Michael Jackson Hoax Death

Journalism is dead because there's a heavy reliance on “unnamed sources” and has been that way for quite some time. Not just stories surrounding MJ, but on every topic. This is exactly why journalism is dying. All the attributes that make for GOOD journalism are not practiced anymore. Walter Cronkite is rolling in his grave.

sad but true, but it would not be this way unless their where demands after it, so is it really the publics fault dont you agree?

 I mean the average people would not buy a magazine that is said “Michael jackson is the artist who has giving more money to charity than any other in his business” (i would buy, but most would not )

They buy magazine stated “Wacko want to be Sir Jacko ”

They just writing what the public wanna hear, the magazines are selling lies and it works!

Thetruth said:

sad but true, but it would not be this way unless their where demands after it, so is it really the publics fault dont you agree?

I will agree….to a point. Yes, the media generally feeds what the general public wants to hear. However, that doesn't make it right.

You see, I've mentioned Walter Cronkite several times today. That was for a reason. Walter Cronkite was the type of journalist that would not report ANYTHING unless it was fact-checked.

And fact-checked.

And fact-checked.

And fact-checked.

He would fact-check his facts to death, to assure he was not feeding the masses a bunch of bull. A cue Dan Rather should have taken advantage of….I digress.

If you're going to use an unnamed source, do the homework. Perfect example: The Watergate Hotel.

The Watergate scandal happened because an unnamed source tipped off a reporter. The reporter, who knowingly knew what the consequences were by f*cking with the leader of the free world, fact-checked EVERYTHING. After all, if he was going to screw with the President of the United States, he'd better make DAMN WELL he knew what he was doing. And he succeeded. All because the reporter was doing what he was SUPPOSED to do.

And no one does that today. It's all about the ratings. Hello Bush/Gore campaign. Hello Fox News.

In fact, there was a huge controversey that took place not too long ago about a high-profile reporter who claimed that using an “unnamed source” as just as good as naming the source. That's funny because that is NOT what I learned in my journalism class.

My point is that it's not too late to revert back to the glory days of good journalistic ethics. Enough with the unnamed sources. That is why I stopped watching the news a long time ago.

interesting