Is Time Magazine Done For?

Abdul Alhazred said:
...Plenty of mainstream newspaper types are journalists.

Time and Newsweek are People Magazine for college graduates.
Click to expand...
That is your (arguable) estimation of both magazines' editorial philosophy. It does not speak to whether those who appear on their mastheads are journalists or not. A claim you're making in the negative.

Once again, what is your definition of "journalist?"
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
I told you who in my estimation is or is not a journalist...
Click to expand...
So, by your reasoning, if Clark Kent writes for The Daily Planet, he may be a journalist. But if he leaves to work for Time, he isn't?

What if he writes for both?
 
Beanbag said:
OK, just who decided that reporters get special priveleges that the average person doesn't have?
Click to expand...
Nobody that I know of, but that does not end the discussion.

I think it has been recognized from the time of the Declaration of Independence to this very day that an integral part of a vibrant, functioning democracy is an informed electorate. This informed electorate can only exist through the efforts of the "fourth estate", the first three being the three branches of government. So, in a very real sense, the "media" has the responsibility to inform the electorate and this responsibility carries with it some additional priviledges (and, yes, responsibilities) that may not apply to Average Joe Citizen.
 
SezMe said:
Nobody that I know of, but that does not end the discussion.

I think it has been recognized from the time of the Declaration of Independence to this very day that an integral part of a vibrant, functioning democracy is an informed electorate. This informed electorate can only exist through the efforts of the "fourth estate", the first three being the three branches of government. So, in a very real sense, the "media" has the responsibility to inform the electorate and this responsibility carries with it some additional priviledges (and, yes, responsibilities) that may not apply to Average Joe Citizen.
Click to expand...

What is the distinction between a journalist writing for the new york times and someone that maintains an internet blog?
 
Rob Lister said:
What is the distinction between a journalist writing for the new york times and someone that maintains an internet blog?
Click to expand...

None, if what they do is factual, fair, balanced, and accurate.

Which eliminates the NYT.
 
Beanbag said:
OK, just who decided that reporters get special priveleges that the average person doesn't have?
Click to expand...

Depending upon the legal arguments you make, it may be inherent in the US Constitution and specifically in the "freedom of the press." The press is in a uniquely privileged position in this regard.

More generally, the idea of certain sorts of communications being "privileged" has a long history. I believe the earliest form (which dates back to English Common Law) is the protection of marital privilege -- a wife cannot be summoned to testify against her husband and vice versa. Other examples of such privilege inlcude attorney/client privilege, doctor/patient privilege, priest/parishoner, and so forth.



If I know something that relates to a particular legal matter, I can be subpoenaed and required to testify. I have the option to take the 5th ammendment, but if a judge decides to grant me immunity from prosecution (whether I want it or not), I can be impelled to testify, or face a charge of contempt of court.

Now, let's agree that reporters are persons and citizens -- any personal biases aside, they fit this lowest common denominator.
Click to expand...

This is the wrong end of the stick. The point isn't whether reporters are part of the lowest common denominator. The point is whether their Constitutionally-protected job protects them from what would otherwise be the consequences of their actions.

After all, lawyers are citizens as well. They fit the lowest common denominator, but they cannot be subpoenaed to testify about matters regarding their clients.
 
new drkitten said:

This is the wrong end of the stick. The point isn't whether reporters are part of the lowest common denominator. The point is whether their Constitutionally-protected job protects them from what would otherwise be the consequences of their actions.

After all, lawyers are citizens as well. They fit the lowest common denominator, but they cannot be subpoenaed to testify about matters regarding their clients.
Click to expand...

Lawyers of course are subject to licensing by the State. Journalists are not. Not sure how much that should matter.

But as it stands, anybody with a keyboard and an internet provider can make a claim to be a journalist. What standards should be applied as to the determination of the validity of such claims?
 
rockoon said:
Lawyers of course are subject to licensing by the State. Journalists are not. Not sure how much that should matter.
Click to expand...

Nor are priests.


