A plenary session at the convention will be: "What Would Murrow Do?" It will have a strong focus on journalism ethics in changing times, with changing technologies. I think we know the answers in advance: be courageous, be rigorous, be fair but never hesitate to reveal wrong when you can prove it.
As an example, the essayists compare Socrates' dismissive dialogue with the out-of-touch religious leader Euthyphro over the meaning of piety with a "Daily Show" snippet in which Stewart mocks Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens' uninformed speech about the proposed Net Neutrality Act.
After a clip in which Stevens shows little knowledge about the Web, Stewart pounces: "You don't seem to know jack ... about computers or the Internet. But hey, that's OK; you're just the guy in charge of regulating it, so what difference does it make?"
I'm starting to feel a little burnt out by the fact that it seems that no one really cares about what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, except for a select few and the men and women fighting over there and their families.
Seems to me that it is becoming a more and more forgotten issue and will be that way until something horrible happens, which I pray never happens.I don't know if the American public will ever wake up and demand action or justice, seems like everyone is too pre-occupied with Britney Spears, Starbucks closing for 2 hours and American Idol then the plight of several thousand men and women of the Armed Forces.
Sometimes it makes me want to forget about trying to make a change, but I won't stop. I'll just keep on keeping on and hope that things will change. Because if they don't, we as vets are screwed.
"The Rocky Mountain News in Denver and the Daily News in New York were the only papers to give their entire front pages to honoring the men and women killed in Iraq. The Los Angeles Times gave a top quarter of their front to a feature called "Stories Of The Fallen." [...] Let's take a look at just some of the major US papers that left the soldiers out of their main front page headlines. To give a small bit of credit where not much is due, I've updated that The Washington Post posted a small headline in its very bottom left corner while The New York Times had a mention in a story excerpt below the fold." - Zaleski, The Huffington Post
"The major newspapers -- some cut above the folds -- are pasted below. No need for more words. The media's silence on Iraq is loud and clear below."
The Strib did print [the arrested man's] name — on buzz.mn, which it brands 'Star Tribune Communities.' There, a user named 'mplscrimewatch' posted the complete Minneapolis police media release — with the identity that newsroom professionals had redacted.
The web's rampaging information flow [... and] competition.Not good enough for me and others agree as there are some worries about the change.
[R]eporter Caroline Lowe says she's open to her boss's argument
but, 'My concern is you can never give back a reputation if the person is never
charged. How can we minimize the harm?'
Assistant Managing Editor Paul Klauda, who heads up the Strib's
review, says his paper's protocol allows four basic exceptions: when there's no
doubt who committed the act, when the suspect puts himself or herself in the
limelight, when the suspect is a public figure, and perhaps the most gaping of
all, when the case has high public interest.
Libin insists a looser policy can have moral grounding: "The
Society of Professional Journalists says [our] primary obligation is to seek the
truth and report it as fully as possible. Not seek the truth and hold it. Second
is journalistic independence, and the third is minimizing harm — but that's
third. To me, that means we don't need a good reason to report what's true, but
a good reason not to."
