Journalistic integrity or showboating?

This "Morning Joe" guy is an utter a$$hole.

I like how the guy immediatly questions her journalistic integrity. Because, for all we know, journalistic integrity is all about reading off all stories someone printed onto your paper.

Now before anyone says that it shouldn't be a journalist to filter, rate or comment on news - that already had been done and is always being done. After all, someone decided that the Hilton news should be reported on, someone even decided it was important enough to make it a news story. She simply made a point.

It, however, partially felt a bit staged.

I didn't like the way she was hounded for making the choice. It looked to me like she had said she'd not do the story, and it showed up, and the Joe guy just kept trying to get her to embarrass herself.

I think 'high school bully' or 'bullied in high school and now seeking revenge' are a mainstay of the pundit's resume.

Ya know, I had some respect for Joe Scarborough, even if I didn't agree with his political leanings.

After watching this, he will always be the a$$wipe who decided to pick on the journalist who decided to stand up against leading with fluff pieces. Good for her, and he needs to have the hand that's up his rear end pulled out. He's too much of a puppet.

I'm not so sure it staged. The Wall Street Journal could be coming under the hood of News Corp and 24hr news is turning current affairs into a farce. The signs are very troublesome and we are arriving into an age where the likes of Fox News/Sky News* carries the same weight as true journalistic output and slurs every outlet with the notion that it has an agenda. We are left with the fact that some people trust a comedy show more than current affair shows and stations are more concerned with ratings than reputation. Not a good place to be.

Unless some sort of turn around is achieved we could find ourselves in a very dangerous place.

*Not having a go at a political leaning but stations funded to support parochial ranting and soapboxing of the worst kind.

The media companies are businesses and as such what information is filtered through them has to be taken with a grain of salt. In effect the news coverage decides what is and is not news worthy and if a story is not going to gain them viewers, listeners, or readers then its not "news". Despite the internet and 400 bajillion news cable and radio talk shows, I wonder if we know less as a society today then we used to? In any case good for Mika.

professorvonbeardzine wrote:

The media companies are businesses and as such what information is filtered through them has to be taken with a grain of salt. In effect the news coverage decides what is and is not news worthy and if a story is not going to gain them viewers, listeners, or readers then its not "news". Despite the internet and 400 bajillion news cable and radio talk shows, I wonder if we know less as a society today then we used to? In any case good for Mika.

This is an excellent point, prof, and it goes for all the news outlets - all of them, not just Fox News, or whomever.

Fedaykin98 wrote:
professorvonbeardzine wrote:

The media companies are businesses and as such what information is filtered through them has to be taken with a grain of salt. In effect the news coverage decides what is and is not news worthy and if a story is not going to gain them viewers, listeners, or readers then its not "news". Despite the internet and 400 bajillion news cable and radio talk shows, I wonder if we know less as a society today then we used to? In any case good for Mika.

This is an excellent point, prof, and it goes for all the news outlets - all of them, not just Fox News, or whomever.

Then isn't this a good arguement to bring back "the equal opportunity provision of the Communications Act". Of course I suppose you could argue that the news outlets would just find a way around it, or just get some dunce to act as the "opposition".

It really did seem like it was staged, and I'm wondering if they're just trying to make themselves look like they have integrity when all they care about is trying to win over the people who're cynical of news media.

Zaque wrote:

Then isn't this a good arguement to bring back "the equal opportunity provision of the Communications Act". Of course I suppose you could argue that the news outlets would just find a way around it, or just get some dunce to act as the "opposition".

I don't know what to say about that; I'm a big believer in the power of the marketplace, which has (somewhat) recently given us greater diversity in the media through Fox News (groan all you want, people - your growning is evidence that it is different ).

How would one enforce a provision like that, Zaque? There will always be hundreds of groups complaining that their viewpoints aren't represented.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

I don't know what to say about that; I'm a big believer in the power of the marketplace, which has (somewhat) recently given us greater diversity in the media through Fox News (groan all you want, people - your growning is evidence that it is different ).

I'm not groaning because its different, I'm groaning because its sensationalist and gives one viewpoint and even tries to say its "unbaised" while only giving one viewpoint. I think I groan more from the sensationism than anything else. I wouldn't even mind that too much if they actually reported about news/world events that involve other countries and took off all the commentary. I'm sorry but editorials aren't news, and that is what most of the talk shows that are on "news" channels are.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

How would one enforce a provision like that, Zaque? There will always be hundreds of groups complaining that their viewpoints aren't represented.

Don't know, probably the same way it was enforced when we actually had that rule in the 40s-early 80's. Of course I'm too young to remember how it was enforced you'd have to ask Robear about that, he's the OLD guy around here ;).

You can tell in there that her voice is starting to crack around the time she gets the lighter. None of the clip is professional, but she was pretty close to really losing it in there. She did well at keeping herself in check.

Are any of these people still employed there? I mean, she called out her boss by name on the air - seems like a career-limiting action.

Of course I'm too young to remember how it was enforced you'd have to ask Robear about that, he's the OLD guy around here.

If time was given to a partisan speaker, the opposite position had to get the same airtime to rebut. Remedy was legal action.