Drudge ethics question

[Fenian_Bastard]

John McCain does.
Where's he serving?

 

[Flying Headbutt]

John McCain does.
Where's he serving?

Iraq. It ain't that big, is it? I mean, we went in there and won pretty fast.

 

[SigR]

The way some of you talk on this thread, sounds like you'd prefer a good wholesome state-run media. The scum reporters keep the other ones from getting too far up the rear-ends of the governments they cover. That's fine by me. I'd rather read news that has a chance of being wrong than propaganda that can't be challenged.

It's logically specious.

All news has a "chance" of being wrong. The difference lies between those trying to get it right and those who don't care.

And somehow bestowing some public service motive or even effect on Drudge belies a serious lack of paying attention. It just isn't so.

Not to mention the fact that the whole thing is a strawman argument to begin with, unless you think someone on here is seriously arguing for state-run media.

So, all told, there are three serious logical flaws, starting with the premise and radiating out from there.

I was speaking in hyperbole to make a point. I don't think anyone thought I was suggesting people here actually want a state-run media.

The minute you create a gentleman's club for the way things ought to be done is the minute stories that need to be told start to get buried. I won't defend a lot of Drudge's choices because he obviously has an agenda beyond just reporting the news. But, I think he's an important cog in the machinery of free speech. A large responsibilty rests with the consumer--to not treat "news" as gospel, to evaluate the potential for fraud in a given story, and to judge the character of the individual or organization who supplies them with the news. It's the free market of information.

 

[markvid]

If he's such a cog in the machinery of free speech, it needs a can of WD-40.
Just because you have a web page that answers to no one does not mean you can consistently throw out false and slanderous information.

 

[Dangerous_K]

But but but false and slanderous information becomes so much less false and slanderous when the hyperlink is in 72 point red italics.

 

[Dangerous_K]

I just want to add, I didn't mean that in respone to you, SigR. I think this has less to do with suppressing the information about Prince Harry and more with Drudge's track record. You make very good points, and I agree that British media holding back the report is dangerous ground American media should not tread.

 

[friend of a friend]

That didn't need to be told until after his tour was over, it's not for Drudge to leave the gay bar long enough to decide what is news and what isn't.

Oh, oh...did Fedora Fruity lie?

Bet he gave the other 2 credit until the story was confirmed to cover his ass (which has been bent over most his adult life anyway), then decided to **** them over.

Homophobic much?

Cripes. This is a journalism board, not a college basketball arena ... grow the **** up.

Thanks W-B. After reading the first two pages of this, I was wondering if anyone was going to call him on this.

 

[GB-Hack]

There's a difference between being a state-run media, and not disclosing the location of the man who is third in line to the British throne.

What happened to American journalists who disclosed the locations of the forces they were embedded with at the beginning of the Iraq war? I'm looking in particular at the treatment Geraldo got.

Fox News said Tuesday that Geraldo Rivera had voluntarily agreed to leave the warfront in Iraq and return to Kuwait, where he would continue his reports. Rivera had been accused of revealing sensitive information about the location and strategy of the combat force with which he had been traveling, angering Pentagon officials.

There's a significant difference between revealing tactical positions in an ongoing war and revealing that a famous individual is participating in the war. If the Prince is such an important person, why would he put himself in a position where he'd be a target because of that persona. It's selfish. It's egomaniacal. And shame on whoever is in charge of the theater of operation in Britain to allow him to take on that role.

To fault anyone in the media for "outing" Prince Harry or whatever gentleman's agreement was reached with the "respectable" media is to ask that the "respectable" media play propaganda machine for warfare, warriors, government and royalty.

Exactly - Geraldo was specific in location. Drudge just said Harry was in country. He did not say that he was 2 clicks west of Khandar.

I am always disgusted when I hear that the U.S. media was a willing particpant in covering something up.

Boom, you and I well know that different countries forces are working seperately in Afghanistan, and that which country is in which province is pretty well known at this point. While it may not have given out Harry's precise location, it wouldn't be hard for attacks on the provinces British forces are trying to secure to escalate in the hope they could claim his life.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

All would do well to try to access the exhaustive Drudge profile from New York magazine (now at Felker-like high levels, again, after a lengthy fallow period) from a few months back. Quite enlightening.