|
This is Journalism...
|
View this Thread in Original format
| denys envy |
As much as I hate politics, I do enjoy a good piece of journalism. One of my favorite authors (Orson Scott Card), wrote this brilliant piece on the economy crisis, and set a few things straight. I figure it's only fair that I share it with the rest of you. The truth, is the only thing that's important - please realize that this has nothing to do with the voting agenda, nor my political views. I also realize that those of you that are more vocal, or are extremely politically sided (be it left or right), will want to bring in the "trash" with attacks on either side, or excuses for the candidate you support. Honestly I probably can't prevent it but I only ask that you read this piece as informational, and don't ruin it with your agenda.
The reality, as is always the case lately, is no matter how much you think you know about either of the candidates, the truth is rarely out there any longer, as OSC points out in this article. In fact, it very hard to find a good piece of writing that doesn't have an personal/political agenda behind it. At one point Journalism was about truth, let's hope it comes back to it someday.
Cheers!
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.
| quote: | An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city. |
CORe Version: Journalists, these days, are mostly full of . |
|
|
| iammesol |
| Wow. That guy went to town! Love how he's a democrat himself. |
|
|
| mezzir |
haven't read it yet, but to just say he's a democrat is a bit misleading
he identifies himself as a democrat for a few key reasons, but more specifically here are some of his views:
| quote: | | During the 2004 election Card wrote many articles supporting the Bush/Cheney ticket, criticizing John Kerry, and lambasting his own state's senator, John Edwards, as being absurd, insincere, and an opportunistic shill. Prior to the 2004 presidential race, Card had written that his state needed to regain control from people like Edwards and advocated running a strong primary opponent against Edwards should he run for reelection to the Senate.[13] He has also been a staunch defender of Fox News, stating that "It's a good feeling to hear about our war from people who actually think it would be a good thing if we win." |
|
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Card should stick to writing science fiction. |
|
|
| denys envy |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Card should stick to writing science fiction. |
that hard to swallow it, eh?
edit: i thought it was well written. obviously the research is definitely not all there. i don't know all the facts, but i know this: in a two party system the fault rarely lies on one side or the other, and there's usually plenty of blame to go around for everyone.
like i said, i didn't post this to politically motivate anything, but rather agree with Card on one point - that "News" coverage of the elections has been nothing but "Non-issues". they pick up whatever scraps both campaign's toss them - like the Obama is a terrorist thing, or that McCain is Bush policy-oriented - and ride that pony until it dies. they create these sensationalist stories that have nothing to do with the real problems in this country. |
|
|
| mezzir |
| quote: | Originally posted by denys envy
that hard to swallow it, eh?
edit: i thought it was well written. obviously the research is definitely not all there. i don't know all the facts, but i know this: in a two party system the fault rarely lies on one side or the other, and there's usually plenty of blame to go around for everyone.
like i said, i didn't post this to politically motivate anything, but rather agree with Card on one point - that "News" coverage of the elections has been nothing but "Non-issues". they pick up whatever scraps both campaign's toss them - like the Obama is a terrorist thing, or that McCain is Bush policy-oriented - and ride that pony until it dies. they create these sensationalist stories that have nothing to do with the real problems in this country. |
K i agree with that completely. Yeah it was hard to swallow cause I swear a number of those statements were easily refutable, but the core of his point is definitely correct, media's been asleep on this. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by denys envy
that hard to swallow it, eh? |
No. Anyone can recite the very old charge that the mainstream media is superficial and often irrelevant -- sometimes even the MSM itself will host people who make this exact point. But it when comes to actual analysis of the issues he says the media is neglecting, Card often falls short IMO. |
|
|
| denys envy |
i guess swallow was the wrong term to use because you guys automatically jumped on the political machine. i thought you meant "stick to writing sci fi" in a "this was poorly written".
i agree that his research is faulty at best, but the writing itself is done pretty well, and uses AP style better than most i've seen.
i guess this was just a bad decision to post it in the CORe. the pro-Obama wagon is too big, and you guys definitely can't back away from the political/voting agenda and critique the piece outside of that.
my apologies for ruffling feathers, thread closed. |
|
|
|
|
