Capitol Hill Blue Forums Misc. Topics The Media Media ethics v. responsiblity

Y'all being kinda rough on ol' Matt, aren't ya? I mean, it's true that he doesn't have the college pedigree the major papers and broadcast companies prefer their celebrity newsreaders and paper writers to have; and it's true that he doesn't appear to lick the boots of power within the establishment in exchange for insider, but insiped crumbs of faux news; and it is definitely true that, unlike the media stars of the fourth estate, he is not a part of the establishment; it is true that he made his "bones" by breaking the story that the establishment media was not reporting Bill Clinton's escapes with a female intern.

Now, some might suggest that the establishment enablers in the media were doing this out of ethical considerations (guffaw;-)), but I suspect it was more out of being comfortable with Clinton in office and a sense of not threatening the very establishment they are so much a part of. Was it just gossip mongering?

As I recall, it was all the rage at the time to claim that a powerful male who engaged in even dating a subordinate female was engaging in sexual harassment and subject to civil action and public denouncement as an offender. As I recall, some of the more virulent feminist types even called it a form of rape.

I would say that Drudge did what the fourth estate failed to do -- defend the notion of rule of law, or if you prefer what is good enough to cook the the goose of the lesser male should be good enough to cook the alpha dog's goose. As a side benefit, the incident he exposed showed the hypocrisy of a number of N.O.W. advocates and their celebrity spokesfolks.:-)

Now we have one of the oldest power structures in the world, the British Monarchy, expecting the peasants of the world to do das they are told -- and apparently the establishment press did just that. But not Drudge. He apparently decided that the news media is not an extention of a government, monarchy, or rulers of any kind. He published what the boot licks would not. Good on him.

The result? Prince Harry's sheepdippin' was interrupted and he had to cut short his bit of ripping good sport in Afghanistan. It is obvious that at some point when it would be most advantageous to the monarchy his service would be trotted out to be admired by the enamoured, and Prince Harry's former picadilloes forgotten or dismissed as a bit of youthful coddlewot.:-)

As to endangerment to himself and his "mates", well, it is usually the intention of a military force that is sent into a combat zone to locate and engage the enemy. How much better to have some bait that will hurry the enemy to your position and his destruction? Secondly, combat zones are hazardous whether Harry is there or not.

Whatever the reason Drudge ran the story, it did once again establish a wall between his site and the wishes of powerful government people.

Good on you, Matt Drudge.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

That is disgusting, repulsive and could be said only by someone not in the line of fire. Drudge is scum, and you lower yourself to defend him.

oh you are a tonic Iss.

thats one of the funniest things ive read today!

you win one of these:

If there was a journalistic lid (yawn) on the story, my question would be - who told Drudge?

That is a good question, Julia, because anyone who knew Drudge knew the result. I suspect it was an anti-royalist in the vein Issodhos represented earlier, who would not want the royals to gain credibility by showing that he actually served (unlike our current President) in combat, and with distinction. All in all, pretty tawdry and petty, as can be expected from Drudge who has the ethics of an alleycat.

Ya know, Phil, sometimes I get the impression you and I do not see eye-to-eye on some issues.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

you think?

I took a couple classes in J-school back in 1977 (my gf was majoring in Journalism), and I recall that back then reporting was to be done by the Joe Friday method "Just the facts" (who, what, when, where - not why). Adjectives were discouraged, and adverbs were right out, as I recall. 'Color commentary' was reserved for sports page, and opinions were given only on the opinions/editorial pages.

I never got to the point where they covered 'sources', but I've heard the 'two independent quotable sources' or multiple confidential but reputable sources and at least one quotable source was a reasonable requirement.

I am curious, when did you go to J-school, and how did they handle it?

[NOTE: I do not claim any kind of expertise based on only two journalism classes - I just mentioned that so you know where I'm coming from. I really am interested to know what you were taught, and what typical j-school classes teach today]

Interestingly, RB, I was studying journalism at about the same time. I still have one of my textbooks, Interpretative Reporting. I think I'll get it out and see what it says about ethics.

Drudge got his "scoop" where he gets them all, from other journalist. An Australian paper ran the story I believe, as did a German paper.

Isso- I don't know about you but my youth was chock full of stupid mistakes. Thankfully I didn't have a 100 cameras following me around to document it. Could it be that Harry was doing the right thing by serving along side his fellow soliders? Just because he is royal doesn't mean he isn't as much welcome to youthful mistakes as anyone else. That is how we manage to learn and grow as humans. From what I heard reported he served along side and did not ask nor was given special treatment. IMO that says a lot more about his character than some tabloid sensational report on his paryting.

As far as Drudge goes I stand by my assessement. His only claim to fame is the Monica story. Since then his only scoops are made off the backs of other journalist. He refuses to own up to being gay all the while supporting those who would have being gay considered illegal. He is a scummy swarmy piece of crap.