Originally Posted By mstaft These days, who is to say who is a journalist and who is not? After having lived in four major metropolitan areas, I'd say many newspaper writers are hacks versus true journalists. The "art" seems to be lost. Jim Hill, Al Lutz, and others are no less pros than 90% of the folks out there- including those who write for our major news magazines.
Originally Posted By jonvn "These days, who is to say who is a journalist and who is not?" Well, in real news sites, facts are supposed to be checked, and you don't print something unless you know it it be true, to the best of your abilities. Otherwise, you are a gossip sheet, worse than even the National Enquirer. More along the lines of the Weekly World News.
Originally Posted By Park Hopper You know, I can't say as I ever took Al's articles as anything other than a gossip sheet -- kind of a WDI gossip sheet.
Originally Posted By jonvn You could, except for the unneeded layer of hostility and vitriol leveled at Disney over unimportant stuff that is completely unsubstantiated.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Yes tony did have that suggestion but there were many suggestion on what could be done to DCA. the idea was never taken seriously.>> That was the point I was making early in the thread. They sat down and put down every conceivable idea... a brainstorming session. Of course many ideas are ridiculous, and Tony's was one of them. It would be like Tony floating the idea, "Let's put Jim in Merced CA in charge of DCA."
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <It would be like Tony floating the idea, "Let's put Jim in Merced CA in charge of DCA."> How dare you.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>Well, in real news sites, facts are supposed to be checked, and you don't print something unless you know it it be true, to the best of your abilities.<<< So what you're saying is, Dan Rather's not a journalist.
Originally Posted By SuperDry ^^^ That's really insightful. If you are referring to the reporting of forged documents, let's not forget the forged documents that President Bush used in the State of the Union address (regarding yellowcake purchases by Iraq from Africa) to justify the invasion of Iraq. Unlike the forged documents that Dan Rather reported on, which turned out to be accurate in substance even by White House admission, the yellowcake documents that President Bush referred to were completely off base and had no relation to reality. Now, let's tally the damage that the presentation of the false documents had: how much damage was caused by Dan Rather's reporting of false but more-or-less accurate documents on 60 Mintues, as compared to the false accusations by the President against Iraq that lead to the invasion of Iraq? How many American lives were lost as a result of each situation? How many Iraqi lives? How much damage was done to the US's reputation on the world stage from each of the two incidents?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If you are referring to the reporting of forged documents, let's not forget the forged documents that President Bush used in the State of the Union address (regarding yellowcake purchases by Iraq from Africa) to justify the invasion of Iraq.> President Bush didn't use forged documents in the State of the Union address to justify the invasion of Iraq. The statement he made was based on reports that Iraq approached officials in Niger to purchase uranium. <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/" target="_blank">http://www.slate.com/id/213960 9/</a> The difference between Dan Rather and President Bush is that Dan Rather could have determined that the papers were forged, if he had wanted. It's not at all certain that if we hadn't have invaded, we would have definitely determined that Iraq did not have stockpiles of WMD's.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 Al Lutz is many things ... a journalist surely isn't one of them. And I would in no way compare them, even if journalism ain't what it once was. But I still don't understand why so many people are so ... so ... negative and hateful toward the guy. Haven't figured out why some folks feel it's so hard to wade thru his anti-management rhetoric (most of which is very accurate) and take the news/facts out of it. I just chalk it up to an online urinating contest amongst various personalties that dates back years. But what do I know? I'm no journalist. And to SuperDry, all I can say is 'amen, brother.' But that post will likely get this whole thread closed. It truly astounds me that anyone could actually support the man at 1600 ... yet they shut their brains off and go right along as democracy as we knew it dies.
Originally Posted By Sweeper Journalism is all but dead in America in any form. They all mix news and editorials together and they only need to be "right" at the time of printing or airing. And when celebrity gossip makes it into ANY news cast you know we are in a brave new world of mass distraction.
Originally Posted By jonvn "negative and hateful toward the guy. " Because he was vicious and nasty to a lot of people on a very personal level. Think he rips into disney management in a vitriolic manner? Try having a conversation with him where you dare to disagree with his pronouncements. There's a long list of stuff he's pulled on a lot of people. SO that's sort of why.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA We go from Al Lutz to Dan Rather to President Bush. Stay on topic, please.
