Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 20th, 2013, 06:18 PM   #1
Senior Citizen and Proud
 
Mrs. CJ Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Anderson, IN
Posts: 2,673
Media Observers on ABC's Jonathan Karl Benghazi Talking Points Story: "Sloppy" And "I

Media Observers on ABC's Jonathan Karl Benghazi Talking Points Story: "Sloppy" And "Inaccurate" | Blog | Media Matters for America

[QUOTE]ABC's Jonathan Karl is drawing criticism from journalism veterans and media ethicists who say his recent reporting on talking points related to the September attacks on diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya has been "sloppy" and "highly problematic ethically."

The conservative media and Republican politicians have claimed for months that the Obama administration had for political purposes edited references to terrorism out of a set of talking points used shortly after the attacks.

On May 10, Karl gave those claims new life with an "exclusive" online report that found, based on what appeared to be direct quotes from the emails of White House and State Department aides, that "the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department."

Karl's muddled account reported both that "White House emails reviewed by ABC News" and that "summaries of White House and State Department emails" led to that conclusion. He also repeatedly produced quotes from what he described as "emails," suggesting that he had personally reviewed the original documents. In on-air reports, Karl and his colleagues subsequently claimed he had "obtained" the emails.

But after CNN produced the full text of one of the emails Karl had cited and reported that the version in Karl's article had made it "appear that the White House was more interested in the State Department's desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and warnings about these groups so as to not bring criticism to the State Department" than was actually the case, Karl acknowledged that he had actually been "quoting verbatim" an unnamed source "who reviewed the original documents and shared detailed notes," and had not seen the emails himself. Observers have suggested that Karl had been burned by his source, given the discrepancies between what Karl reported about the email and what it actually said in full.

The slippery language Karl and ABC News adopted in describing the emails has drawn fire from media ethicists and veteran journalists.

"At best, it's extremely sloppy. At worst, it's a deliberate attempt to conceal the secondhand -- and possibly distorted -- nature of the information ABC was relying on so as to put its shoulder to the wheel of a highly prejudicial reading of the affair," said Edward Wasserman, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, and a Miami Herald columnist. "Whether best or worst is true, it's highly problematic ethically, and the failure to acknowledge and correct is even worse."[/QUOTE]

This guy, ABC news and the republicans in the house have lost their credibility and sense of moral character, if they ever had any.
Mrs. CJ Parker is offline  
Old May 20th, 2013, 06:23 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Gamma Solaris
Posts: 22,907
Quote:
This guy, ABC news and the republicans in the house have lost their credibility and sense of moral character, if they ever had any.
But not too long ago it was okay...until he (& ABC) had the audacity to report the news as it is.

"If they ever had any?"

Now they do...

Moral character??? YOU are concerned about moral character???

Tony is offline  
Old May 20th, 2013, 06:38 PM   #3
Senior Citizen and Proud
 
Mrs. CJ Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Anderson, IN
Posts: 2,673
Quote:
The Free Flow of Information Act is a bill intended to provide a news reporter with the right to refuse to testify as to information or sources of information obtained during the newsgathering and dissemination process.

While numerous U.S. states have shield laws, the federal government has no such law. The bill is an effort to enact a shield law at the federal level.

The bill was introduced to the United States Senate by Sens. Richard Lugar and Chris Dodd in 2007.[1] It was proposed in its current form by Sen. Arlen Specter.[2].

In October 2007, the Free Flow of Information Act was passed by the United States House of Representatives. However, It was filibustered (failed cloture) on Jul 30, 2008, and withdrawn.[2]

In the 2007-08 Senate version, it would not act as an unqualified immunity for journalists. Instead, federal judges would be allowed to declare certain news stories as having a public interest based on information obtained from confidential sources during the newsgathering process.

More than 50 media companies and organizations support the bill.[3] The administration of President George W. Bush opposed it.[4] Speaking to the Associated Press annual meeting in Washington, D.C. on April 14, 2008, Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee for president, said "Despite concerns I have about the legislation, I have narrowly decided to support it."[5]
References
hhhmmmmm...seems as though this is yet another conundrum for the right wingers.
Mrs. CJ Parker is offline  
Old May 20th, 2013, 07:29 PM   #4
Senior Citizen and Proud
 
Mrs. CJ Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Anderson, IN
Posts: 2,673
I wonder how long it is before FOX hires this guy...a born liar
Mrs. CJ Parker is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Conservative," "Liberal," and "Reactionary" mytmouse57 Current Events 302 May 3rd, 2013 11:49 AM
The Real Story Behind Bill Gates And "Death Panels" Dude111 Healthcare 1 October 3rd, 2010 09:17 PM
Obama: "I'm not American" "My Birth Place is Kenya" Dude111 Political Talk 11 August 17th, 2010 07:16 PM
Noam Chomsky obliterates 911 "Truth's" "logic" Fanny Kaplan Conspiracy Theories 3 January 6th, 2009 03:42 AM
No "natural" basis for gender at all...Let's just "blur" the obvious. fxashun Gay and Lesbian Rights 35 December 2nd, 2007 01:56 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.