But as it stands, anybody with a keyboard and an internet provider can make a claim to be a journalist. What standards should be applied as to the determination of the validity of such claims?
Click to expand...

I would suggest "relevance" and "newsworthiness," personally. In the case of genuine reportage on some sort of internet blog, the First Amendement protections should apply just as strongly to internet reportage as to traditional print or broadcast media. In particular, if someone has been blogging extensively on traditionally fact-issues, then they're a journalist.
 
rockoon said:
Lawyers of course are subject to licensing by the State. Journalists are not. Not sure how much that should matter.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't, considering that government licensing wasn't a requirement until well into the 20th Century. If it were, Clarence Darrow wouldn't have been able to practice.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
You quoted it your post. Or do you want a list of names?
Click to expand...

Basically what you are saying is that everyone is a journalist except for those who aren't.

So how about some names?
 
shanek said:
Understood. I just think it's too easy to pine for the bygone days of objective journalism, when in fact that never really existed.
Click to expand...

Objectivity may be something never reached... but I think we are suffering a crisis of investigative journalism. It seems like lots of news agencies have become lazy, and prefer to repeat the claims of spokespersons rather than do any fact-checking.

Was it ever better in that respect?
 
This much I know: The next time I need to discretely leak something, I'm not going to Cooper and I'm not going to Novak. I am going to Judith Miller, who rocks (and who works for the NY Times incidentally Roadtoad), and who was ordered to jail about an hour ago.
 
gnome said:
Objectivity may be something never reached... but I think we are suffering a crisis of investigative journalism. It seems like lots of news agencies have become lazy, and prefer to repeat the claims of spokespersons rather than do any fact-checking.
Click to expand...

This is certainly a problem, and one that we need to take journalists to task for.

Back when Bush was drumming up support for the Iraq War, I and a few others on this board posted all sorts of reasons why the President was, at best, using specious reasoning, and at worst lying, about the reasons to go to war. We were insulted, called "anti-American," etc. One of the things we were told was that, if there were anything to it, the news media would be bringing it up. They weren't.

Of course, now our position has been vindicated. The conclusion is clear: the media didn't do their job.
 
The question isn't so much who is or who isn't a journalist, but rather what makes a person a journalist? There is nothign that says a journalist must be unbiased, but rather that he must report the facts. A good journalist can report the facts without any obvious bias, and yet have subtle bias because of the way he writes. Obviously an editor is not a journalist, but it is editors who eventually decide what the journalists get to say.

And just because a journalist gets to write an occasional opinion column does not make him any less a journalist, any more than an auto mechanic who occasionally races cars is any less a mechanic.

So what is it about the writing for Time that makes it less than journalism?
 
varwoche said:
This much I know: The next time I need to discretely leak something, I'm not going to Cooper and I'm not going to Novak. I am going to Judith Miller, who rocks (and who works for the NY Times incidentally Roadtoad), and who was ordered to jail about an hour ago.
Click to expand...

I heard about that. What bothers me is that Novak isn't being pressed for sources, but Miller is. She didn't even write a frigging story, and she's headed for jail! I'd love to hear the explanation for this one.

As far as the NYT is concerned, though, one or two good reporters does not make a good paper. The Old Gray Lady has gone from "All The News That's Fit To Print," to changing that F to an SH. They've been compared to the TV "Action News" days, where the philosophy was, "If it bleeds, it leads." Sadly, it's becoming true.

And what's worse, is that with the shenanigans and crap that's coming out of Washington these days, from the White House, from Capitol Hill, to the Supreme Court, we desperately need a balanced and objective view of what's going on. And we're not getting that from the NYT, or from any major paper.
 
Roadtoad said:
I heard about that. What bothers me is that Novak isn't being pressed for sources, . . .
Click to expand...

Novak testified the first time he was asked. No pressing was involved.
 
Rob Lister said:
Novak testified the first time he was asked. No pressing was involved.
Click to expand...

He did? Then how come we don't know who his source was?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom