Absolutely and categorically wrong: I would defend to the death against censorship of the press--that's embedded in the Constitution which is the basis of the Oath of Office for any uniformed member of the military. However, having been on the receiving end of dozens of libelous smears and lies in the local media [Pam was always fair and honest even if we don't share the same political views on many issues.], I feel well-qualified to repudiate your expectation that the press should get a pass when they lie and deceive to support the side they've not so subtly chosen. Accountability is necessary for both the government and for the press who has the sacred responsibility for integrity in holding the government accountable--not in political grandstanding or pushing a narrative.
Also, I falsely assumed (and apologize for making such assumption) it would have been quite obvious to anyone who read the article that I was not intending a direct quote, but rather the implied message from their proclamation. However, my punctuation implied it and I will be happy to insert "the implied message in the text of their threat was to "shape up..." because that is clearly the message they put out--though theirs was longer.
Here is the DIRECT quote: "But while you have every right to decide your ground rules for engaging with the press, we have some, too. It is, after all, our airtime and column inches that you are seeking to influence. We, not you, decide how best to serve our readers, listeners, and viewers. So think of what follows as a backgrounder on what to expect from us over the next four years."
It's the First Amendment--they have the right to do whatever they want, but shouldn't expect not to be called out when they publish clearly false and deceitful narratives. I in no way have implied in any way (and this is a direct quote) that I "have the authority to dictate to the media what they should report and how they should report it!" I am certainly hopeful they would have integrity in what they do and, just as I would expect the same from the government for a lack of integrity, they should expect to be held accountable when they are deliberately deceitful to produce a narrative (kind of like the Time Magazine reporter who was so eager to falsely report on the removal of MLK bust from the Oval office, followed by numerous retweets from other outlets). It appears that you would be fine with the collusion between press and your favored government official/candidate a la the collusion between the Clinton Campaign and debate moderators and editors who allowed the final word to be given by the campaign and agreed to to cover issues in a favorable way.
It is understandable the frustration felt by an industry whose peddling of a narrative is finally now receiving the level of trust it deserves--the lowest in history. They did it to themselves. The main-stream media is no longer trusted as the gatekeeper of the truth.
According to you, Mr. Miller, "the Columbua [sic] Journalism group cited in this article made an unveiled direct threat to 'shape up or we'll fill our airtime and column space with revenge because you're mean.'"
You are pretending to quote the Columbia Journalism group, but a search of the article shows that they never use the word "revenge" at all, not even once. So, you make up false quotes and attribute them to those you oppose, and you think you have the authority to dictate to the media what they should report and how they should report it!--which, by the way, is the very definition of censorship! In fact, your entire post is nothing but a thinly veiled argument in favor of censorship.
Video on the
PFCs in the Widefield Aquifer: https://youtu.be/Zur7J4tgFp4
Really...with the Putin? Why doesn't somebody start talking about the CONTENT of the emails supposedly hacked by Putin's direct orders? I don't care if Osama Bin Laden came back from the dead and released those emails. And frankly, an unclassified server on Hillary's end with a Gmail account on Podesta's end...do you really believe it would take a crackpot KGB hacker to obtain those files? No matter...nobody has refuted them as false and they painted a very clear picture of corruption. The Russians didn't do the corruption in those emails.
Shall we all be buying the fake Russian dossier also pushed by CNN? The emails furthermore painted a systematic receiving of marching orders from the Clinton Campaign for some members of the press who became lapdogs for access versus the watchdogs upon which the republic depends. Why doesn't anyone discuss those media integrity fails? Instead the focus is on who exposed it. By all means dig for the TRUTH. But the Columbua Journalism group cited in this article made an unveiled direct threat to "shape up or we'll fill our airtime and column space with revenge because you're mean." That's not dedication to seeking and publishing the truth, it's political posturing--something the press should not be in the business of doing.
All this twaddle about truth versus transparency is nothing but a smokescreen. The real problem is that Putin's paramour is a pathological liar, and when exposed, he muddies the waters with bogus claims that the media are the ones who are lying. Immediately, his most fanatic followers (the true deplorables) begin campaigns of personal harassment and intimidation against individual reporters. This is naked censorship.
You are both saying the same thing - just that one of you is arriving at (what I see as) the truth coming from the east, and one coming to it from the west :)
I'm so tired of the word "transparency". But I don't find "truth" in it's lists of synonyms. If politicians won't provide it (transparency), then reporters must dig for it (truth). At it's best, the press must be tireless, fearless, as well as tiresome and fearsome until the truth is revealed. For these qualities, journalists will be both lauded and decried AT THE SAME TIME. As my dad used to say, "It all depends on whose ox is getting gored."
All candidates are welcome to let us know about campaign events that we can then tell our readers are happening. The Independent plans to endorse candidates as the election draws nearer. The filing deadline is Monday, Jan. 23.
