Everything that is rancid and corrupt with modern journalism: The Nutshell

[BurtWorm]

From Glenn Greenwald:


http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/27/the_correction/index.html


Time Magazine has done a superb service for the country by illustrating everything that is rancid and corrupt with our political media. After I emailed Time.com Editor Josh Tyrangiel asking why the online version of Joe Klein's column remains online uncorrected given that -- as Managing Editor Rick Stengel now says -- the article contains a "reporting error," this is the "correction" Time has now posted to the article. Seriously -- this is really it, in its entirety:

In the original version of this story, Joe Klein wrote that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would allow a court review of individual foreign surveillance targets. Republicans believe the bill can be interpreted that way, but Democrats don't.

Leave aside the false description of what Klein wrote. He didn't say "that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would allow a court review of individual foreign surveillance targets." He said that their bill "would require the surveillance of every foreign-terrorist target's calls to be approved by the FISA court" and "would give terrorists the same legal protections as Americans." But the Editor's false characterization of Klein's original lie about the House FISA bill is the least of the issues here.

All Time can say about this matter is that Republicans say one thing and Democrats claim another. Who is right? Is one side lying? What does the bill actually say, in reality?

That's not for Time to say. After all, they're journalists, not partisans. So they just write down what each side says. It's not for them to say what is true, even if one side is lying.

In this twisted view, that is called "balance" -- writing down what each side says. As in: "Hey - Bush officials say that there is WMD in Iraq and things are going great with the war (and a few people say otherwise). It's not for us to decide. It's not our fault if what we wrote down is a lie. We just wrote down exactly what they said." At best, they write down what each side says and then go home. That's what they're for.

That our typical establishment "journalist" conceives of this petty clerical task as their only role is not news. But it is striking to see the nation's "leading news magazine" so starkly describe how they perceive their role.

...

[magellan]

1. Like Rove telling Charlie Rose the WH wasn't pushing the IWR in '02

Rose didn't do much to call him on it, though he clearly knew it was a lie.

"It's one of the secrets in my new book" was all KKKarl had to say, and Rose backed off.

This is a recorded show, yes? They don't have the ability to fact-check and add a back-end onto the piece calling Rove's lie for what it is? Same goes for all the corporate news stations.

The result of this sort of hack reporting is it generates uncertainty and eventually makes the truth so difficult to follow that hardly anyone knows what the hell is real and what isn't. Suddenly people aren't so sure they remember what really happened. Most will not run to the internet to check the facts for themselves, if they even know how. And if they're of a mind to believe the likes of Rove in the first place, they won't bother. They'll just perpetuate the lie and on it goes, confusing things even more.

And instead of being arrested, the criminals laugh all the way to the bank as they sell their lies to the masses in books and on lecture circuits.

[DCKit]

2. I think WMDs are being stored in the WH along with plans for terrorist attacks.

Go get 'em boys!

[BurtWorm]

3. kick