Discussion for article #236422
This conversation is like my beagle and chihuahua sitting around discussing being neutered. It ruined both their future lives, but neither one has the slightest idea how, why, or how to practice it.
“That’s what journalism is, trial and error,” Miller said to O’Keefe in the interview.
Miller and O’Keefe have extensive experience with both trials and errors.
Oh, gaaaawd. How pathetic.
In historical “Meeting of Minds” news, Adolf Hitler and Attila the Hun discuss the role of diplomacy in settling conflicts among neighboring states.
Neither of them really has any ethics and it seems that all their doing is whining because people called them on not having any ethics.
These two discussing ethics in journalism is like Bernie Maddoff and Charles Ponzi discussing wise investment strategies.
It’s surreal to imagine this conversation (because for sure I’m not clicking, yuck) between two people—one a former high flier, and one who snuffles in dirty puddles like Gollum—who have nothing at all in common but their essential awfulness. So surreal.
…and she still wonders why she is an “ex” NYT reporter?
I had a buddy that would open every conversation with “Got a Minute”
A discussion of ethics with these two would fit nicely in that Minute.
So. Which one of them got to wear the pink handcuffs?
In their cases, journalism would appear to consist of error and error and error and error and…
This is an Onion piece, please, please tell me this is an Onion piece, please.
Miller, of late, has been striving mightily to restore her credibility and the first time I saw her try, my reaction was…“Yeah right!!!”
A big part of the criticism was Millers lack of judgement (and willingness to go along with what she was being fed because of the fun of being an “insider” and scoring the seemingly “big” stories for the Times). And now, when she continues the rehab effort, her “judgement” is to agree to a debate over ethics with perhaps the slimiest member of the Breitbart family of “journalists”. Mr. Breitbart, you will remember, gleefully aired a heavily edited video of a speech by Shirley Sherod, a black woman who worked for the Agriculture department, to make it look as though she had colluded to show favoritism to black farmers.
When the full tape was discovered it was clear just how nastily it had been butchered to achieve the desired results.
At no point did Breitbart show any evidence that he ever asked IF the tape he was given was edited and if so, could he see the full copy to make sure it was accurate.
Shirley took him to court, and very likely would have scored a lot of money from him as a result, but Breitbart had the class to die before it got to trial…a loss for Ms. Sherod and the truth, but not a whit for the journalism profession.
James O’Keefe is pond scum and yet he is given the “credibility” of joining a “debate” on ethics. The one thing you can say in conclusion is that whoever put together this piece of crap clearly knew how to locate the very best examples of people with NO ethics.
The best tweet I have seen is “was an actual journalist present during the interview?”
I do know one thing both of those folks are ethics free. The topics of ethics and journalism are entirely theoretical for both.
Great googly-moogly!
The useful idiot for catapulting the propaganda for Cheney meets with man convicted of trying to bug a Senator’s offices and they want to talk about journalistic ethics.
Wow.
To steal a joke from Frankie Boyle… watching these two bullshit merchants talk about ethics in journalism is “like a serial killer telling you what stopping suddenly for hitchhikers did to his clutch.”
Really? Seriously? Clearly they don’t know the meaning of the work 'ethics"
I thought it was an Onion Headline when I read it. Then I had to check and make sure there wasn’t some other “James O’Keefe” that I didn’t know about.
While I was still a youngun’ many, many years ago, I discovered that one should not pontificate on topics of which you know nothing about. Clearly, they have yet to learn that morsel of truth.