It's part of the number one amendment to the Bill of Rights. It's the only business that gets Constitutional protection. The press is supposed to be the guard dogs for the people. We elect Representatives to handle the day to day running of the country because we just don't have time. Our Congress should be subject to scrutiny. Since we don't have time to look into all the allegations made against each & every politician, we have our media do it. Back before TV & radio, it made less noise, all this hoopla. It wasn't much nicer, hell, there have been quite a number of fistfights on the floor of the Senate. Imagine that today (it might make things better).
We're supposed to trust our media. It is supposed to be above the fray. Many argue that people have a right to their opinion, even if they are a journalist. Well, professionals should be able to rise above themselves & act in such a way as to be a credit to their chosen field. Edward R Murrow or Jayson Blair-you decide.
Here is a prime example of the ineptitude of journalists in the 21st century. The agenda has surpassed the profession as the priority. This story is about one man. The probable writer of the discredited Bush Nat'l Guard memo. The one that never existed & Dan Rather had a Viagra hardon over. This story is about a Democrat insider.
That's what the story is about. The methods to describe this individual is where the story is. A national powerhouse publication with the ability to shape the opinions of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people with it's influence peddling. The other is a local paper. Granted, it's local to a city that falls in the top 10 of largest US citites but it is not nor is it imagined to be a powerhouse newspaper. The Washington Post has credentials with the movers & shakers. The Houston Chronicle, well, doesn't.
The Post makes the subject out to be a nobody. A little guy in a little town. A tad conspicuous but harmless in the overall course of events.
The Chronicle makes this guy out to be an insider with a vendetta to fill & a history of lying.
The Post has an obvious agenda & showers its readers in it's enlightened glow daily. Who is the Chronicle trying to change?
We're supposed to trust our media. It is supposed to be above the fray. Many argue that people have a right to their opinion, even if they are a journalist. Well, professionals should be able to rise above themselves & act in such a way as to be a credit to their chosen field. Edward R Murrow or Jayson Blair-you decide.
Here is a prime example of the ineptitude of journalists in the 21st century. The agenda has surpassed the profession as the priority. This story is about one man. The probable writer of the discredited Bush Nat'l Guard memo. The one that never existed & Dan Rather had a Viagra hardon over. This story is about a Democrat insider.
That's what the story is about. The methods to describe this individual is where the story is. A national powerhouse publication with the ability to shape the opinions of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people with it's influence peddling. The other is a local paper. Granted, it's local to a city that falls in the top 10 of largest US citites but it is not nor is it imagined to be a powerhouse newspaper. The Washington Post has credentials with the movers & shakers. The Houston Chronicle, well, doesn't.
The Post makes the subject out to be a nobody. A little guy in a little town. A tad conspicuous but harmless in the overall course of events.
The Chronicle makes this guy out to be an insider with a vendetta to fill & a history of lying.
The Post has an obvious agenda & showers its readers in it's enlightened glow daily. Who is the Chronicle trying to change?