Journalism gone bad at Rolling Stone

Posted in Home Furnishings, Local journalism, Uncategorized on August 25th, 2020
Tags: , , , ,

>>> WELCOME BACK. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ROLLING STONE ARTICLE ON RAPE THAT SENT SHOCK WAVES ACROSS THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA BUT IS NOW IN DISPUTE. I Demand YOU TO IMAGINE THAT YOU ARE INTERVIEWING THE VICTIM OF A CRIME AND THAT THE VICTIM DOES NOT WANT YOU TO CONTACT THE CRIMINALS. IMAGINE THAT THE VICTIM IS AFRAID OF RETALIATION. WHAT WOULD YOU DO? IN THIS CASE THE ROLLING STONE REPORTER AND HER EDITORS ALL AGREED NOT TO CONTACT THOSE ALLEGED ATTACKERS. THIS DEFIES A PRETTY BASIC JOURNALISTIC PRINCIPLE, WHEN SOMEONE IS ACCUSED OF WROG DONG, YOU Perform AN EFFORT TO GET THEIR SIDE OF THE STORY. NOW ROLLING STONE REGRETS NOT DOING SO. SO MANY PEOPLE ARE QUESTIONING THAT REPORTING INSTEAD OF QUESTIONING A CULTURE THAT’S PERMITTED JACKIE’S STORY TO HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE.HANNA ROSEN QUESTIONED THE REPORTER ABOUT THIS BEFORE IT BECAME NATIONAL NEWS AND SHE JOINS ME FROM WASHINGTON. WHERE DO YOU COME DOWN ON THIS CRUCIAL DECISION REQUESTING ROLLING STONE MADE NOT TO CONTACT THE ACCUSERS. IT’S A REALLY UNUSUAL DECISION. I Reckon IF YOU’RE GOING TO DO IT, WHICH YOU SHOULDN’T I DON’T Picture, BUT IF YOU’RE GOING TO DO IT, THEN YOU HAVE TO DO TWO THINGS. ONE, BE TOTALLY TRANSPARENT TO YOUR READERS. >> WHICH THEY WERE NOT. >> THEY WERE NOT. NO, HAVE A LINE IN THE STORY WHICH SAYS I MADE THE UNUSUAL DECISION NOT TO CONTACT THE ASSAILANTS BECAUSE IT MADE MY SOURCE ANXIOUS AND THIS IS A SENSITIVE SITUATION. THE SECOND THING TOUGH DO IS CORROBORATE THE STORY WITH OTHER Beginning SO THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE YOU COULD TALK TO. HER FRIENDS SHE TALKED TO THAT Light OR FIND OUT IF THERE WAS A PARTY THAT NIGHT OR CHECK AT THE LIFEGUARD POOL. THERE’S Plenties OF OTHER WORK TOUGH DO IF YOU’RE GOING TO MAKE THAT DECISION. >> LET ME READ PART OF WHAT ROLLING STONE SAID. IN TRYING TO BE SENSITIVE TO THE UNFAIR SHAME AND HUMILIATION MANY WOMEN FEEL AFTER A SEXUAL ASSAULT, WE MADE A JUDGE, THE KIND OF JUDGMENT REPORTERS AND EDITORS MAKE EVERY DAY.IT GOES ON TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE THIS AGREEMENT WITH JACKIE AND THESE MISTAKES ARE ON ROLLING STONE, NOT ON JACKIE. THAT’S A Story Proclamation THAT WAS REVISED ON SATURDAY NIGHT. THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT WAS PERCEIVED BY SOME TO BE BLAMING THE VICTIM, BLAMING JACKIE. >> I’M SO GLAD THEY MADE A SECOND STATEMENT. I WAS FEELING ABOUT ABOUT THE FIRST ONE. IT Virtually SAID THIS IS JACKIE’S FAULT BUT SHE’S NOT A JOURNALIST. SHAETION SHE’S JUST TELLING HER OWN STORY. IT’S ON US TO KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO TRUST BUT VERIFY. YOU HAVE TO CHECK THE SOURCES. FIGURE OUT WITH THE STORY IS TRUE BECAUSE IF NOT YOU END UP IN A MESS LIKE THE ONE WE’RE IN NOW .>> LET ME PLAY A CLIP FROM MSNBC. IN 9 SABRINA WAS ON CNN ONCE BEFORE AND THERE WERE QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT HER REPORTING. SHE WAS ON MSNBC’S MELISSA HARRIS PERRY LAST SATURDAY. HERE ARE A COUPLE SOUND BITES FROM THAT SEGMENT. >> I Thoughts THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, WE’VE STARTED BECOMING VERY MIRED IN EUPHEMISM. WE CALL IT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, Unlawful sexual intercourse, WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN.I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO SHOW THIS IS NOT SOME FORM OF MISCON MISCONDUCT. THIS IS A VIOLENT CRIME AND IT WAS IMPORTANT TO SHINE A SPOTLIGHT ON JUST HOW VIOLENT IT IS. >> BEFORE I SAY ANYTHING ELSE, I HAVE TO THANK YOU, SABRINA, FOR WRITING THIS. I Review YOU’VE DONE AN ACT OF PUBLIC SERVICE. IT IS HARD TO READ AN ARTICLE LIKE THIS AND AVOID THE CONCLUSION THAT WE LIVE IN A CULTURE THAT HATES WOMEN. JUST HATES US. >> THE MEDIA OUTLETS THAT UNCRITICALLY PICKED UP ON THIS STORY I THINK HAVE TO DO SOME INTROSPECTION. On the other hand, ROLLING STONE HAS AN EXCELLENT REPUTATION. MANY IMPORTANT STORIES OVER THE YEARS. DO YOU THINK THIS IS SAMPLE AN EXAMPLE OF ACTIVISM JOURNALIST GONE WRONG AND SHOULD WE LEARN FROM THAT? >> YES. Division OF WHAT WENT WRONG IS BELIEF GETTING IN THE WAY OF FACTS.ABOUT LEAF IN TWO SENSES. BELIEF IN THIS STORY. THIS Legend IS AN AMAZING STORY. IT’S A REALLY IMPORTANT STORY TO BE TOLD IF IT’S TRUE. SO, YOU KNOW, WANTING THE STORY DESPERATELY TO BE TRUE GOT IN THE WAY, AND THEN ALSO ACTIVISM IN THE TRADITIONAL SENSE. I MEAN, THAT’S WHAT WHAT HAPPENED TO SABRINA IS A LITTLE BIT GETTING INTO THE SURVIVOR CULTURE WHICH IS YOU CAN’T QUESTION A VICTIM WHICH I Remember IS TRUE. IT’S IMPORTANT NOT TO QUESTION THE VICTIM IF YOU’RE HER SUPPORT GROUP BECAUSE YOU WANT >> AND WE’VE ACTUALLY MADE PROGRESS IN THAT RESPECT, HAVEN’T WE? AS THE DECADES HAVE PASSED, THE COSBY ACCUSERS, For example, WERE NOT TAKEN AS SERIOUSLY AS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN.NOW THEY ARE BEING TAKEN MORE SERIOUSLY. THAT IS PROGRESS. >> YEAH, WE HAVE A WAYS TO GO. THE COSBY STORY COULDN’T HAVE COME AT A WORST TIME. YOU SEE WHAT IT WAS LIKE IN THE’ 70 s AND’ 80 s. THESE WOMEN WERE SURE NOBODY WOULD BELIEVE THEM. WE ARE Obligating PROGRESS. WHAT YOU DON’T WANT OBVIOUSLY IS.

