|
10 Jun 11 - 04:38 PM (#3168582) Subject: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: John on the Sunset Coast I note with a certain bemused disgust that the big 2-1/2 newspapers (The LA Times being the ½) and others are printing/posting the bulk of Sara Palin's emails posted while she was governor. Readers will, of course, be able to read and comment on these emails. Using a neologism, 'crowdsource', the Washington Post is soliciting public input. "That's a lot of e-mail for us to review so we're looking for some help from Fix readers to analyze, contextualize, and research those e-mails right alongside Post reporters over the days following the release." [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/help-analyze-the-palin-emails/2011/06/08/AGZAaHNH_blog.html]. Wow! There is something very smarmy about this. It will be interesting to see whether or not in the future we'll, again, be treated to this spectacle; will all (potential) candidates get this attention, or only the ones we love to hate? I, for one, can hardly wait to read the Obama and Clinton emails...actually not. It seems to me the tabloids and the bloggers have set the agenda and the style for the new journalism. So sad for the rest of us. |
|
10 Jun 11 - 04:49 PM (#3168586) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: gnu I agree. |
|
10 Jun 11 - 04:53 PM (#3168590) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: Sawzaw I agree also. We need to see all candidates and Governors Emails or none. |
|
10 Jun 11 - 04:54 PM (#3168591) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: gnu I vote "none". |
|
10 Jun 11 - 05:01 PM (#3168593) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: GUEST,number 6 I also agree. biLL |
|
10 Jun 11 - 05:08 PM (#3168597) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity What a waste of time! Why don't you look up her dress, too? GfS |
|
10 Jun 11 - 05:44 PM (#3168623) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: pdq We have no objective journalism in the US any more. At least, not through the traditional channels of TV, radio, newspapers and magazines. This nasty trick is probably an attempt to divert attention away from scum like Anthony Wiener and Jonn Edwards and their troubles. Edwards seems to have used almost one million in campaign contributions to finance his love affair and may face prison, but the partisan new media harp on Sarah Palin all day long. The New York Slimes, the Washington Compost and the LA Crimes are Democrat house organs and do not even have a single reporter who can give a pro-Republican point of view without it being censored. Most Republicans I know are wonderful honest people and do not desrve the media's attrocious thretment . |
|
10 Jun 11 - 05:48 PM (#3168626) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: GUEST,999 I agree with John. This is garbage. BUT, much journalism--or what tries to pass for journalism--today is just that. We need Murrow back. SOON! |
|
10 Jun 11 - 07:00 PM (#3168663) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: Claymore I suspect that much of the New Journalism is the result of trying to fit maybe two hours of "news" into 24 hours. Thus we have the release of upty-gump millions of emails, archives, or personal writings, usually by a disgruntled ex friend, employee or a person with an agenda, that either historically or suddenly feels compelled to share. TMI is what I say whether it's to benefit the agenda or to fill 22 some odd hours. I can recall that while going to high school in Hawaii in '63 when Kennedy was assassinated, we didn't get the videos for a couple of days. The news from the one TV channel played Jonnie Carson from a tape of the night before, and then when the plane landed from California, (a prop job, no less) the CBS evening news was inserted into the show and once it was done, Johnnie finished his show. No satellites and no jets for civilian enterprises. BTW when Oswald was shot, the Island went to General Quarters, and we watched previously unseen Nike silos open up. (That's right , they were missiles before they were sneakers). And they were only good for shooting down bombers, not the notorious "Missile Gap." We kids just figured since Pearl Harbor was on the Russians Priority-Target list, we were going to be part of a steaming bowl of sea water. That's how serious we took it and that explains Johnsons haste in forming the Warren Commission. But I digress... |
|
10 Jun 11 - 07:17 PM (#3168672) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: olddude Tabloid press that is what we all have today. There is no serious journalist anymore. They anchor the news desks or work in the press then show up on the Bachelor or some show like that ... gone are the days of serious newspaper men and women or TV anchors |
|
10 Jun 11 - 09:17 PM (#3168705) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: Greg F. This nasty trick is probably an attempt to divert attention away from scum like Anthony Wiener and Jonn Edwards and their troubles. Yup- diverting it towards scum like Sarah Palin. |
|
10 Jun 11 - 11:04 PM (#3168746) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: Ron Davies Look, people, it's about 250 lbs of e-mails. Most of it crashingly boring, no doubt. Best bet is probably key words. Still it will be a huge waste of time in general. Post, etc, are just trying to play Tom Sawyer painting the fence. Maybe it will work--maybe journalism students will want to do this. Or others with a lot of time to kill. "Smarmy" is not the first word that comes to mind. More like "desperate"---Post wants to stay relevant to the online generation. The paper is a dinosaur--and they know it. |
