"If our journalists were as balanced and brave as they claim to be, then they would have as much power as they think they have."

You should copyright that quote or somehow officially enshrine it.

I hit comments to write something almost like GHelton. Very nice!

Oh get over yourself. You think reporters made the decision not to run those cartoons? Try the publishers, the guys protecting the bottom line and ducking controversy. It's the way corporations work -- not much different than Google in China.

Ideal? No. But if right-wing bloggers had to back up their boasts with their bank accounts, maybe they'd be cautious, too.

Publishers and editors aren't journalists? Perhaps not - in which case I'm guilty of the far lesser offense of poor word choice.

Now if only leftwing blog commenters had to back up their claims with their real identity...

And how long did it take Hillary's office to reveal that Vince Foster had "killed himself" again? And did the media gripe about that delay? Yeah... its all about the public's "right to know".

Sorry OT:

Chuck Pelto - e-mail me.

I want to restore you to Vox's blog. I'm on a bit of a mission and I want to enlist your aid.

Thanks!

Curious,

I'm trying to understand the undertone of your comment. Are you saying capitalism is the cause of the loss of freedom of the press? Serious question - not a jab..

Beautiful quote, Stephen.

It has almost become predictable than any victim of a press riot will walk away unscathed while what little remains of MSM credibility takes a direct hit. This was no exception.

Goldstein's comments are off the mark - news used to be the first source of news, so in the golden age (twenty years ago) they could just straight report the facts, like Friday said. Now, as newspapers compete with emerging forms of media that can get breaking news out quicker, the major papers have to add tons of context and tons of backstory - and related news - in which a reporter's bias is bound to show through. It also gives the paper an opening wedge in which to try and make some kind of point when the dot's almost-but not quite - connect. But to say it was ever about reporting facts in their proper context more than it is today is just wrong.

Amen!

Sometimes the decisions are about what stories to run, sometimes where to run them, sometimes what words to use, sometimes what headline to write, and sometimes where to place facts within the story. Every last bit of it can be used not just to report news, but to shape and form opinion.

Ever since Watergate, I'm afriad, newspaper writers and publishers see themselves less as reporters who give us the news and more as journalists whose duty it is to shape our opinions to match theirs.

Take a look at this, for example.

Here are the facts:
If the cartoons had been printed--and in some places they have--then is that Freedom of the Press or is that inciting an already environment? You know the answer. If this is deemed the proper thing to do, then let's broadcast the victims of gunshots before their family is told. Hey, it's freedom of the press...or...is there a pause that has to be taken?

Cheney delayed the info. He was wrong. Even right wingers say he was wrong in the way he handled this. But forget the wingnuts---he's the VP and everyone knew the seriousness of the wounds so his claim that he needed to wait for (1) telling the family and (2) understanding the extent of the wounds rings hollow. The guy was wounded. details as they become available. End of story.

The WH Press has no problem with the Corpus Christi paper getting the story. They are concerned about the delay in saying what happened. End of story Part two.

Curious,

I thought the motto of the press was "Truth to power".
They're always telling us how "heroic" they are when they voice "dissent" in the face of fascists like Bush, no?

No, the cartoons were a perfect case where the MSM could a) prove their "courage" b) be consistent about publishing something that offended a religion other than Christian or Jewish c) actually provide a public service by allowing the public an opportunity to gain perspective around the issue.

The last, I thought, was the job of the press; providing context.

joeblow,

The Cheney incident will go down in history as the biggest non-story ever. The fact that Cheney, himself, didn't run to the press at the first possible moment ignores the fact that the story could have easily gotten out by police, emergency personel and hospital employees at any point. Why didn't any of at least a dozen people who moved or treated the victim call the press? Maybe because it was obvious to all of them that this wasn't a big deal. Yeah, later the poor guy had a setback but probably everyone around the incident didn't think it so horrific as to warrant world press coverage given what they could see.
The Washington press revealed how truly petty and pathetic they are in this matter and, while Cheney deserves the jokes certain to follow him to his grave, the idea that his not informing the press "immediately" was some kind of grave "sin" will also be seen as an equally ridiculous joke in very short order.