A Dirty Little Secret
Gates of Vienna posts Gates of Vienna: What Does the MSM Owe Its Readers? in which they discuss whether a newspaper has an obligation to be truthful and complete in its coverage of a political figure. Dymphna wrties,
I can see lots of counter-arguments against this proposition — e.g., freedom of speech does not demand that one is obliged to say everything one knows. However, in this case, where a newspaper presents itself as being truthful about a political campaign, what does it owe its readers in either presenting the whole case about a candidate for office, or, at the very least, providing a disclaimer that it does not purport to be even-handed and will omit knowledge it has about someone if it helps their cause?This has been one of the key issues/questions for the public press across a range of topics. This is the reason Hugh Hewitt constantly asks reporters what their political affiliation is.
Transparency is critical for the reading public to understand what it is they’re readon.
What Dymphna opens up is the issue of whether the press has an obligation to be open and honest about what they are doing.
When pressed on this issue (no pun intended) the press will tell us they are a business, selling their news, views, etc. They are not a public utility, working for the common good. Most of the rest of the time, they act like they are an institution of good government.
This is the dirty little secret the press want you to forget most of the time. They don’t owe anyone anything ever. Buy their product, give them your money, that’s it.
powered by performancing firefox