LOL that may very well be Joel. There was a lot of butt smooching as well but there always is with those in power. I just hope Im wrong and this Country does not go off the deep end under Trump. We have been on the edge since Clinton was The President but what the hell Im about done anyway. But I hope to leave my kids and granbabies with the same freedoms Ive known. Its been good for the most part.
Too bad the readers and the editors of the Independent are so weak and ineffectual. A paper with any influence would not only identify the best competitors, but would begin supporting them with both articles and solicitations for public events, social gatherings, and donations.
Also...for every reporter that said "it stank," there would be 10 that said it was lovely and fragrant. :)
I think we agree on the necessity of the press. I disagree that the press has been after Obama. Had the same issues arisen with anyone else, those stories wouldn't have taken years to pick up steam. I believe the narrative that Trump is "moving the press out of his way" is narrative fabricated by some of the media who have been called out about their bias. To expand the access of the press outside the 40-50 elite in the WH press corps to hundreds as has been discussed would be a good thing. That may not make those 40-50 elitists happy, but it should make Americans happy. I'll withhold my judgment to see what actually transpires and if, as you suggest, Trump "moves the press out of his way," I'll be right next to you in expressing outrage.
I think there were many many out cries over the last 8 years. Many many things were uncovered after the fact and then reported on after the press was lied to. As they have with past admins. Look at the Clinton debacle, the Bengazi debacle as well as the E mail crap. There has been no pass. Those are a big part of why I didnt vote for her. Hell Obama couldnt fart without some reporter saying it stank. I think he has been the most scrutinized President in my lifetime. There should never be a pass for anyone that represents the People of this Country no matter what party a person support's. I didnt vote for Trump simply because he has not shown me hes trust worthy or knows what hes getting into. Now that hes trying to move the press out of his way is just another reason to make me wonder what hes going to be or is hiding. Frankly that should worry every American. But again thats my opinion.
Rocky Smith: I agree 100% that transparency is necessary from any administration. Why, then, was there no outcry for the lack of transparency for the last eight years? This doesn't give anyone a pass, but selectively demanding access from one administration, after having given a pass for another because you like him is not the answer. And while I agree that "many of the news programs reported what they were being fed because access to the truth was being hidden," when the truth is hidden, it is the sacred responsibility of the free press to find it and report it with integrity. So, for a press machine to have refused to find and uncover the truth and accept what was handed to them as truth to then suddenly make calls to integrity in reporting is a hollow cry. If it were genuine, it would have not started as no. 45 is sworn in but would have been omnipresent. Yes, access is essential and it must be there. But to expect that any official would welcome false reporting is a ridiculous expectation--no more than it would have been for me at the local level to praise the libelious and lying rhetoric published by the Gazette about me. I still gave them access, but they had no interest in genuine integrity if it it didn't match their agenda and I would certainly feel justified in calling them out for their lack of integrity. That was my right. It should be the right of the President to call out the lack of press integrity.
Joel How do you fight against corruption? Ive watched you fight back against many of the outright lies right here in the Springs. You had access to the truth. Many of the news programs reported what they were being fed because access to the truth was being hidden. If innuendo is all your being fed then innuendo is all thats going to come out until the truth is found. Transparency from any administration is the only way the whole truth is going to be reported on the first time. If this President and his people want only the truth to be reported then access must be there and the truth must be told from the start.
I'm sorry...on the one hand they want access (and should get it) yet on the other they threaten by innuendo that they'll fill their airtime and column inches with revenge for their perceived mistreatment--not with a commitment to
integrity. This is what many people rejected and why trust in the media is at an all-time low: instead of laying unbiased information for citizen consumption to form their own opinions that media outlets are picking sides and then trying to fill airtime and column space to support their side. That is not the kind of journalism that benefits a free republic.
Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech are both enshrined in the Constitution. Before Putin's Puppet takes the oath of office, his right to harangue the press is protected by his right to free speech. Once he is sworn in, however, he is no longer a private citizen and he is duty-bound to defend the press. Any attempt to "slap down" the media will be seen for what it is--illegal government censorship and possibly an impeachable offense.
Trump to media - Behave and be decent or get slapped down again. The media bullies earned what they got.
A true Journalist will keep Politicians honest and forthright. Think of the many things that have came to light because of the freedom of the press. Watergate, Iran Contra, WMDs that were there but then were not, that goofball Weiner, Clinton with his pants down the list goes on and on. Who will keep these guys on the up and up with out the press. Wheres all the freedom loving, liberty loving Conservatives now. These are our rights to ya know.
Can you just Tweet this out?
What about electing replacements for Dist 2 and Dist 3 - and vote to keep the current council members in place? They are predictably ultra-conservative and regressive but they have not been part of the problem - with the exception of Bennett and the public is stuck with him anyway - none really seem to be total "roll-over votes" for the power groups. For the 'trust' problem that seems to be a regular topic of conversation, is that not at the top and the Chief of Staff?
All of today's events | Staff Picks
Submit an Event
All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation