is clear in that if you're a major news organization, you make it a rule to never print anything from the tabloids alone. I mean, last week in the Globe I saw they reported Obama had a lovechild too... why isn't the MSM all over that?
And to make comments that the Enquirer has higher jorunalistic standards than the NYT is absolute bunk, regardless of the bias at NYT.
Seriously, if we start to lose our heads in the name of bias such that the Enquirer becomes a more reliable source than the NYT, then we've lost anything resembling standards in journalism. Period.
The Enquirer isn't much like "The Globe" anymore
August 9, 2008 - 11:02 ET by sarcasmoThey've started a tradition of kicking some investigative ass, as the NYT has gone downhill. I was one of those to ask "what's the difference?" when it comes to those two, and I think the question's still a good one even if it upsets you. The NYT has quite a bit of reputation to regain due to their left wing agenda bias. At the same time, the Enquirer's investigations have been bipartisan over the years. What's scary is the fact that now people are logically able to critique the NYT in terms of The Enquirer. How the mighty have fallen.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
And to make comments that
August 9, 2008 - 11:06 ET by Jack BauerThe Editor of the Enquirer confimed that they POLYGRAPH sources to make sure they are, at least, giving the semblance of telling the truth.
The New York Times printed a front-page "article" on John McCain, based on two unnamed "sources," who may have heard, or thought, he was shtupping a lobbyist. They gave no times, dates, eye-witnesses, or corroboration of any sort. Just innuendo and rumor.
I'll take the Enquirer's HIGHER standards of fact checking anyday.
NYT's is NOT reliable, Perioud
August 9, 2008 - 11:59 ET by CobraMan"Seriously, if we start to lose our heads in the name of bias such that the Enquirer becomes a more reliable source than the NYT, then we've lost anything resembling standards in journalism. Period."
Remember Jason Blaire? The false Katrina stories of widespread rape? The false story of the "lost" explosives in Iraq? The various other false and misleading stories put out by the NYT over the last decade, which are far to numerous to list here? Seriously, it turns out that the NYT is NOT a reliable news source anymore. Period.
The correct answer is:
August 9, 2008 - 11:09 ET by Crash"They have too high of a proof threshold when it comes to Dems."
"They didn't think it mattered (since he's a Democrat)" is the runner up.
The "Public" & the MSM already knew. The "source" doesn't matter, think ... truthers, moonbats, and nutroots. The press is far from "lazy" they're working overtime to hype the cult of the O. They needed some time between Edward's endorsement before they could run the story with the audacity of hope that people would have forgotten.
They have a higher threshold when it comes to Dems
August 9, 2008 - 22:32 ET by delmarand in this case they didn't seem willing to lift a finger to find the kind of proof that meets their threshold. The story did end up coming out, but the MSM...I'll put it this way: If you would have offered the choice *Too lazy to investigate because he's a Democrat* instead of merely *Too lazy to investigate* the lazy choice would probably have done better than the current 2%.
Higher threshold for Dems?
August 9, 2008 - 22:50 ET by JerWell...not always. The media displayed remarkable zeal in pursuing Gary Hart, and yet were shockingly incurious regarding Speaker Gingrich.
Jer
Was it the media?
