The Roanoke Times: RoundTable

Comments

# 1

[June 26, 2008 7:43 PM]

Josh

If journalists demand "sunshine" shed on government activities, why shouldn't journalists be subject to the same scrutiny?

Why should it be a one-way street?

# 2

[June 26, 2008 10:24 PM]

AJ

Is that a serious question, Josh, or are you just havin' a little fun?

# 3

[June 27, 2008 12:50 AM]

C Ramsey

It actually sounds like a pretty good question. Why just today the editor of the opinion page of this paper asked for evidence to support the unpublished opinion of a blogger. Why should the media be allowed to refuse to provide information about the sources of their information, when they have no compunction about demanding the same from the public?

Given the amount of bias demonstrated by the media in recent years, asking the public to just accept the media as trustworthy with no support may be asking a bit much. Are we supposed to just believe that the integrity of all members of the media is above reproach? Are we supposed to believe they are above personal vendettas and political motives?

Sorry, but there have been a few too many examples of dishonesty among "respected" journalists and reporters in recent years for my taste.

# 4

[June 27, 2008 7:28 AM]

Dan Radmacher

C,

Confidential sources should be used very sparingly by reporters - and outside of DC, they are. And readers should take information from confidential sources with a grain of salt. They should ask why that source wanted to remain confidential, and whether the information provided has been corroborated by independent information.

Even though use of such sources should be rare, there are times when promising confidentiality is necessary to give a source in a sensitive situation the ability to speak freely. Again, if the information can be corroborated independently, this isn't a problem, and can help journalists uncover important stories that would otherwise go untold - stories of government corruption told by people in position to witness it, for instance.

But such sources won't be willing to talk to journalists if they can't be confident that reporters will honor their promises and protect their identities.

That confidence often serves the public good, and that's why shield laws have been passed in most states and why a federal shield law is being considered.

# 5

[June 27, 2008 8:02 AM]

Henry

"That confidence often serves the public good,"

No it doesn't. You guys just tell yourselves that. The government keeps secrets because it has enemies. They are usually our enemies as well. You guys don't have enemies.

Not only that, journalists have a really funny way of deciding which sources are reliable. If they are telling you what you want to hear, they are reliable. That's how the media initially spiked the Monica story and accepted the Rathergate documents. The really strange thing is that journalists in DC knew Clinton was running around. They openly talked about it. When Linda Tripp exposed government corruption, you guys destroyed her.

I was deeply involved in the anti-Clinton movement and there were shysters on every corner. If you want current examples, go to places like Daily Kos or Code Pink.

# 6

[June 27, 2008 8:03 AM]

NRVA Citizen

Forcing journalists to give up sources, which are generally validated, is very different from government sunshine laws which are meant to require our elected officials to act for the good of the public in an open and transparent manner. Forcing journalists to disclose their sources mean less people would be willing to disclose information for valid fear of retaliation. It is not hard to find where a whistle blower's livelihood or reputation was ruined even when they did the right thing. Should this come to pass (as it did with the Plame case), then by extention law enforcement agencies should not be able to use paid informants who generally already have criminal records and incentive of staying free to tell cops what they want to hear, in order to "make a case" against other suspected or targeted bad-guys. Blacklisting, bullying and McCarthyism is alive and well and laws are needed to supress these, especially when initiated by government agencies who are responding to such public examinations as a defensive mechanism.

# 7

[June 27, 2008 9:24 AM]

c. trejbal

You guys seem to miss the point. While the debate over a shield law is a valuable and interesting one, the question here is where someone who is supposed to speak for Virginians on legal issues and aspires to be governor stands? Either he disagrees with the vast majority of AGs or he agrees but chose not to support he bill for another reason. Either case warrants an explanation. McDonnell has never shied away from weighing in on controversial issues in the past. What makes this largely uncontroversial one different?

I hope he supports the shield law as a means to preserve the free flow of information to the people.

# 8

[June 27, 2008 10:44 AM]

Ed S.

Christian, the fact that 42 AGs signed on is somewhat irrelevant. You yourself disagreed with the SCOTUS majority opinion on the Second Amendment, and I'm sure there are other majority opinions of various bodies you disagree with. What is relevant is what is actually right (not always possible to reach), and as you said, where McDonnell stands. I can't speak to how much and who you have tried to contact to get that information, but in the end what he says (or doesn't) will factor in the decision of voters.

