Pueblog USa
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Now That You Mention It — 090910
The Chieftain fires a ‘Warning Shot’?
Seems that a couple of weeks ago, the Chieftain ran an interesting editorial item from a source that, to the best of my knowledge, they’d never called upon before. This after a couple of posts I made on this blog wherein I took their ‘journalistic qualities’ to task.
I made those posts in order to provide what I call ‘counter-spin’ to the articles that had been written about two events I attended.
I’ve held off on replying to their more recent item until I’d consulted with some others. And having done that, I’ve decided it was time to call out the Chieftain once again.
Why do I do this?
Because it is essential for a free country to have ALL the facts of a matter. Not just one-sided ‘spin’ on matters of importance. Otherwise, that saying by President James Madison….
A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
....will come to pass.
So, here is my reply to their ‘editorial’.....
RE: Background
Ryan Blethen is a columnist for the Seattle, Wash, Times. His e-mail address is: rblethenseattletimes.com.—Ryan Blethen
He’s the scion of the owner of the Seattle Times. A so-called major media old-media. Rumor has it he is being ‘groomed’ to take over the paper, in due time.
If you care to send him a comment or three. Feel free.
RE: Words Have Meaning….
Words matter. Words are malleable and can be used to illuminate or obscure. Words can hurt. Because of the heaviness of words, newspaper journalists take seriously the power we wield through our publications.—Ryan Blethen
....when you speak you set them free.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the so-called major media was as mindful of their words as Ryan would like those of US who disagree with him to be?
Case in point….
....the calls to kill President Bush.
Oddly enough, it seems to me that people of Ryan’s ilk were silent during that period of time.
Now? With Obama in the Oval Office, they just want anyone who disagrees with them to just ‘Shut Up!’
I tell them, “Get used to disappointment.”
RE: Journalists vs. Reporters
Journalists spend an inordinate amount of time contemplating and discussing what to write and how to write it. This contemplating and discussing encompasses everything from topics, to word choice, to what is appropriate to be spun off the press.
Journalists have the right to write pointed critiques or damaging stories. This is never done lightly and must be backed up with fact. What we do can alter somebody’s life for better or worse. Almost every professional journalist is careful not to abuse this right of free speech.—Ryan Blethen
What a bunch of horse-pucky.
Journalists are just propagandists these days. They may spend a lot of time “contemplating and discussion what to write and how to write it”, but that’s the point of propaganda. Isn’t it. Couching ‘words’ in the proper manner to sway public opinion. Rather than telling people what is going on and letting them decide for themselves what to make of it.
And as for the idea that jounalists “have the right to write pointed critiques or damaging stories”, isn’t it interesting that, as I pointed out before, they like it when THEY can do it. But they don’t care for it when others—especially those who disagree with them—exercise the same use of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
RE: Heh. Here We Go Again….
There is nothing wrong with pushing the limits of the First Amendment, but there is a line where free speech can go too far and real damage is done. Bloggers are writing past this line and finding themselves in trouble. The common refrain from bloggers is that they have a right to say what they want, especially if it is their opinion. Whatever that opinion is, it needs to be grounded in fact. If it is not then the writer runs the risk of being sued for libel, which is a false statement that damages a person’s reputation.—Ryan Blethen
Are you getting this?
It looks like it’s Ryan’s opinion that it’s okay for him and his cohorts in what I like to call ‘thought crime’ to say what they want, under the auspices of the First Amendment. But not for anyone else.
I can hear them now, “Rights for me. But none for thee.”
And, now that I think upon it, I suspect that the Pueblo Chieftain published this piece of merde for a particular reason. Could it be that they feel the same way about bloggers in their own back-yard?
RE: A Word form Lucy
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said she is receiving more and more calls from bloggers.
‘‘They don’t seem to understand that if you are going to spout off, that spouting off has consequences,’’ she said.—Ryan Blethen
I had never heard of Lucy nor her organization—which looks for all the world to me to be a DC lobbyist outfit oriented towards protecting ‘journalists’—before it was mentioned in this diatribe. However, based on what I’ve seen on the web about that organization and her activities, it looks to me like Lucy needs to change the name of her organization, replacing the word “Reporters” with “Journalists”.
RE: The Average Blogger vs. Journalists
The average blogger doesn’t have the same understanding as trained journalists do of the difference between fact and opinion and the use of ‘‘red flag words.’’
‘‘As more citizens are out there blogging away many of them don’t have a grasp of what the law is,’’ Dalglish said.—Ryan Blethen
Again. Another argument that bloggers have no rights under the Bill of Rights? Just because they’re ‘ignorant’? Heck. Most journalists I’ve read of late seem to me to be either ‘ignorant’ or something much, much worse.
