June 20, 200521 yr pathetic and old enough to know the differences in journalism..... 817687[/snapback] Yet the Post had a source and you don't
June 20, 200521 yr I think it's about time we stop this squabbling and enjoy today's victory. :cheers
June 20, 200521 yr pathetic and old enough to know the differences in journalism..... 817687[/snapback] Yeah and I WORK in journalism. From first hand experience, I know how deathly serious news directors are about ensuring the accuracy of sources. If a reporter falsifies sources, they stand to lose their job and not get another one. But we should trust you because you have life experience. The only thing worse than kids thinking they know everything are adults who think they are correct by virtue of being an adult.
June 20, 200521 yr I am not talking about high school newsletters. "deathly Serious" Pretty strong words from a kid
June 20, 200521 yr I am not talking about high school newsletters. "deathly Serious" Pretty strong words from a kid 817717[/snapback] I worked at WCJB tv20 in Gainesville, and I'm getting my bachelor's degree in journalism. I'm 23.
June 20, 200521 yr pathetic and old enough to know the differences in journalism..... 817687[/snapback] Yeah and I WORK in journalism. From first hand experience, I know how deathly serious news directors are about ensuring the accuracy of sources. If a reporter falsifies sources, they stand to lose their job and not get another one. But we should trust you because you have life experience. The only thing worse than kids thinking they know everything are adults who think they are correct by virtue of being an adult. 817711[/snapback] Since when have the facts stopped reporters (and their editors) from massaging their stories to fit their agendas and points of view?
June 20, 200521 yr pathetic and old enough to know the differences in journalism..... 817687[/snapback] Yeah and I WORK in journalism. From first hand experience, I know how deathly serious news directors are about ensuring the accuracy of sources. If a reporter falsifies sources, they stand to lose their job and not get another one. But we should trust you because you have life experience. The only thing worse than kids thinking they know everything are adults who think they are correct by virtue of being an adult. 817711[/snapback] Since when have the facts stopped reporters (and their editors) from massaging their stories to fit their agendas and points of view? 817734[/snapback] There's a difference between 'massaging' information and flat out falsifying it.
June 20, 200521 yr pathetic and old enough to know the differences in journalism..... 817687[/snapback] Yeah and I WORK in journalism. From first hand experience, I know how deathly serious news directors are about ensuring the accuracy of sources. If a reporter falsifies sources, they stand to lose their job and not get another one. But we should trust you because you have life experience. The only thing worse than kids thinking they know everything are adults who think they are correct by virtue of being an adult. 817711[/snapback] Since when have the facts stopped reporters (and their editors) from massaging their stories to fit their agendas and points of view? 817734[/snapback] There's a difference between 'massaging' information flat out falsifying it. 817736[/snapback] Please, I don't need a lesson from you or anyone else about journalism or ethics in the newsroom because there aren't any. Except maybe at the Christian Science Monitor.
June 20, 200521 yr Although both journalism, TV is different. Newspaper reporters interview and slant articles to their liking. These guys travel with the team, develop reputations and are rarely edited by guys behind a desk. They do get called on the carpet if they write "untrue" comments and could loose their press credentials. Marlins2003 - you are right of target.
June 20, 200521 yr pathetic and old enough to know the differences in journalism..... 817687[/snapback] Yeah and I WORK in journalism. From first hand experience, I know how deathly serious news directors are about ensuring the accuracy of sources. If a reporter falsifies sources, they stand to lose their job and not get another one. But we should trust you because you have life experience. The only thing worse than kids thinking they know everything are adults who think they are correct by virtue of being an adult. 817711[/snapback] Since when have the facts stopped reporters (and their editors) from massaging their stories to fit their agendas and points of view? 817734[/snapback] There's a difference between 'massaging' information flat out falsifying it. 817736[/snapback] Please, I don't need a lesson from you or anyone else about journalism or ethics in the newsroom because there aren't any. Except maybe at the Christian Science Monitor. :lol 817741[/snapback] I'm not saying that you do need a lesson, but if that's what you want to take from it, that's your prerogative. All I'm saying is that disputing something without having any proof or sources to support your claim is irresponsible. News media can't do it, because they're subject to lawsuits. All we want to know from DogFish is how does he know that the Palm Beach Post's article is incorrect, and if he doesn't have any sources to just admit it. It's not a big deal.
June 20, 200521 yr Irresponsible? News media does it all the time. You can believe what you want. No one cares. Just trying to get you to read between lines when you do read the news. As for lawsuits in the sportsworld, it doesnt happen too often. There have been many cases, that you will never hear about, where sports writers have been kicked out of clubhouses, lost their press credentials and kicked out of the local sports market........ There are things that newspapers dont want to expose when it is about them!