|
18 Jun 11 - 12:28 PM (#3172376) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: Claymore Greg, you really do need to get a new pony... |
|
18 Jun 11 - 12:32 PM (#3172379) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: Greg F. Well, Landmine, you should know. Killed or maimed anyone lately in the name of "freedom"? How's yer buddy Snortin' Norton1?? Or do you hold some special brief for proven incompetent morons like Palin? |
|
18 Jun 11 - 05:15 PM (#3172553) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: Little Hawk It's completely slimy for the news media to publish the bulk of anyone's private emails, and it should not be done. Makes no difference to me that it's Sarah Palin they are doing it to. |
|
18 Jun 11 - 05:22 PM (#3172560) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: John MacKenzie Journalists have always been shits, with no morals |
|
19 Jun 11 - 11:14 AM (#3172860) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: Donuel All this stems from a FOIA request made over 2 and a half years ago by a television and newspaper journalist. The reason why a freedom of information request was made for these emails was the fact when she was chosen as a vice presidential nominee, she was a virtually unknown character. Two and a half years later the request was finally honored but certain caveats were made at first which said they had to be reviewed physically in Alaska. Things got sorted out until the emails could be reviewed anywhere but not in a digital form but instead on paper only!? So the newspapers that decided to review them needed extra readers to go through them. This is all moot since Palin had 2 other private and seperate email accounts (one of which was hacked) which are not included in the emails provided by the FOIA emails pertaining primarilu to state government business. If journalism is guilty of anything it is getting old news 2 and a half years too late. You might choose to refeudiate these facts and call all lame stream media journalists swarmy because free speech is protected. Be it lies, rumor, informed or ignorant speech, its thankfully all protected by the Constitution.+ |
|
19 Jun 11 - 11:22 AM (#3172864) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: Rapparee Because opinions are like assholes -- everyone has one. And everyone seems to think that theirs is better than that of anyone else. |
|
19 Jun 11 - 11:53 AM (#3172884) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: Jack the Sailor I don't see a damned thing wrong with the way the papers handled this. 20,000 emails were dumped on them at once and it would be a travesty to waste investigative resources on someone as irrelevant as Palin currently is. Keep in mind that she is no longer a serious political contender. She is just another reality show "celebrity". If they got a hold of Snookie's emails should they take their reporters off the beat to read them? In a way this strategy is a good counter to the recent trend of Bloggers like Breitbart playing "gotcha" with the media by coming up with some out of context nugget and blowing it out of proportion. This way all the "nuggets" are unearthed readers and looked at by the paper's editorial staff before they become "News." I don't see anything smarmy at all. I do see the papers getting free labor and at the same time being in total compliance with the Freedom of Information Laws by making ALL of the information available to the public. I note that all of the criticism of this move other than "I agree" coming from readers of and supporters of "Fox News" I find this particularly interesting because I heard Chris Wallace, Fox "News" token real journalist, make many of those same criticisms today, before I read this thread. The crowd sourcing is the polar opposite approach to Fox's, Fox always wants to filter the News through its anti-progressive position. This approach gives the public the raw information without filter. I have my own opinion on which approach is "smarmy." On the whole I feel that the public is better served with the available of as much raw data as possible. For instance when is the last time that Fox showed an Obama Speech in context rather than cherry picking and actually rewording his words to make him seem socialist or arrogant or whatever their current top down marching orders from Murdoch or Ailes has given them? Your mileage may vary. |
|
20 Jun 11 - 10:38 AM (#3173300) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: GUEST,Patsy We have something similar going on with Cheryl Cole in the UK at the moment, not about emails exactly but will she won't she be on the panel of judges on the X Factor show in US or UK or anything again. We are being bombarded with it every other week at the moment it is such childish tittle tattle and ridiculous. As if there wasn't anything more important going on elsewhere. If I was her I would stick to the L'Oreal hair commercials and keep quiet. |
|
29 Jun 11 - 12:07 AM (#3178083) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: Jim Dixon No, it's the new poetry. |
|
29 Jun 11 - 04:42 AM (#3178156) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: DrugCrazed Peter! You've lost the news!. I have nothing further to add. |
|
29 Jun 11 - 06:56 AM (#3178215) Subject: RE: BS: Is this the NEW journalism? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T I gave up reading newspapers after the last item of genuine news was printed in the Times. That would be about forty years ago. I haven't bought one since. They ceased to have any relevance to my life when I moved to a house with no open fires. Don T. |