Ifill's ethics
...or lack thereof. I found it curious over the past couple of days as the blogosphere and talk radio pointed out vice presidential debate moderator Gwen Ifill's conflict of interest that the major sites devoted to journalism mentioned little about the controversy.
Editor & Publisher relegated the issue to a brief mention on its E&P Pub blog. Its main site features such hard-hitting items as "Washingtonpost.com Traffic Spikes 42% in September," but not Ifill.
The Columbia Journalism Review Wednesday posted on the issue, giving cover to all of us hysterical conservatives.
Conflict of interest is often about appearances. There appears, to us, to be a conflict in Ifill moderating tomorrow night's vice presidential debate.
Exactly.
Finally and most curiously, Romenesko's Media News over at Poynter.org didn't have mention of the story in its main listing or "other links" sidebar until late this afternoon -- and only then to link to a lukewarm piece by PBS ombudsman Michael Getler saying that the issue of Ifill's book should've been brought up sooner.
I've been reading Romenesko for years and typically the vast majority of his posts are to mainstream media organizations reporting on themselves or others. More recently, I've seen links to blogs at publications like Mother Jones, The Atlantic, and The New Republic pretty regularly. I see comparatively little (read: next to none) linking to blogs at National Review, The Weekly Standard or Commentary Magazine.
This anonymous e-mail posted the other day by the Instapundit appears to be increasingly true.
"Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working."
0 comments on “Ifill's ethics”
Tags
Onward comrades! Do not hate Ob_ma, may his name be praised. He only seeks to lift up your heretofore meaningless, unengaged lives. Of course, after setting up the mechanisms of the state triumphant, and using his minions to suppress dissent - a clever person, waiting, waiting, will rise to lead the people (or in other countries, the "Volk") out of the doldrums of the resulting national malaise. Such a movement by the people will be free of the old narrow racial superiority BS that sank other countries. (egalitarian superiority" ?? ..I love it! ) Ours will be a revolution of ideas - remember no violence needed, Ob_ma will have set the stage. And remember Ob_ma-philes, at that time there will be no tears from you - you got what you wanted.
[...] Hat Tip: HoyStory [...]
I'm an ink-stained wretch of long standing -- as in standing over the toilet and barfing at what my colleagues in the fourth estate have been doing. I thought it was bad enough during the eight-year Clinton Circus -- you know, when flat-out perjury was relayed to the newspaper-buying public as a vicious, right-wing attack on a good man's unconventional sex life -- but the deranged, unprincipled assault on McCain and Palin makes that sorry episode seem very small potatoes indeed.
So here's what to do when Obama wins (as I think he will).
Don't ever buy another newspaper. The rags are already on the skids, and a further loss of, say, 20% in circulation should consign a legion of them to their graves.
And don't worry about me. I'm so sick of the business after 37 years behind a keyboard that there's no point in lingering any longer in the newsroom. The kids being churned out by J-schools, you can't have a logial conversation with them. They are advocates, not observers -- and the mantle of righteousness in which they have wrapped themselves makes civil discourse impossible.
Time to retire.
[...] Journalistic ethics. [...]