« New Airline Price Wars Possible | Main | Tsunami Victim Clinged To Tree For His Life »
January 05, 2005
Fake But Accurate?
Go here to read Hindrocket take apart Corey Pein's Columbia Journalism Review piece discussing RaTHergate and the blogs. It is a masterpiece.
Note to self: Never get on the wrong side of an argument with Hindrocket.
And when did the fact that the memos might have been "fake but accurate" become a standard in journalism? I take it to mean that if you fake a document, but believe its contents to be accurate, that this is an acceptable method to make your point or take down your opponent?
We're all in big trouble if that is now the standard. If it is then what is to stop me from forging a piece of information about someone that I want to take down and then present it on this blog as the genuine article, if I believe that its central thesis is accurate and therefore justifies my dishonorable means?
Ahhh...let's see. There might be the matter of my value system that dictates that I not behave in that manner, and the hundreds or thousands of other bloggers out there who would call me on it as rapidly as they could ascertain the true facts of the matter.
Integrity, character and reputation. That is what it is all about, and why "fake but accurate" as a standard, or even approaching a standard, can never be sustained.
UPDATE: Corey Pein defends his article here. (Hat tip to Wizbang)
Posted at 02:15 AM Pacific
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.powerpundit.com/~desslok1/mt/mt-tb.cgi/411
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fake But Accurate?:
ยป Bloggers at fault for decline of journalism? from Reagan Republican
What the Dan Rather memogate fiasco did was expose that not only are most journalists liberal, but that they are perfectly willing to sacrifice objectivity in order to promote a political agenda. For years liberals have cautiously acknowledged the fo... [Read More]
Tracked on January 5, 2005 03:15 AM
Comments
"Fake but accurate" is a pretty funny thing to say, especially coming from CBS.
What they're essentially saying is this "We don't have physical evidence of Bush's wrongdoing but our source is such a good guy that we believe him. After all, he's an unimpeachable sourse. It isn't like he's got a political axe to grind & we've been assured that he's got firsthand knowledge of President Bush's transgressions."
CBS doesn't have any credibility & everyone knows it. With statements like this, they just look all the more pathetic.
Posted by: Gary ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.powerpundit.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 5, 2005 02:11 PM
