proving that Faux news and politicians is the epitome of the tail wagging the
dog is not a surprize to many of us.
Wouldn't it be nice if every "journalist" had integrity? Wouldn't it
be nice if we could trust them to do the right thing?That's simply
not the case. You can prove it for yourself. Log your posts. Try a similar
post in the morning, the evening, the week-ends. See which "shift"
rejects your posts. See which subjects are controlled by someone behind the
scenes who holds the keys, when the editor or publisher might be away.Dirty journalism is not reserved for Mr. Murdock. He may be guilty of a lot
of things, but he certainly is not the only "dirty" journalist around.
There are a lot of people who have decided that THEY control the
media. Some of them are owners of multiple outlets, some are just frustrated
writers who don't fit in today's society, who do everything they can to mold
public opinion to fit their view of life. Those are the ones who we need to
abhor. They refuse to use their names. They refuse to take accountability; but
they, in their own way censor everything that we read. They control the press -
until we go over their heads and email their boss.
Mr. Hughes,Your thoughts on what journalists and journalism should
aspire to are high-minded. At the same time, while journalists should strive
for objectivity and professionalism, it's true that both individual journalists
and their employers have agendas. The News of the World may have been unseamly,
but the Wall Street Journal is every bit as ideological. As is the NY Times,
the LA Times, NBC News, even the good old Deseret News.And that's
OK. I know when I read the D-News that there is a underlying slant toward the
interests of the LDS church. That's entirely their perogative as owners.Journalism should be held to high standards. It shouldn't be presumed
to be entirely objective. It can't be, human beings produce it.