The Iraq war: when journalism failed

Posted in Home Furnishings, Local journalism, Uncategorized on July 13th, 2020
Tags: , , ,

REINALDO is anticipated TO PLAY WITH A KNEE harm. "safe SOURCES" starts correct NOW. >>> good MORNING AND WELCOME TO "riskless SOURCES." THIS MORNING we’ve got A giant question TO reply. Who’re THE nontoxic SOURCES ON THE hindrance IN IRAQ? There was A ROAR IN contemporary DAYS. I HEARD IT in all places MY TWITTER FEED FROM VIEWERS WHO wish to recognize WHO THE SO-known as ARCHITECT are now INHABITING tv STUDIOS once again GIVING recommendation ABOUT WHAT to do this TIME. In actual fact THEY under no circumstances fairly LEFT. THE BACKLASH was VERY seen AS DICK CHENEY, PAUL BREMER AND WOLFWICZ CRITICIZED. WE noticed MEDIA CRITICS POUNCE pronouncing THEY have been DISCREDITED by IRAQ’S choices A DECADE in the past. SENATE MAJORITY chief HARRY REID POSTED THIS image ON TWITTER OF all the speakme HEADS. The only thing I need to HEAR FROM IRAQ war ARCHITECT IS AN APOLOGY. HARRY REID VOTED IN want OF IT.HE SAYS HE wishes TO REDRESS IT. RACHEL MADDOW called IT MADDENING. I feel HER COLLEAGUE JEFF SCARBOROUGH was IMPLICITLY RESPONDING TO HER WITH THIS. >> DO we have now PAUL BREMER ON TO HAVE HIM speak ABOUT IT? ARE WE AFRAID TO LET HIM talk? NO. WE allow humans TO speak. We have now A FREE market OF suggestions AND EVEN people WITH WHOM WE DISAGREE, WE allow THEM TO speak. >> SO THERE was A BACKLASH TO THE BACKLASH. I need to ASK TWO people ABOUT THIS who have unique aspects OF VIEW.LET ME carry IN JONATHAN LANDA FROM McCLATCHE AND PETER RYAN coronary heart. Thank you each FOR BEING right here. >> excellent MORNING. >> just right MORNING. >> I WENT again, JONATHAN, AND REREAD THIS guide ABOUT WHAT WENT flawed IN 2003 by GREG MITCHELL. "SO wrong FOR see you later." IT aspects OUT YOU had been certainly one of THE FEW TO ASK THE right QUESTIONS earlier than THE INVASION. THE publication facets OUT IN EARLY 2005 YOU WROTE THAT THE U.S. Won’t WIN THE battle. YOU got here TO THAT CONCLUSION VERY EARLY ON.WHAT HAS IT BEEN proper within the final WEEK OR TWO TO BE observing AND studying THE insurance plan? HAS IT BEEN DEJA VU FOR YOU? >> it can be BEEN I feel THE phrase MADDENING is an effective ONE. I’VE RUN OUT OF ADJECTIVES TO DESCRIBE the way THESE folks WHO have been THE ARCHITECTS OF THIS catastrophe, UNMITIGATED catastrophe WHICH continues to be UNFOLDING, HOW THEY’VE RESURFACED. They have got BEEN treated WITH — AS CREDIBLE authorities ON WHAT’S going on IN IRAQ WHEN the whole thing THEY said ABOUT IRAQ, the whole lot THEY’VE PROPHESIZED was absolutely fallacious. >> PAUL BREMER used to be here in the GREENROOM AS WE were GETTING capable FOR THE segment.DO YOU suppose HE must BE ON shows LIKE THIS speaking ABOUT IRAQ proper NOW? >> we’ve the primary amendment. We have FREEDOM OF SPEECH, however YOU are not able to PUT folks ON TO discuss AN challenge AS important AS IRAQ AUTHORITATIVELY IF they’ll SPOUT INACCURACIES, errors. One of the crucial biggest blunders, ONE OF essentially the most glaring errors we now have BEEN listening to is that this historical REVISIONISM THAT IRAQ was once CALM WHEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION LEFT place of job. IT MOST most likely used to be not by THEIR possess experiences FROM THEIR own PENTAGON AND THEIR own STATE division. SO must THESE individuals BE dealt with AS CREDIBLE SOURCES ON what is going on ON IN IRAQ proper NOW? I would consider provided that they are ready to say, you know WHAT, I used to be mistaken ABOUT WHAT happened. WE wouldn’t have DID WHAT WE DID however WE DID WHAT WE DID AND NOW WE have got to transfer beyond — WE have got to maintain THE hindrance THAT NOW EXISTS. >> that is THE perfect flip TO PETER. YOU WROTE A COLUMN TITLED EVEN IRAQ SINNERS should BE HEARD. YOU said YOU had been a kind of SINNERS. Tell ME WHAT YOU BELIEVED THEN AND WHAT YOU feel NOW. >> I SUPPORTED THE struggle IN IRAQ, THE journal I EDITED suggested IT. IT used to be THE greatest MISTAKE I HAVE MADE AS A JOURNALIST IN MY profession. One of the crucial greatest mistakes I WROTE IN MY lifestyles. I WROTE pretty much TWO BOOKS looking to GRAPPLE WITH