The public should be protected from becoming pawns to the press. On the reverse, shouldn't the press be protected from becoming the pawns of the public? Modern journalism's economic survive rests in the hands of meeting the needs, rather demands of the public. Libel cases, especially the ones ruled in favor of the press, becomes a deterrent for the press to continue our industries duty of 'social responsibiity'.

I can understand suing a news organization for publishing untrue defamatory information when infact the organization was well aware that the 'news' was false. As much as I believe the press should be able to roam free in a libertarian utopia, the press should not be able to knowingly print false information.

I do not understand how monetary reward justifies libel. Damage to a reputation can be bandaged by a dollar bill? Why would the public/public figures take money from an industry that works for the public and works hard to gain any profit? In my world, the accused would be forced to write an article apoligizing for publishing false information or damaging a reputation.

The actual malice test is a fair way to establish responsibility. Journalists, or atleast I, am not omniscient. We are not psychic. We know how to do our research, we know how to obtain facts and we know how to report those facts. As long as a journalists did the best she could to acquire the facts, and she had no doubt that her information was misleading, she should not have to fear the courts. We act as Lois Lowry's 'Giver'. We hold onto the memories and history of this world only to be shit on when not living up to some superficial ideology of professionalism created by some guild of heartless emotionless men. bah.

For all the journalists who hold true to morals and refuse to become servants to the judicial system, I salute you!


Politics And The English Language/Scholarly Prose :
"And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favourable to political conformity."

"All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia."

George Orwell's article actually made me think, I believe this proving his point about lack of emotion and meaning to modern language. The article highlighted linquistic tendencies I find myself adopting. In my mind scholarly and/or politcal writings pride themselves in being masters of bull shit, composed by men who write what they do simply to reread their work and marvel with a vain grin at the large load of bull shit they were able to produce.

As individuals slowly remove themselves from the meaning conveyed within their work, they do become faceless drones. Politicians dispense word vomit, and journalists regurgiate this word vomit only to pass it along to the public which then reregurtigates the mess of meaningless words.

What I took away from Orwell's article is: say what you feel, and who am I trying to impress?

Journalists should detach themselves from over stated phrases and supply the readers with meaning.

Orwell's gripe with language reminds me of an article I recently read on the Ethics of Care (something I think would be really interesting to look into in class because it really motivates me). Ethics of care requires the journalists to feel compassion and understanding for those they write about. Forgetting the objective rules of professional journalism, care ethics allows humanity to grace the pages of the paper.

I guess I am beginning to understand, by reading Orwell and the piece on scholarly prose, that news writing works best when eliminating the BS. By being precise and writing directly really is the best way to convey meaning. Back to the ethics care, direct writing does not mean that is must lack humanity. By writing what you know with direct language really shows that you know what you are writing. There is not need to confuse and be abstract. I do enjoy scholarly writing, but I need to recognize that there is a time and place for such language and it must adhere to meaning rather than eloquance.

TMI:

I guess it is a good thing that the media coverage can undergo such intense analysis. However, the fact that media coverage needs such an analysis is not so good. Problems do arise when general staff reporters are assigned to a story that needs specialized reports to cover nuclear energy situations. I feel that the large national news organizations did overplay TMI. However, when mixed information is being release from TMI sources it is hard not to create a craze. The news feeding frenzy does not help evaluate stories that involve a 'general state of emergency'.

I do not like that the small local news organization around TMI were pushed aside by national publications. If anything the local news will bare a greater significance to the community.

It is important to know the facts, and know that the facts are facts.

Hillary Clinton, no joke.

So Hillary Clinton is not the cold hearted witch the press makes her out to be. Why do I say that, because Hillary is beginning to show her 'humane' side and can laugh. It was reported that on all the the 5 major sunday news talk shows, Hillary showed off her new peronsable laugh. Often laughing for not reason, or during some not so funny questions. I view this as a poor publicity stunt by Hillary. If I were Hillary I would fire my PR people for advising me to look like a totaly schmuck . Hillary is not warm, she does not like puppies or babies. This whole funny Hillary is not laughing matter. I don't want a president that will laugh off the state of universal health insurance when she botches the whole system up. Remember Hillary, when the people aren't laughing with you, they are laughing at you!