Very sad news...

[darvon]

The most cowardly - yet increasingly common - form of journalism occurs when one organization reports something scandalous that another organization has said. Therefore, they seem to be on top of "breaking news" while being at arm's length in case the story that they are regurgitating is wrong. Then, the BIGS can stand back and say that they were neither responsible for the lapse nor are liable for any damage caused by such a lapse.

Even back in the old Clinton days, I was in a forum with a lot of professional journalists and they ALL thought the difference between writing a story with a statement of fact and writing a story with an attributed quote of a statement of fact were totally not related. They just couldn't see that their customers believed them to be equivalent. In fact they believe the difference to be a point of professionalism, and they posted a lot about the fact that Drudge DIDN'T attribute, but rather made claims, and thus his problems were totally because he wasn't a professional.

They laughed at him because of it. I think that one of the reasons that Journalists become journalists is because they can see a big difference between the two, unlike the general public.

The fact that they use attributed statements of fact to reel in consumers goes unnoticed by them.




N

owadays, any assclown with a clever name can start a blog and pretend to be an informed commentator.

Like US!!

[wxwax]

There IS no difference except in the mind of Journalism.

This is wrong.

There is a huge difference between writing that it's raining outside, and writing that Bob says it's raining outside.

If you had to ascertain as fact everything you quote somebody as saying, very little reporting would get done.

For example, how do you independently verify that the US population is 300 million? You don't. You say that the US Census states it. How do you know what the unemployment rate is? No reporter does. They have to take a statement from the government as fact. But you cite your source.

A lot of times people lie to reporters. Yes, even their own government, especially their own government. The way reporters handle that is by a little something called Attribution. You hold responsible the person or organization that is responsible for making the statement. Many, many times, in the Quixotic chase for "balance" in their stories, reporters will quote people with outlandish opinions that are unsupported by facts.

The climate debate is a prime example.

So you're wrong to say that attribution isn't a legitimate way to report on the affairs of man and nature. Frankly, usually it's the only way.

As Pruitt notes, the internet has changed the game. Nobody wants to get scooped. There's no time at all to have an editorial discussion. As a result, too often rumor is reported as fact, or a rumor is reported without any source being cited. That, without question, is shoddy journalism.

But if you could never report on what someone says, then how would you know that Kim Jong-il had died? The *only* information on that event came from the state-controlled media in North Korea. Decide for yourself how much you trust them.

[wxwax]

The AP also reported it, followed by a retraction a half hour later.

AP says they didn't.

The Associated Press did not publish the report.

[wxwax]

CBS blundered big time. No source cited in their original report, according to that AP story.

I suspect that the timing has something to do with it. Newsroom staffs tend to be lean and less experienced on a Saturday evening.

CBSSports.com run a photo of Paterno with a caption saying the longtime Penn State coach "loses his battle with lung cancer at 85." The blurb did not include the source of the information.