HOW I could have been SO flawed. MY VIEW ABOUT — I consider it’s absolutely real THAT THE MEDIA’S international policy conversation HAS AN instinct closer to BELTWAY INSIDERS WHO SHARE basic ASSUMPTIONS. One of the vital humans WHO HAD THE intellectual FORESIGHT that allow US TO IRAQ still do not get ON THE AIR WHICH IS A large hindrance. I do not need A trouble striking ON men and women WHO had been ARCHITECTS OF THE IRAQ warfare ON TO speak today so long as THEY must RECKON WITH WHAT happened prior to now.WE mustn’t treat THE prior AS IF it is irrelevant. It’s not irrelevant. It’s extremely significant. PUT THEM ON so long as you’re additionally GOING TO ASK THEM hard questions about precisely THIS, WHY THEIR VIEW must BE considered CREDIBLE GIVEN THE past. >> I recounted at the top OF THIS dialog WHAT YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES DID IN 2003. What’s the SINGLE remove FOR JOURNALISTS ABOUT the place YOU ALL WENT WHEN SO MANY OTHERS have been looking in the other direction? >> good, first of all, WE were AT KNIGHT RIDDER back THEN due to the fact that MRKCLATCHE 45D NT purchased IT THEN. Recollect I DID THIS WITH WARREN STROEBL. WE were JOINT by JOE GALLOWAY WHO used to be A COLUMNIST FOR US AT THE TIME. The one dispose of IS JOHN WOULD SAY, IS WHAT they’re saying proper? That’s OUR duty AS JOURNALISTS.IS IT real? HE FELT WE HAD A specific duty considering KNIGHT RITER, NOW OLYMPIC CLATCHY ONWNWNWNS – McCLATCHY OWNS NEWSPAPERS IN towns the place squaddies’ households had been COMING FROM. WE OWED IT TO THEM to provide an explanation for WHAT was once going on, WHAT THE risks OF INVASION was once AND WHAT was once unsuitable WITH THE CASE THAT used to be BEING MADE FOR THE INVASION. IS IT proper? >> PETER YOU mentioned YOU consider SOME VOICES do not GO ON THE AIR TO name THAT A significant hindrance. Who are some of the VOICES THAT YOU suppose must BE ON AIR more mostly? >> ONE character comes to mind IS ANDREW BASOVICH. Incredible HISTORIAN OF overseas coverage. Additionally any individual WHO SERVES HIMSELF AS A career navy OFFICER AND WHOSE SON TRAGICALLY was KILLED IN IRAQ.There is a BIAS IN phrases OF folks who are placed on AIR IN distinct I think closer to humans who are practically power IN WASHINGTON. Persons WHO WORK AT think TANKS. Any one LIKE BASOVICH IS shut TO energy. He will never BE CONSULTING. HE HAS far more fundamentally DAMNING AND critically foremost knowledge. He’s DEEPLY knowledgeable ABOUT AMERICAN overseas policy AND IRAQ IN precise. He will BE A useful balance TO one of the people WE SEE ON A LOT. >> THERE seems to be THIS ancient habit OF THE AMERICAN MEDIA TO REHABILITATE persons who’ve honestly both broken THE legislation OR HAVE carried out QUESTIONABLY — QUESTIONABLE things IN government AND TO REHABILITATION THEM, AS I said. Begin WITH WATERGATE. A few of those GUYS, CONVICTED FELONS, end up AS COMMENTATORS ON THE MEDIA.Seem AT IRAN-CONTRA, WHICH IS the place YOU HAD A whole BUNCH OF SENIOR people WHO had been CONVICTED OF FELONIES, AND yet THEY — many of THEM HAVE additionally BEEN REHABILITATED. THE IRAQ INVASION, you’ve gotten men and women ON CNN WHO have been MOUTH portions FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND were HANDING OUT deceptive AND INACCURATE information TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND the world who are dealt with AS legitimate, CREDIBLE POLITICAL COMMENTATORS. I suppose that may be a VERY serious crisis. >> I suppose part of WHAT occurs right here IS repeatedly within the MEDIA THE idea OF steadiness IS any individual WHO’S related to THE DEMOCRATIC party AND anyone WHO’S associated with THE REPUBLICAN get together. When you have AN environment AS WHAT DID happen within the RUN as much as THE IRAQ war where both THE LEADERSHIPS OF THE DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN get together truly HAVE A equivalent point OF VIEW seeing that generally, recollect, THE DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICANS may AGREE ON greater than THEY DISAGREE ON. That is WHEN they don’t get offered. >> thanks both FOR becoming a member of ME right here.>> thanks. >> thanks. >>> UP next, A.