But then perhaps he's still forming an opinion, or hasn't issued one because it's in the Federal realm and not the state?

# 9

[June 27, 2008 12:35 PM]

Ed S.

Please excuse the atrocious grammar above ("you yourself"). I was trying to converse while typing my response. Obviously, it only partially worked.

# 10

[June 27, 2008 1:07 PM]

Blue John

Me myself didn't notice it Ed.

# 11

[June 27, 2008 6:38 PM]

Jim

journalists need to be held accountable to some standard, therefore, they should reveal their sources.

# 12

[June 27, 2008 7:20 PM]

Ed S.

Okay, so I read it...or tried to. Most of what I could understand in the beginning sounded okay. Then I started getting tired, my eyes crossed, so I'm not sure of exactly what the entire bill is saying.

The gist of what I got:
-Feds can compel disclosure in cases of imminent death, significant harm, terrorism
-Feds can compel if disclosure of classified info has caused or will cause threat of harm*
-Feds can compel disclosure if all other avenues have been exhausted (and, I think, the information is needed in an investigation for certain crimes)

I think that's what I got. Those sound okay, but for the * I would say compel any time classified info has been leaked (and other sources are not available). Classified info, by definition, is classified b/c release would cause harm to national security.

But maybe AG McDonnell knows something I don't. Hopefully the reasons will be known.

# 13

[June 28, 2008 9:16 AM]

Josh

AJ,

So you just assume journalists should be able to level charges without accountability?

# 14

[June 28, 2008 1:27 PM]

Blue John

Josh

FOX News already does it.

# 15

[June 28, 2008 6:13 PM]

Henry

Don't prove it, Blue John. Just say it.

# 16

[June 28, 2008 7:58 PM]

Blue John

You want proof?

Turn on your TV and open your eyes!

# 17

[June 28, 2008 8:55 PM]

Henry

Yet Fox News ratings are stronger than the competition.

# 18

[June 28, 2008 11:09 PM]

Josh

In terms of news, people tend to gravitate toward the truth and away from lies. It's why Radio Free Europe beat the Commie stations, it's why conservative talk radio flourishes while Air America goes bankrupt, it's why liberal newspapers and the Big Three networks are faltering, and why FOX beats the pants off CNN.

# 19

[June 28, 2008 11:14 PM]

Blue John

FYI,

www.nationalheadlinerawards.com/Winners2008

NOTE: Number of awards for FOX News & Bill O'Reilly - A big fat zero, as in 0.

Because FOX News is not a real news network, it is nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the Republican party. The real measure of a news network is the number of journalism awards they get, not their ratings. That is why NBC, PBS, and CNN win all the awards, because they do real journalism. Ratings are for entertainment shows, which is what FOX News is, entertainment, especially the O'Reilly Factor.

# 20

[June 28, 2008 11:22 PM]

Blue John

FYI II,

ABC’s World News with Charles Gibson Tops in 2007
Newscast Breaks Drought of More than 10 Years
By Marisa Guthrie -- Broadcasting & Cable, 1/3/2008 2:14:00 PM
For the first time in more than 10 years, ABC’s World News with Charles Gibson finished the year as the top-rated evening newscast.

World News finished 2007 ahead of NBC’s Nightly News with Brian Williams in total viewers and the 25-54 demographic. According to Nielsen Media Research, World News averaged 8.39 million viewers each week (with 2.58 million in the demo) compared with Nightly’s 8.3 million total (2.52 million in the demo).

CBS Evening News with Katie Couric closed 2007 with 6.44 million viewers (2.01 million in the demo).

World News weathered months of turmoil beginning with the death of longtime anchor Peter Jennings in August 2005 and followed by the grievous injuries sustained by Bob Woodruff in January 2006 and Elizabeth Vargas’ resignation later that year. After finally settling on Charles Gibson as its anchor, it gradually gained ground, overtaking perennial leader NBC in February 2007.

# 21

[June 29, 2008 12:21 AM]

Will

I've said it for a long time. Fox isn't about news, it's about ratings. They're nothing more than a televised tabloid rag of Rupert Murdoch's.

They incite the news rather than reporting it. After listing to the two faced Bill O pontificate I find it so enlightening to listen to his foul mouthed tirade when he was on an earlier show when the teleprompter didn't work correctly.

He's a true example of quality journalism if I ever saw one!

