Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > The White House controls the press, says Journalist
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread: The White House controls the press, says Journalist Reply to Thread
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Mar 19th, 2003 09:26 PM
theapportioner Anyone read Eric Alterman's new book?
Mar 18th, 2003 02:26 PM
El Blanco Fucking retards. Its obviously the Lizard men in conjunction with the Illuminati. Sheesh, its so obvious.
Mar 18th, 2003 12:07 PM
sspadowsky Duh. Why do you think Ari Fleischer is the one doing most of the afternoon press conferences?

Buy E Cigarette
Mar 18th, 2003 07:07 AM
FS Wait, if the White House controls the media, what do the Jews control? Or does the White House control the Jews?
Mar 17th, 2003 07:22 PM
Miss Modular Didn't say I was, but I think it pretty much validates an ongoing suspicion.
Mar 17th, 2003 07:13 PM
The_Rorschach Washington Post eh?

Doesn't surprise me. As to the 'journalists,' they are lazy lapdogs and have been for some time. I have trouble discerning many of the headlining stories from the editorials. For quite a few decades the media was been more concerned with apparances than depth. Who, really, is surprised by any of this.
Mar 17th, 2003 07:05 PM
Miss Modular
The White House controls the press, says Journalist


It's time to change the rules of WH reporting
3/13/2003 2:41:44 PM
Posted By: Jim Romenesko

From JONATHAN WEISMAN, Economics Writer, Washington Post:
In the wake of Seymour Hersh's open statements about the way the White House treats the press, I feel compelled to relate a personal story that illustrates how both the White House and the press have allowed manipulation of the printed word in Washington to get out of hand. This is a bit of a confession as well as an appeal to the White House and my fellow reporters to rethink the way journalism is practiced these days.

Recently, I was working on a profile of the now-departed chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, R. Glenn Hubbard. I dutifully went through the White House press office to talk to an administration economist about Hubbard's tenure, and a press office aide helpfully got me in touch with just the person I wanted. The catch was this: The interview would be off the record. Any quotes I wanted to put into the newspaper would have to be e-mailed to the press office. If approved, the quotation could be attributed to a White House official. (This has become fairly standard practice.)

Since the profile focused on Hubbard's efforts to translate relatively arcane macroeconomic theory into public policy, the quote I wanted referenced the president's effort to end the double taxation of dividends: "This is probably the most academic proposal ever to come out of an administration." The press office said it was fine, but the official wanted a little change. Instead, the quote was to read, "This is probably the purest, most far reaching economic proposal ever to come out of an administration." I protested that the point of the quote was the word "academic," so the quote was again amended to state, "This is probably the purest, most academic, most far reaching economic proposal ever to come out of an administration."

What appeared in the Washington Post was, "This is probably the purest, most academic ... economic proposal ever to come out of an administration." What followed was an angry denunciation by the White House press official, telling me I had broken my word and violated journalistic ethics.

I had, of course, violated journalistic ethics, by placing into quotation marks a phrase that was never uttered by the source, ellipses or no ellipses. I had also played ball with the White House using rules that neither I nor any other reporter should be assenting to. I think it is time for all of us to reconsider the way we cover the White House. If administration officials want to speak off the record, they are off the record. If they are on background as an administration official, I suppose that's the best we can expect. But the notion that reporters are routinely submitting quotations for approval, and allowing those quotes to be manipulated to get that approval, strikes me as a step beyond business as usual.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:02 PM.

© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.