Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alice j]

I heard an interesting point today.

An ABC radio host mentioned that in the response to the McGurk affair, journalists had made hypocritical remarks about immorality-- he thought it was hypocritical that journalists would even make remarks about morality, because of how imperfect the journalists themselves are. He linked this to the Della Bosca affair: he asked how many journalists were having affairs at the time, and how ridiculous it was for them to be reporting about 'moral scandal' in comparison to their own lives, and the very basis of their professions- how moral is it to be revealing the secrets of everyone for money?

I'm not sure I agree with this- but what gets published in the Illawarra Mercury sometimes seems a little like this. On the other hand, journalists are just doing their jobs, and just trying to write what their audience is thinking.

[Adi]

Ah the Illawarra Mercury... takes me back to the glad old days of Mediawatch

I'd comment furthur, but I appeared to have lost my brain in my vomiting spell this morning. Feeling most unhelpful. Just fyi

[Emperor Fadeaway]

Yes, they are. Did you just discover this?

[Frazzy?]

well she is only 15, right? ...at 15 most of my classmates could barely even read...

[Emperor Fadeaway]

So, we should all be impressed eh Frazzy? She still writes nonsense. Her childish narrow view just annoys me. And i feel bad telling her off, because she's just a kid! LOL. I guess that's why they should be seen and not heard, right?

[Thaluikhain]

The question assumes that "journalists" are a single homogenuous mass, which clearly isn't true.  Yes, some journalists are hypocrites, probably rather more than we'd like, but that's not to say they all are.

As for revealing the secrets of others as a profession, motive would be very important there.  If they are raking up dirt to sell their writings, that is rather dubious, yes.  But if they are bringing to light things they believe the public should be aware of, that's a much more laudable goal.

[Frazzy?]

No, not impressed, just not utterly disgusted.
She's gotta try to seem all grown up, having views on stuff is the new smoking and drinking.

Everyone is a hypocrite.

[Mez]

Ah the Illawarra Mercury... takes me back to the glad old days of Mediawatch

The Illawarra Mercury still cops a bashing from Media Watch on a regular basis.  Quite deservedly.

Journos are just like everyone else - they love a good sex scandal because it sells papers and makes them popular with their employers.

[Mr. Blonde]

I would need to know the definition of 'hyporcrites' before I can proceed to comment.

[Frazzy?]

hypercritical hypocrites, perhaps?

[Adi]

The Illawarra Mercury still cops a bashing from Media Watch on a regular basis.  Quite deservedly

Yeah I know... I snigger every time. But it was something of a weekly ritual under Stuart Littlemore.

[Emperor Fadeaway]

No, not impressed, just not utterly disgusted.
She's gotta try to seem all grown up, having views on stuff is the new smoking and drinking.

Indeed. That's why she's full of shit. A clueless opinionated twat.

The simple fact is that she cannot come up with any observation that we haven't already thought of. But she makes them seen all new and brilliant. Little does she realise, they're only new to her.

[alice j]

No, not impressed, just not utterly disgusted.
She's gotta try to seem all grown up, having views on stuff is the new smoking and drinking.

No, I have views on stuff because it's my fucking right. Article 13, Section I of the UN Convention on the Rights of A Child state that a child has the right to freedom of expression.

Indeed. That's why she's full of shit. A clueless opinionated twat.

The simple fact is that she cannot come up with any observation that we haven't already thought of. But she makes them seen all new and brilliant. Little does she realise, they're only new to her.

I'm not forcing you to read my posts. Sorry if my asking questions annoys you. But I like getting answers, and hearing what everyone thinks. But I'm not going away just because I like getting other peoples' opinions- and because I have my own. Last time I heard, there isn't a certain time in your life when you're entitled to hold opinions.

[Majorie]

I'm not forcing you to read my posts. Sorry if my asking questions annoys you. But I like getting answers, and hearing what everyone thinks. But I'm not going away just because I like getting other peoples' opinions- and because I have my own. Last time I heard, there isn't a certain time in your life when you're entitled to hold opinions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z00uk-dnceE

You're not related to Peaches Geldof are you Alice?

[alice j]

The question assumes that "journalists" are a single homogenuous mass, which clearly isn't true.  Yes, some journalists are hypocrites, probably rather more than we'd like, but that's not to say they all are.

As for revealing the secrets of others as a profession, motive would be very important there.  If they are raking up dirt to sell their writings, that is rather dubious, yes.  But if they are bringing to light things they believe the public should be aware of, that's a much more laudable goal.

I think the guy was talking specifically about the journalists who reported about the McGurk shooting and about Della Bosca's affair specifically. I was wondering how widespread it was. I like what you said about motive...I didn't really consider how important motive was. I mean, what's printed is printed, right? But as far as integrity goes, motive is really do-or-die.