Now, don't jump to conclusions: I am no regular reader of the Columbia Journalism Review.  However, on NPR, Scott Simon interviewed Gilbert Cranberg and linked to his article "Voices: Closing Ethical Loopholes" from the July/August 2005 CJR.

From a read of it, it appears that Cranberg, at least, is beginning to catch up with us here at ePMedia.

retagged for Ethics discussion and Front page

The pictures streaming through our televisons and plastered across our newspapers remind many people of third world countries. "This is America. This isn't supposed to happen here" say both refugees and their fellow Americans around the country. The worst aspect of this is the looting that plagues New Orleans. Gunfights are breaking out. This morning there were reports of an explosion at a paint factory (why you would loot a paint factory, I can't understand).

The newspapers have done an admirable job in covering the details of the story. What they have not covered so well are the failures of the Bush administration in preparing for this (very possible) catastrophe.  While it is true that they have, to a certain extent, covered the inability for FEMA and others to act on a threat they knew about, they have not given front-page coverage to why such a disaster has never happened before. In addition, they have not looked terribly fairly at the root causes of the looting, or at the racial aspects of it.

This is a topic I have brought up before, and I will bring it up again.

At the start of the 1935 film (presented this week on Turner Classic Movies) After Office Hours, Jim Branch (Clark Gable) tries to bring the reality of the newspaper business to Sharon Norwood (Constance Bennett).  He claims that, for one thing, his intelligence and that of his readers are equal.  Norwood, a "society" writer has reviewed a concert, disparaging the audience while doing so.  Branch, who is about to fire her, wants her to understand that journalism is not for the elite, but is for the readers.  You don't look down on your audience or try to "better" them; you give them what they want (something that, believe it or not, does not necessarily mean "pander"--but that's another story).

Hearing what jurors on the Merck case in Texas had to say about why they awarded for the plaintiff even though her husband died of complications that have not been shown to be related to Vioxx reminds me of a jury I served on at the end of 2000.

Warning: those of you who are uncompromisingly against corporations aren't going to like what I am saying here.  As you will see, it's my belief that justice has to pertain to the specifics of a case, not to whether the accused is "bad" due to other actions.  "They may not have done this, but they did something, so deserve to be punished" doesn't work for me.

The case I served on concerned a RICO charge brought against the tobacco industry by the Manville Trust.  It concerned the connection between asbestos and tobacco--and involved a huge amount of money.  It lasted two months in the Federal Courthouse in Brooklyn, NY.  Witnesses included Julius Richmond, a former Surgeon General of the United States, Jeffrey Wigand, the man on whom the movie The Insider is based, and James Heckman, a Nobel laureate, along with parades of anti-tobacco campaigners and tobacco company loyalists.

A friend from Ohio sent me this today...... I consider it my awakening. Your turn!

Things get thrown around a lot in the Judy Miller/Valerie Plame case--especially (these days) about the press and the sanctity of its role in society.  What I wonder, when reading about all this is: Does the press still deserve its special position in American society?

[editor's note, by Cho]
cross posted from Pyrrho's diary at DKOS, as Harcourt indicates with a link to the original DKos diary below. -- additional update, a little cleanup on formatting.

For debate...

• If you say it's a fact, you need give a list of primary sources, don't be surprised if one isn't enough
• If it's an opinion from an expert... state all relevant affiliations such that someone can find out about this organization's work.
• If it's pure speculation, use phrases like, "there is no evidence of this, this is pure speculation"
• if you quote someone, include the context, especially a link to the article
• give people respect in the comments and in general
• ranting is OK, but don't think you can't be held to account for it... oooohhhh scary voice.
• it's just a blog, ideas, intellectual exercise... hmmm, actually, that's quite a bit, take your words seriously if others are supposed to (i.e. humor excepted)
• When you're wrong, admit it.
• If you have any personal associations which bias your point of view, err on the side of disclosure.
  

Digging around in Znet for some radical bits, I came across a most unlikely blog heading on Chomsky's journal, "Hustler Interview Context"

Basically, Chomsky explains that he was duped by someone named "Sinclair" into giving an interview for publication in a reputable journal. He proclaims his innocence, "I had never heard of the journal, but that is normal."

More on the flip:

                                        * WARNING *

This post may not be safe for work due to strong adult language.

But, the bottom line is I think the topic is pertinent for followers of Chomsky!