Joined Nov 11, 2007
31,929 Blog Posts

Too Funny: Dan Rather Talking About “Trust” In Media, Vetting Process

I’m sure some or most of what he’s saying here is true. But his own background is pretty black on the subject of careful research. And that’s why it’s nice to have multiple news networks that hate each other, at polar positions. I guarantee Fox isn’t going to hold back on Obama, and CNN, MSNBC (or whatever it’s called now), etc. will not be giving Romney his choice of the pie.

(CNN) — A New York Times front-page article Monday detailed a new phenomenon in news coverage of the presidential campaign: candidates insisting on “quote approval,” telling reporters what they can and cannot use in some stories. And, stunningly, reporters agreeing to it.

This, folks, is news. Any way you look at it, this is a jaw-dropping turn in journalism, and it raises a lot of questions. Among them: Can you trust the reporters and news organizations who do this? Is it ever justified on the candidate’s side or on the reporter’s side? Where is this leading us?

As someone who’s been covering presidential campaigns since the 1950s, I have no delusions about political reporting. Candidates bargaining access to get the kind of news coverage they want is nothing new. The thicket of attribution and disclosure deals is a deep maze reporters have been picking their way through even before my time. But this latest tactic by candidates revealed by the Times gives me, to say the least, great pause. It should give every citizen pause.

Read here:

If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter