Harry's a Hero But What Are the Journos?

PRINCE HARRY, third in line from the crown of Great Britain, has been fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

While the British media have known about this since he reported for duty there in December, no one in Great Britain reported the story. In fact, the British media, in a rare moment of non-competitive solidarity, all agreed to withhold the story until the prince was done serving his duty.

An American blogsite, the Drudge Report, broke the news blackout of the Prince Harry story.

Which raises the question: should the press have agreed not to release the story? Were they trying to protect Prince Harry and his peers, or were they censoring the news?

As a result of the coverage, the Brits pulled Harry out of action.

Even Fabricators Deserve Proper Treatment.

MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA are not perfect. We make mistakes all the time.

There is no acceptable excuse.

Craig Silverman, the blogger behind Regret the Error, reports, "Overall, the research suggests that between 40 and 60 percent of newspaper news stories have some type of error, be it factual or something of a more subjective nature. So that's the frequency. But here's the other part of the equation: Research from Maier published this year found that only 2 percent of factual errors were corrected."

A recent correction posted on his blog comes courtesy of Slate.com:

Dana Stevens originally and incorrectly identified Stephen Glass (pictured above) as a plagiarist. The former journalist fabricated stories; he did not copy the work of others.

How should journalists handle such frequent errors? Do corrections in print, on air or on-line make up for incorrect statements that are previously made public?

Is The NY Times Trying to Sink McCain?

LAST WEEK, the New York Times ran a story about Republican presidential candidate John McCain's connections to lobbying firms.

McCain has spent a great deal of his Senate tenure trying to rally Congress from relying so much on lobby groups and their potential ills.

But the Times story story went one step farther. They hinted the McCain, a married man, had an affair with lobbyist.

"A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet," the Times wrote. "Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him."

McCain, his aids and the lobbyist all denied rumors of an affair.

Was it fair for the Times to report the rumor? Does it matter to the public?

Is this good, investigative journalism or a partisan witch hunt?

Don't Start with a Conclusion, says Street.

WELL? WHAT DID you think of Mayor John Street's presentation?

I will not cloud your judgment with my thoughts. So please click on the comments button below and speak your mind.

Have a voice.

The Mayor and The Media.

DON'T FORGET THAT FORMER MAYOR John Street will be visiting our class next Thursday, February 21 (the same day that your next homework assignment is due!).

This is an amazing opportunity to learn about the impact of journalism from a genuine newsmaker. We will discuss the relationship between government and the press, journalism's impact on community building, and bias and the media, among other topics.

In the meantime, watch the video above where Mayor Street talks about media coverage of crime. Think about questions you might want to ask him next week. And read as much about him as you can.

Be informed. Get involved. Have a voice.

Feel free to invite anyone interested in journalism, politics or Philadelphia: Gladfelter Hall room 13 at 1:10.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)