Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I said the story itself was my business. No where did I even hint that I had the right to see the investigation, report, evidence before it was publicly released.
My comment was that inquiring minds have questions whose answers are none of their business. You said it was your business. Where do you think the answers are??
One independent source to confirm would be sufficient.
As American citizens who depend on the news to give us information, we should be decrying the 24 hours news model instead of supporting it. It does so much harm and very little good.
In chaotic situations like mass shootings, that's not going to happen. That's why there are clarifications as time passes. IMO, the public demands immediate information.
My comment was that inquiring minds have questions whose answers are none of their business. You said it was your business. Where do you think the answers are??
Just because I believe the answers are my business does not mean I think I have special privilege to the answers before other members of the public see them. Why would you even make that leap?
In chaotic situations like mass shootings, that's not going to happen. That's why there are clarifications as time passes. IMO, the public demands immediate information.
I know it doesn't happen in chaotic situations, or even in controversial situations. Which is why accuracy and integrity should be valued more highly than timeliness.
I know it doesn't happen in chaotic situations, or even in controversial situations. Which is why accuracy and integrity should be valued more highly than timeliness.
Agreed, but obviously it's not. The public gets what it wants, so there must be very few members of the public who feel the way you do. We have become an immediate gratification society. Knowing all of this, it begs the question of why you think it's odd that there weren't more photographs of Sandy Hook.
Just because I believe the answers are my business does not mean I think I have special privilege to the answers before other members of the public see them. Why would you even make that leap?
You know the answers exist in the official investigation. You know the report will be released to the public, eventually. You (and others) keep asking questions that cannot be answered without the info in the official report. Pretty clear why I "make that leap"...
Because that's how it is with this 24 hr news cycle we have now. And no one accepts, "further details as they become available". The public wants everything NOW. So they sometimes go with stuff that later turns out not to be true.
Not quite, while you have a point that misinformation is reported, it is also true that some details are just dropped.
Never to be mentioned again.
Because they don't want the public to know. In the case of Sandy Hook, the live footage of the man in the woods just fell off the map.
No longer is there any mention of why the Honda that Lanza drove was registered to a Chris Rodia, a convicted sex felon, just fell off the map.
There is also no longer any investigative journalism done.
Five corporations control all the media in this country.
For example Fox News in Denver did an interview with a woman who claimed to be in the same jail as James Holmes, that she was a few cells down from him and heard private conversations between him and his father.
She must have reallly big ears as she was several cells away...LOL.
She also stated her cellmate(a female) confronted him in the shower.
Well it was all made up, yet no one bothered to even check out the facts first.
Did the station ever come back and say "we made a mistake, she was a liar", no they did not.
The media doesn't even bother anymore to check out peoples stories before putting them on camera.
Not quite, while you have a point that misinformation is reported, it is also true that some details are just dropped.
Never to be mentioned again.
Because they don't want the public to know. In the case of Sandy Hook, the live footage of the man in the woods just fell off the map.
No longer is there any mention of why the Honda that Lanza drove was registered to a Chris Rodia, a convicted sex felon, just fell off the map.
There is also no longer any investigative journalism done.
Five corporations control all the media in this country.
For example Fox News in Denver did an interview with a woman who claimed to be in the same jail as James Holmes, that she was a few cells down from him and heard private conversations between him and his father.
She must have reallly big ears as she was several cells away...LOL.
She also stated her cellmate(a female) confronted him in the shower.
Well it was all made up, yet no one bothered to even check out the facts first.
Did the station ever come back and say "we made a mistake, she was a liar", no they did not.
The media doesn't even bother anymore to check out peoples stories before putting them on camera.
Another example is Gene Rosen.
And this is why more than one source is needed. Along with the fact that eye witnesses are sometimes mistaken.
What about the Atlanta paper's one source, the police, who named an innocent person as the bomber?
The local tv can say something happened, but the rush to get it on the air needs to be tempered for accuracy.
Last edited by crone; 01-26-2013 at 12:45 PM..
Reason: typo
He's not talking about a New World Order controlled by political elites! He's talking about the press GIVING OUT TOO MUCH information which threatens our National Security. He's talking about OUR enemies during the Cold War.
From the link above:
"I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests."
Never said that he was. I read the whole thing and understand it quite clearly. I've said nothing to make you question my understanding. All I did was post a link for you because you could not or would not find it yourself and I was getting tired of hearing you pester Guy to find it for you. You're welcome.
And this is why more than one source is needed. Along with the fact that eye witnesses are sometimes mistaken.
What about the Atlanta paper's one source, the police, who named an innocent person as the bomber?
The local tv can say something happened, but the rush to get it on the air needs to be tempered for accuracy.
The media had multiple sources telling them that Nancy Lanza was a teacher at the school yet they still got it wrong because they had multiple sources feeding them false information.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
