Should journalists be punished for lying to the public ?

I do not want the government to have the power to punish journalists who "lie" because its government lies that became a problem in the first place. The Pentagon hires those military analysts who go on all the networks. I'm afraid that the good journalists are the ones who would have to deal with accusations of lies. The media is a political institution.

Its better to let people be lied to and have to deal with the consequences of their own stupidity and/or lack of skepticism. Over time people will gain awareness of the media outlets that lie.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I like that idea. We should have a board meeting to decide what exactly constituted lies and innuendo.

Unsubstantiated evidence (such as those that lead to wars ) and propaganda pieces should be rewarded with whispers and hints about bribes, affairs and party conventions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh please, the documents have not been proven false. They have not been authenticated. There is a difference. CBS punished its staff for publishing documents that were not authenticated. And they remain not authenticated to this day. But that does not mean the documents are false. I do not know that the documents can ever be authenticated as the originals are alledged to have been destroyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How many people know about Judith Miller's failure to analyze and question sources ?
How many people know about how the administration used her lies to justify the war on Iraq ?

Yet, she is still writing for the times.

 

They were written on a Microsoft Word program but were supposedly from the seventies. The type of font used on the memos was not even invented untill inkjet printers were. As for your wiki post, wiki is only proof that somebody can post stuff on the internet. Just take a look at wahat Dan Rather had been passing off as the original documents and you'll clearly see the man must have known he was lying.

 

Why not a journalistic professional organisation ?

 

TW you do your Republican credentials proud...ignore the evidence if it goes against your preconcieved ideas and wants!! Thanks TW, I am proud of you for exhibitiing the Republican line of thinking that has gotten us in a one of the worst messes we have seen in the history of the country.

In your world, allegations do not have to be substanciated with fact. Only officially sanctioned News sources like FOX or George W. have any truth. I thank God each day that not all Americans suffer from the same delusion. I thank God each day, that we have not yet reverted to book burnings.

http://dkosopedia.com/wiki/Killian_documents
Marion Carr Knox, Killian's former secretary, stated that the disputed documents accurately reflected Killian's opinion of Bush's quality of service in the Texas Air National Guard[2]. She stated that she had no firsthand knowledge of Bush's time with the Texas Air National Guard, but did confirm that special treatment for the sons of prominent people, such as Bush, was common.[3]

I am just thankful that we in America are not yet waking up to hear "Zig Heil".

 

Good luck trying to determine exactly who was lying in that mess.

And what the lie was.

It looks like Rather was played, probably. Destroyed, and replaced by Couric - a far inferior journalist, and much less of a threat to some folks. So punishing Rather would be punishing the main victim of a bigtime fraud.

Nothing in the forged documents has ever even been challenged by evidence, let alone proven false. So where did all that information come from, that appears to have been correct ? Did that person lie ?

 

News should be a not-for-profit industry.
Any organization which is, or is beholden to, and profit making company should not be allowed to refer to itself as news.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=66650

 

Not as far as I am aware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller_(journalist)

 

My apologies. At least theres some retribution. She is still influential though.

 

She was probably an intelligence agency plant or recruit at the NYT, in the first place. So she's just moved on, to a different cover ( better paid, they say).

After the invasion she was running around in Iraq with a high level security clearance, participating in military field operations and interrogations, by rumor in uniform (which would violate Geneva, IIRC). Before that she was involved in the disinformation propaganda campaign against Khaddaffi in Libya, and other dubious ventures.

The Pulitzer folks did not revoke her Prize.

Her partner in the phony WMD articles is still writing for the NYT, senior military correspondent Michael Gordon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Gordon

Again: the way things like this are handled in other professions is with a board of professional responsibility, capable of revoking licenses etc. But journalists are not licensed professionals, and under the US Constitution I see no way to make them so. Any such Association would have to be set up a bit differently, and with different powers, than those for lawyers and doctors and accountants and so forth.

 

I would guess not very many, and I do not care. We need to eliminate the cause of scenarios such as this, which is corruption in the government. Controlling the effects wont eliminate the problem; the corruption will find new ways to manifest itself.

 

Unlike medicine or engineering, journalism isn't a skill, but still shouldn't there be some oversight ?
Also, The government here hasn't done much other than make the media industry an ogliopoly. Murdoch vs Kerry Packer. What happens if their aims/biases happen to be the same ?

I am aware of Michael Gordon and the correction should have mentioned him too.
The correction didn't even take in to consideration the fact that because of them, a majority of Americans supported the war, due to false facts.

 

Unlike medicine or engineering, journalism isn't a skill, but still shouldn't there be some oversight ?
Also, The government here hasn't done much other than make the media industry an ogliopoly. Murdoch vs Kerry Packer. What happens if their aims/biases happen to be the same ?

I am aware of Michael Gordon and the correction should have mentioned him too.
The correction didn't even take in to consideration the fact that because of them, a majority of Americans supported the war, due to false facts.

 

Joe and Ice:

Congratualtion on being so far deluded and hateful of an individual that the obvious does not just leap out at you. Must take some skill to ignore things that are right in plain sight.

First. the memo: There was no need to check forgery on a ny deeper scale than a cursory glance. It was printed with an inkjet rpinter in a font no typewriter in the world has. It is not written in military style numbering, though terminology is correct.

Second, Dan Rahter served as a war correspondant for a number of years. He would have easily been able to recognize a military document of the era in question. His only excuse would possibly be some for of dementia.

