We are what you need!!!
Media: Chris Satullo of the Philly Inquirer is being a whiny little snit as he hoist up the banner of the MSM patting himself on the back for being great.
"New media are flowering, drawing away eyeballs. For all their vitality, these newer outlets, such as blogs, observe only loosely the canons of traditional journalism - when they're not mocking those rules outright. The traditional standards include journalism's ethical golden rule: Never engage in a conflict of interest, or even the appearance of a conflict, that would give reason to doubt your fairness and honesty in working in the public interest. Fewer and fewer Americans believe that journalists live up to that standard. The public ranks journalists low for their ethics, though not yet quite as low as car salesmen. For people whose lifeblood is credibility, this is dire. "....My craft is in deep trouble. Our only coin of value, credibility, is plummeting. These Romulans are smart; they know our weaknesses. And we keep handing them ammunition. So they are pressing their attack on the very idea of an independent press.
An independent press. A lofty abstraction. But if you are a person who would like to pick up a paper, flip on CNN, or surf the Net with reasonable confidence that the information you get is as accurate as possible, and untainted by hidden agenda, you might want to help us resist the assault. You deserve that righteous information; you deserve to feel that confidence. But if the Romulans win, forget it.
At The Inquirer, we're out to earn your trust, each and every day. We may err at times, through commission or omission, through carelessness or pigheadedness, but we will never stop striving to uphold the ethical standard you have every right to demand."
But what if people question those standards?
|"...Last week, the paper’s circulation department came up with a list of a couple of hundred people who had canceled during the election cycle and had not been contacted. The list was divided among editors and editorial board members - each with 15 or 20 names - and they began calling. It is too early in the dialing process to present any results or plans for future discourse, [editorial page editor] Chris Satullo said. But he said that he relished the dialogue with readers, adding that he tried to steer them away from using the terms “bias” and “objectivity.” “Those terms have been drained of any stable meaning,” he said."|
That sounds like insulting their intelligence, but what are you really thinking about readers?
|"...Introduce yourself as a member of the editorial board. You've heard that the person stopped the paper over concerns with election coverage (do not pin it on 21 Reasons; in fact, many people who cancelled did so over Polman or other issues), and you wanted to give them a call after the heat of the campaign died down. If they blow you off, thank them for their time and let them know that if they ever want to resubscribe they can do so by calling our customer service line at 800-222-2765. They can get a 50 percent discount on the rate by mentioning that they had stopped the paper due to election coverage. If they want to talk, that's a bummer. But a couple of talking points:"|
So if they have concerns, lie like a son of a bitch and feed them cow manure. That sounds like outright disdain that readers dare to question your greatness. Gee, I still don't get why people think the print press sucks, how can they not see your greatness?