June 20, 200521 yr Irresponsible? News media does it all the time. You can believe what you want. No one cares. Just trying to get you to read between lines when you do read the news. 817765[/snapback] They can print their opinions, and they can speak in vagaries that urge the reader towards a specific conclusion, but they CANNOT make up quotes. The lawsuits they would be subject to would be astronomical. Plus it ruins their reputation, and you're right about one thing it IS a business. And you don't increase readership by garnering a reputation as a liar.
June 20, 200521 yr go back and read the articles and tell me about quotes. Trust me, his reputation is tarnished
June 20, 200521 yr The Christian Science Monitor happens to be a great and highly ethical international newspaper with a stellar record of reporting (and for the record I'm neither a Christ Scientist nor have I ever been affiliated with the paper) and breaking important stories of world-wide import. I used their name for a purpose. Laugh if you will but scandalized papers like the Miami Herald could learn alot from the standards set at that newspaper. I may be mistaken but I believe Boog made some mention regarding this last week, referencing in passing the inappropriate (he didn't call the reporter a de facto liar) comment that appeared and then spread throughout the media like so many rumors are spread by lazy and by my standards inept reporters who populate far too many newsrooms and media outlets in America today. We've all seen how a Mike Berardino slur or "trade" circulates and becomes "fact" within days. Most reporters will take other reporters word for it instead of checking the facts themselves. Such is life in the 24 hour news business today. So, while I cannot put to bed, or give definitive evidence of what transpired perhaps someone else out there can second what I believe Boog said. Otherwise let's all drop this.
June 20, 200521 yr Author I know that sometimes in politics, writers report fasle information, but that's simply because they're biased. And anyways, people report them after and you find it in a small section towards the back of the newspaper because they're too embarrassed to show everyone that they showed something false to the public by putting it in one of the first few pages. But in sports? I don't think that writer is biased and hates Jack. I don't see how you can assume that he was lying. And if you strongly believe he was lying then try to gather some proof and report him, and maybe he'll lose his job.
June 20, 200521 yr I'm familiar with the Christian Science Monitor, and their reputation for non-sensationalism, but to say it's not biased is a bit ridiculous. It is still fiscally responsible to the church.
June 20, 200521 yr You are correct, Marlins2003. Boog did mention it but the story was quickly covered up in the post. Not just one misprint but at least two. Too bad that forum posters still believe everything, right or wrong, in print.
June 20, 200521 yr I'm familiar with the Christian Science Monitor, and their reputation for non-sensationalism, but to say it's not biased is a bit ridiculous. It is still fiscally responsible to the church. 817819[/snapback] Ridiculous? Their coverage of world and national events is at the pinnacle of unbiased news reporting. If you knew anything about the church or the newspaper you would know that they are about unbiased as any publication that exists. They carefully separate anything that has to do with the church from event-driven news so there is never a question about their integrity. Go to csmonitor.com and see for yourself. You really have to search the website (or the newspaper) to find any hint that they are parented by a church. As a news organization they are probably more independent from their financial backing than say Richard Bush is at the Miami Herald.
June 20, 200521 yr You are correct, Marlins2003. Boog did mention it but the story was quickly covered up in the post. Not just one misprint but at least two. Too bad that forum posters still believe everything, right or wrong, in print. 817822[/snapback] And how come you didn't mention that earlier, when we asked for some sources? You were too high and mighty to lower yourself to support your argument. You just offered your life experience as evidence. Now conveniently someone else says something to support your argument and you immediately "recall" the information.
June 20, 200521 yr I'm familiar with the Christian Science Monitor, and their reputation for non-sensationalism, but to say it's not biased is a bit ridiculous. It is still fiscally responsible to the church. 817819[/snapback] Ridiculous? Their coverage of world and national events is at the pinnacle of unbiased news reporting. If you knew anything about the church or the newspaper you would know that they are about unbiased as any publication that exists. They carefully separate anything that has to do with the church from event-driven news so there is never a question about their integrity. Go to csmonitor.com and see for yourself. You really have to search the website (or the newspaper) to find any hint that they are parented by a church. As a news organization they are probably more independent from their financial backing than say Richard Bush is at the Miami Herald. 817836[/snapback] You're completely correct. I withdraw. I was just reading about them in my textbook.
June 20, 200521 yr and that matters whether I remember or not or who my sources are. The fact is that what was printed by a sports writer in at least 2 cases was incorrect.
June 20, 200521 yr and that matters whether I remember or not or who my sources are. The fact is that what was printed by a sports writer in at least 2 cases was incorrect. 817853[/snapback] It does matter. Because if the world worked as you wanted it -- without needing proof to back up statements -- we'd still be living in caves, and thinking that the universe is made of 'ether'.
June 20, 200521 yr Now that made as much sense as your initial arguement about CSM. What proof do we need not to live in caves. Maybe ether did make the universe resulting in the Big Bang theory. Science is about proving theories. Journalism is...well I dont want to hurt your feelings.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.