August 9, 2008 - 22:56 ET by sarcasmoOr was it The Enquirer alone, not the rest of the media, revealing Monkey Business photos following denials of an affair by the lying sack of you-know-what politician? I seem to recall it my way, which sorta seems to fit the pattern this time, too...I think the problem with the Gingrich case is that sadly enough The Enquirer wasn't on it, which meant 0 competent investigative reporters on the Gingrich case, so I agree with you the media was soft on that one. But everyone in the news media except the Enquirer dropped the ball on Gary Hart, IMO.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Your way is right
August 9, 2008 - 23:04 ET by Cool ArrowFrolicking on the boat made for some good "middle aged politician swings with trollip" pictures.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
But Jer is correct
August 9, 2008 - 23:12 ET by sarcasmoThat the MSM totally dropped the ball on the Newt humpin' Callista non-scandal scandal, and at a time when the Clinton sex scandal was in full swing, which pins the hypocrite needle. IMO lots of people on The Hill must have known about Newt bangin' his aide and kept it quiet anyway, which is something to think about. My solution? The Enquirer should, in the name of investigative competence, be allowed rent an office in the Capital Building. This would accomplish the twin objectives of insulting/upsetting the MSM and better covering politicians of both major parties who obviously can't keep it in their pants. :)
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
sarc...I haven't done any
August 9, 2008 - 23:16 ET by Jersarc...I haven't done any Hart/Rice google research, but my recollection is that the MSM was also pursuing the story fairly aggressively in addition to the tabloids.
I'll concede the National Enquirer has scored some impressive investigative coups--and it is clearly more reputable than most of the rumor rags, but I'm not quite ready to elevate it into the upper echelons of journalistic integrity.
Jer
Jer... Just out of
August 9, 2008 - 23:22 ET by bigtimerJer...
Just out of curiosity just who and what papers are the so-called upper echelons of journalistic integrity in your mind.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
bt...
August 9, 2008 - 23:38 ET by JerI would say that the vast majority of the large dailies observe very high standards for publication. I think two of the best examples would be the conservative-leaning Wall Street Journal and the liberal-leaning Washington Post.
Jer
I would say that the vast
August 9, 2008 - 23:47 ET by bigtimerI would say that the vast majority of the large dailies observe very high standards for publication
See that's where I want to say...surely you jest...
Just don't want you to think I am attempting to argue with you...I'm not, I also thank you for your reply.
We just totally disagree.
The Washington Times is about the only one I can think of right off hand that fits the description....I like some who write for the WSJ...but the paper as a whole isn't my cup of tee...and WaPo, I'm not even going there....would make me too angry.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
sarc...this is the first
August 9, 2008 - 23:31 ET by Jersarc...this is the first link I checked out re. Gary Hart/Donna Rice. Exposure of the affair was credited to a reporter/editor with Miami Herald.
Jer
Oh, that's right.
August 9, 2008 - 23:34 ET by sarcasmoIt was the Herald. (I conflate them with The Enquirer in my memory, and as a regular Miami Herald reader at the time that's hilarious!) Anyway, until the photographs appeared, he'd done a pretty good job of denying the story IIRC. And memory's a funny thing, but I seem to recall Hart telling 60 Minutes something like "go after me, follow me, I'm innocent!" when accused of the Rice affair. Then, when it happened with pictures, he complained about the end of all privacy, of course. :)
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Hey Jer
August 9, 2008 - 23:40 ET by MrShyNB is a drug, so don't even try to break the habit! :p
So, inquiring minds....
What news outlet/paper IS in the upper echelons of journalistic integrity these days?
And no, I'm not thinking things like Fox, but my point is, the junk that dresses itself up as real news and attempts to hoodwink the masses, is so far from anything with integrity.
How is tabloid news so far off? Are there distinguished lines that separate the two anymore?
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Shy
August 9, 2008 - 23:54 ET by JerWhat news outlet/paper IS in the upper echelons of journalistic integrity these days?
See my response to the same question from bt above.
How is tabloid news so far off? Are there distinguished lines that separate the two anymore?
Yes, but I fear the lines are becoming increasingly blurred. And, I agree with sarc that the Enquirer has made successful strides in improving its reputation and has largely separated itself from the pack of scandal sheets. I just don't place it on the same plane with the WSJ, WashPo, etc.
Jer
Democrats (and
August 10, 2008 - 13:25 ET by lnthompDemocrats (and "journalists") don't have moral standards, so they can do anything and it can't be considered wrong. Republicans (well, ok, conservatives) have moral standards, and the Dems and "journalists" are on a hair-trigger to mete out severe punishment for any who violate their own standards.
Lee T.