In the case of bloggers, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt vis-a-vis ‘ignorant’. I get the impression that journalists should know better and most likely do. But they do what they do anyway.
RE: So What?
In the past couple of weeks there have been some cases of bloggers getting into trouble. One involved an anonymous blogger in New York who allegedly wrote false and defamatory comments about Liskula Cohen, a model. Cohen sued, and a judge ordered Google - who hosted the blogger - to release the blogger’s identity to Cohen and her attorney. Turns out the blogger was a woman who turned up in some of the same social settings as Cohen.—Ryan Blethen
Civil tort regarding libel applies. Does it not? Well….it does.
The bottom line is that the law abides. But since the law does not prevent bloggers from doing what journalists won’t do, Ryan and his ilk are upset. Especially if they are being called out for failing in their professed ‘obligation’ to tell the public news.
But if you look at these people and their ‘reporting’, the truth of the matter begins to emerge. And what emerges is that such ‘journalists’ are being identified by bloggers for what they are: propagandists. All to many of them tell only one side of the news….the side they favor. Local examples being the items in the Pueblo Chieftain by Juan Espinosa and Loretta Sword last month. In these instances, items obviously slanted towards support of ObamaCare and against anyone who disagrees with the concept that the government should run your medical care programs.
RE: Incitement
No case is more bizarre than one originating out of New Jersey, which involves a blogger, Chicago judges and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Hal Turner is an Internet radio host and blogger who wrote that three federal appellate judges in Chicago should be killed because of their ruling against the National Rifle Association’s attempt to overturn a couple of handgun bans. Turner followed up by posting pictures of the judges and a map of the courthouse. He also pointed out where the truck-bomb barriers were around the courthouse. Writing that people should be killed isn’t libel, but it is dangerous to incite such violence.
Not surprisingly, Turner got a visit from the FBI and is now in jail awaiting trial. Wired Blogs reported last week that Turner claims he worked for the FBI between 2002 and 2007.—Ryan Blethen
HEY! Where was Ryan when people were calling for the assassination of President Bush?
Looking at his articles on the web. I get the impression that he could well have been sympathetic towards such calls.
Then again, if one wants to talk about inciting violence, what about what happened at Columbia University?
Where is Ryan’s article on what took place there? What was Lucy’s opinion?
A search on the web for anything by Ryan about that incident of violence found nothing of significance. Nor did I see anything from Lucy or her organization that indicated they were appalled by the behavior.
RE: Oh Me….Oh My….
Oh, my. These kind of cases worry me as they do Dalglish because of the precedent they could set and congressional backlash they could create.
‘‘It’s not to say that people shouldn’t be able to go out there and write on the Internet to their heart’s content, but we have libel laws for a reason. Sometimes people get hurt,’’ she said.
If bloggers don’t learn to check themselves, and use a modicum of restraint, then not only will people get hurt but free speech could be irreparably damaged.—Ryan Blethen
The point here is that civil tort regarding slander and libel DO apply. Let alone communicating a threat against a public official. Whether journalists or bloggers care to pay any heed to them is another matter. But, as I pointed out earlier, I think it something of a ‘telling indicator’ that Ryan and his ilk didn’t seem to mind it much when people whom he likely agreed with were saying ‘rude things’ during the Bush administration.
Maybe I’m wrong. But if I am, would someone be kind enough to point out where and when he objected to THEIR exercise of ‘free speech’?
On the other hand….
....why did the Pueblo Chieftain choose this ‘diatribe’ to publish? Doing a search on the Chieftain’s web-site, THIS is the ONLY item ever published in the Chieftain by this character. Why is that?
Is the ‘journalist’ staff at the Chieftain getting nervous about something? If so, what?
RE: The Bottom Line
It seems to me that Ryan Blethen is being your typical ‘progressive’ journalist hypocrite with this item. And, by virtue of the fact that this is the only article by him printed in the Pueblo Chieftain, THEY are too.
However, they are correct that laws relating to libel and slander are still on the proverbial ‘books’. People should try to keep a civil tongue when communicating. And that applies to ALL sides of ANY ‘debate’.
But again, it would be GREAT to see these so-called ‘journalists’ treating ALL parties in any debate by the same set of rules, instead of appearing the blatant hypocrites they seem to be to me.
UPDATE Additional Information [101210 Sep 09]: Something else regarding the veracity of so-called ‘journalists’ has come to light. I’ll address that in a follow-up item in the near future. And its significance in matters of ‘journalistic qualities’ as we are experiencing them today.
Next entry: Be Prepared III Previous entry: Those Damn Dams