Third, if the US military had any reaon to doubt Bushes service, they would have pursued it rigorously. They have done so for much more prominent people and on less evidence.

Forth, I am a libertarian. Not a Republican or a Liberal. I believe in the peioples rights ahead of the states. I am just merely pointing out that not all journalist have been neccesarily fair or honest.

 

First: You have offered nothing in support of your claim that the Killian Documents were false. You have asserted they were false. Please see what the document experts said about the documents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate

Response of the document examiners
Prior to airing, all four of the examiners responded to Mapes' request for document analysis, though only two to Mapes directly:[44]

Emily Will noted discrepancies in the signatures on the memos, and had questions about the letterhead, the proportional spacing of the font, the superscripted "th" and the improper formatting of the date. Will requested other documents to use for comparison.[45]
Linda James was "unable to reach a conclusion about the signature" and noted that the superscripted "th" was not in common use at the time the memos were allegedly written; she later recalled telling CBS, "the two memos she looked at 'had problems,'"[45]
James Pierce concluded that both of the documents were written by the same person and that the signature matched Killian's from the official Bush records. Only one of the two documents provided to Pierce had a signature. James Pierce wrote, "the balance of the Jerry B. Killian signatures appearing on the photocopied questioned documents are consistent and in basic agreement," and stated that based on what he knew, "the documents in question are authentic."[46] However, Pierce also told Mapes he could not be sure if the documents had been altered because he was reviewing copies, not original documents.[47]
Marcel Matley's review was initially limited to Killian's signature on one of the Burkett documents, which he compared to signatures from the official Bush records. Matley "seemed fairly confident" that the signature was Killian's. On September 6, Matley was interviewed by Rather and Mapes and was provided with the other four documents obtained from CBS (he would prove to be the only reviewer to see these documents prior to the segment). Matley told Rather "he could not authenticate the documents due to the fact that they were poor quality copies."[48] In the interview, Matley told Rather that with respect to the signatures, they were relying on "poor material" and that there were inconsistencies in the signatures, but also replied "Yes," when asked if it would be safe to say the documents were written by the person who signed them.[49]
Both Emily Will and Linda James suggested to Mapes that CBS contact typewriter expert Peter Tytell. Associate producer Yvonne Miller left him a voicemail on September 7; he returned the call at 11 am on September 8 but was told they "did not need him anymore."[50]

Second: If the professional document examiners can not make a determination as to their veracity, how can you? At best the authencity of the Killian Documents are questionable. So how can you expect Rather to be more expert in document examination that the expert document examiners?

Third: The Texas Air National Guard is NOT the United States Military. It is a state sponsored milita which can be called into service of the Federal government. And when Bush junior was in the Texas Air National Guard, it was never activated for service in the armed forces of the United States.

Fourth: your description of your political persuasion is not relevant. Your are perpetuating a myth used by the right wing.

Fifth: The material contained in the Killian document was not all that earh shattering and is acknowledged to be truthful by Killian's secretary. Killian was Bush juniors commanding officer.

"The documents allegedly showed that Bush disobeyed orders while in the Guard, and had undue influence exerted on his behalf to improve his record, and included the following accusations:

An order directing Bush to submit to a physical examination.[30]
A note that Killian had grounded Bush from flying due to "failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards," and for failure to submit to the physical examination as ordered. Killian also requested that a flight inquiry board be convened, as required by regulations, to examine the reasons for Bush's loss of flight status.[31]
A note of a telephone conversation with Bush in which Bush sought to be excused from "drill." The note records that Bush said he did not have the time to attend to his National Guard duties because he had a campaign to do (the Senate campaign of Winton M. Blount in Alabama).[32]
A note (labeled "CYA" for "cover your ass") claiming that Killian was being pressured from above to give Bush better marks in his yearly evaluation than he had earned. The note attributed to Killian says that he was being asked to "sugarcoat" Bush's performance. "I'm having trouble running interference [for Bush] and doing my job."[33] "

If you are saying that some journalist are biased and distort the news and facts, we are in agreement. Let's just be correct as to when facts are distored. I need to look no further than Fox News to see that occuring on any given day or to tune into Limbaugh and company.

 

What bothers me the most about the Killian Documents is that the right has focused the attention on the authentication of the documents when the attention should be focused on the content. And here the content is not in dispute, Killian's secretary, testified that the content was accurate. And it is widely acknoweldged that junior failed to get his physical and was removed from flighit status.

 

This is incorrect. They have been proven false. Google "Throbbing memo". There's nothing more that can be said.

 

How are we defining "journalist"? Do we punish newsreaders? Copy writers? The parent company? What about bloggers who attend events so they can provide reports on things they've seen? What about talking heads generally who often speak as if they are conveying facts, but generally can only be relied on for opinion (Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, John "White People Need to Have More Babies" Gibson, George Stephanopoulos, etc.).

I get my news from so many different sources that the line between journalists and non-journalists seems hazy.

There are clear cut cases, but there are a lot fo gray areas. It seems starnge that we'd only punish the professionals and the non-professionals would be free to spew crap, but what can be done to the non-pro's, remove their right to speak at all on the topics? Clearly not.

Personally, I'd rather rely on the marketplace of ideas to bring the truth to light than on a system of regulations. My guess is that all the news would be transformed into "opinion" pieces if there were series fines for those that just happen to be wrong.