# 22

[June 29, 2008 8:16 AM]

John

Why does the name "Dan Rather" keep coming to mind as I read Will's posting?

# 23

[June 29, 2008 9:03 AM]

C Ramsey

Well no duh, Blue. Did you look at who the judges for those awards are. A collection of liberal newspaper editors. You couldn't find a more biased group without having a list of registered democrats in hand.

The simple fact is the left hates Fox news because they do what the other mainstream media outlets have been doing for years, slanting the news in the direction of their political leanings. One difference though is that they do usually include the opposing viewpoint in the discussion. The interviewer may reveal his or her personal bias, but at least he or she interviews representatives from both the left and the right. That's a step closer to unbiased reporting than any of the other networks or cable outlets, the ones like NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC. They typically only interview people that support their position.

But I think the big think that irritates the left to no end about Fox is the high ratings. You can rationalize entertainment vs. news all you want, but one thing is clear. The message presented by Fox news is more consistent with what the majority of Americans believe or the ratings wouldn't be so high. I guess it is disheartening to realize that no matter how hard the MSM pushes its secular progressive, liberal agenda, no matter how many markets they put broadcast in and no matter how many billions they spend spreading their version of news, the majority of people still choose Fox.

Perhaps the people are sending their own message to the MSM.

# 24

[June 29, 2008 9:20 AM]

Josh

Blue John,

Oh Wow. You mean only liberal news shows get awards created by and for liberals? That's a shocker.

It's the same as "The Passion of the Christ", a blockbuster epic that fits perfectly in the Oscar formula, never getting so much as a mention or nomination in any of the major awards categories.

It's the same as Time Magazine never putting Rush Limbaugh on its annual list of "The 100 Most Influential People" when, in reality, Rush influences more people than anyone on Time's list, except perhaps the pope.

# 25

[June 29, 2008 9:24 AM]

Josh

Will,

O'Reilly isn't a news show; it's commentary. How is it different than Keith Olbermann's show?

You don't like the news broadcasts because you like your news delivered from the liberal perspective only.

# 26

[June 29, 2008 9:35 AM]

Will

Don't know John.

Why don't you enlighten us?

# 27

[June 29, 2008 10:13 AM]

Blue John

C and Josh,

Let's see some of those unbiased ratings of which you speak.

Although FOX was #1 during the Republican Convention - big surprise.

# 28

[June 29, 2008 10:51 AM]

C Ramsey

Here you are Blue. Looks like Fox has about twice as many viewers as the other channels and wins the 8,9, and 10 o'clock blocks by a similar margin.

Spin it any way you want. Maybe Nielson has fallen prey to Republican corruption. Or maybe, just maybe, Fox news is more representative of American ideals and values than are other media outlets.

# 29

[June 29, 2008 10:52 AM]

C Ramsey

Sorry, for some reason the link didn't appear in the previous post.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/05/04/cable-news-ratings-thursday-may-1/3607

# 30

[June 29, 2008 10:57 AM]

Josh

Blue John,

Awards are based on the opinion of a few. The majority could think you stink, but you can still get the award.

Ratings, however, are an objective measure of how many people watch, and FOX has beaten the crap out of the liberal cable outlets for years on end. I'll leave it to you to google the rating comparisons.

# 31

[June 29, 2008 11:29 AM]

Blue John

On a station by station basis, FOX leads. On the basis of overall viewers, FOX does not have the #1 position. Plus these are only cable shows, and do not include the major networks, which have the greater number of viewers. I think these ratings show the number of conservatives watching their channel (although the car chases in prime time are good mindless TV). Aren't figures great?

I think Josh made a good point in saying that these are not news shows, they are commentary.

"Or maybe, just maybe, Fox news is more representative of American ideals and values than are other media outlets."
If this is true, why is the party that claims to be the party of American ideals in such disarray? When politicians running for reelection don't want the second term President to endorse them, and avoid him like the plague, something is very wrong in rightwingville.

PEACE!

# 32

[June 29, 2008 12:28 PM]

John

Let's see, "Dan Rather", something about: '04 campaign, CBS, 60 Miuntes, forged documents, Rather resigns in disgrace. Bush wins (again)!

Remember, no Democrat president has received more than 50% of the popular vote since FDR in 1944 except LBJ (50.1%) in 1964. That says something about where the people stand in this country politically.