Amy Goodman Speaks in Dublin

by redjade Wed Mar 16, 2005 15:34

Laurie Garrett of 'Newsday' Rips Tribune Co
http://www.ilcaonline.org/print.php?sid=2049

Laurie Garrett, the prize-winning Newsday reporter, left the Melville, N.Y., paper Monday with a blistering memo to her colleagues that may provoke debate elsewhere in the newspaper industry.

[....]

'Honesty and tenacity (and for that matter, the working class) seem to have taken backseats to the sort of 'snappy news', sensationalism, scandal-for-the-sake of scandal crap that sells. This is not a uniquely Tribune or even newspaper industry problem: this is true from the Atlanta mixing rooms of CNN to Sulzberger's offices in Times Square. Profits: that's what it's all about now. But you just can't realize annual profit returns of more than 30 percent by methodically laying out the truth in a dignified, accessible manner. And it's damned tough to find that truth every day with a mere skeleton crew of reporters and editors.

'This is terrible for democracy. I have been in 47 states of the USA since 9/11, and I can attest to the horrible impact the deterioration of journalism has had on the national psyche. I have found America a place of great and confused fearfulness.'

--- --- ---

Amy Goodman interviews Laurie Garrett....
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/14/151255

→ Laurie Garrett: And I want to say one thing to any of your viewers out there that are coming from a kind of conspiracy place. I do not believe, and I have never witnessed it in the newsroom, that the political agenda of these corporations or any group of individuals dictates news coverage. It might at certain institutions, perhaps Fox Television, for example, but what I’m talking about is not political bias. I'm not talking here about somebody coming in and saying, you cannot write that story because it doesn't reflect our agenda. I have never ever seen that happen at Newsday, at NPR, in any newsroom I have worked in. What I am talking about is that a story that requires some difficulty to appreciate, that deserves complex analysis, and that might need 3,000 words to explain will not get that 3,000 words, because it's not snappy, it doesn't sell, it's not got a great catchy headline with it, and besides, we need that space to do Michael Jackson. We need that space to show Martha Stewart walking out of prison. And celebrity news sells. But plodding analysis of Social Security does not.''

by redjade Tue Feb 15, 2005 13:21

Amy Goodman speech recorded Sunday 30th January at the London School of Economics

http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/3672.php

ogg format, however

by redjade Sat Feb 12, 2005 17:37

NEW YORK (AP) - CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan quit Friday amid a furor over remarks he made in Switzerland last month about journalists killed by the U.S. military in Iraq. Jordan said he was quitting to avoid CNN being "unfairly tarnished" by the controversy.

[....]

But the damage had been done, compounded by the fact that no transcript of his actual remarks has turned up. He was the target of an Internet and Web site campaign that was beginning to rival the one launched against CBS's Dan Rather following the network's ill-fated story last fall about President Bush's military service.

A Web site, Easongate.com, was created and distributed a petition this week calling on CNN to find a transcript and fire Jordan if he said the military had intentionally killed journalists.

The Web site had been preparing Friday to post information to help its supporters contact CNN's advertisers. A message posted on the site after Jordan's resignation said its authors were pleased with the outcome but still want a videotape of the economic forum released.

"To every reader, commentator, e-mailer and blogger that committed to this cause, thank you," a message on the Web site read. "This is a victory for every soldier who has honorably served this nation. To you we devote this victory."

by redjade Wed Feb 09, 2005 16:52

Do US Troops Target Journalists in Iraq?
by Rony Abovitz
http://www.forumblog.org/blog/2005/01/do_us_troops_ta.html

During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-US crowd) and cause great strain on others.

[....]

Eason seemed to backpedal quickly, but his initial statements were backed by other members of the audience (one in particular who represented a worldwide journalist group). The ensuing debate was (for lack of better words) a real "sh--storm". What intensified the problem was the fact that the session was a public forum being taped on camera, in front of an international crowd. The other looming shadow on what was going on was the presence of a U.S. Congressman and a U.S. Senator in the middle of some very serious accusations about the U.S. military.

[....]

If what Eason originally said was true, exactly what happened and why needs to become known to the American public and world at large. If it is not, it is an example of how "news" is created by the heat of the moment, without any bearing to reality. If it is true, we need to know if it was official or if it was just some random disgruntled soldiers.

by sean Wed Feb 02, 2005 20:45

I agree that there are people that write (very good) articles and conduct research without pay, and this can be seen on this site. However, this argument alone does not adequately justify not paying people for their work. Added to that, just because someone recognises that point, does not mean they agree with points B and C of your argument.

For example, if you created a site similar to the New Standard here in Ireland, why would people suddenly stop writing for Indymedia? If they have been doing it for so long, and are committed to their work, why assume they would stop? People are paid to write for The Village, The Irish Times (etc.), but this does not stop people from writing here. I don't see how this argument holds up. I think it gets even weaker if you apply it to situations outside of the media.

I don't understand your third point. I'm assuming that most people who write without pay are receiving income from somewhere else. Is it better to be linked with the agenda of a business of an employer
outside of the media (Tesco, public service, pub, etc), than working for a progressive media outlet? This is how I understand your argument. It's okay to work elsewhere, and then write for free, because then you are not linked to the media outlet's agenda. How does that make sense?

Your overall argument suggest more of a reliance on volunteer work without pay. Why discriminate against people that need to be paid for the hours they put into their work? Who does your overall argument favour, and who does it work against?

There are sections of the editorial policy of the New Standard that explain how they attempt to handle some of the problems you highlight.

by Michael Wed Feb 02, 2005 14:00

They bring it upon themselves. They stuck American cartoon characters onto their ships in an attempt to ape their American heros. The only time you ever hear of them in the news is when they've got so drunk that they've started to killing each other.

by Pastor Niemoller Wed Feb 02, 2005 13:48

The quality of many articles appearing on Indymedia suggests that there are already people who are prepared to invest the time and interest to research and write well. No matter how high the quality of reportage from paid professional journalists and researchers, I think that we need to recognise that A: we already have high quality without having to pay for it; B: that once you get into payment, it could pull the carpet from under the good will of voluntary / unpaid contributors; and C: you run the risk of becoming linked with the agendas of the sources of financial support.

by sean Tue Feb 01, 2005 15:51

There is no need for me to comment on one individual's opinion that the New Standard has "a really bad name", as it is obviously your opinion. However, I was unable to understand the idea of "boring" journalism, does this refer to the style of presentation, the topics covered, or something else? Likewise, I don't see how the New Standard is either "isolated" or, as you say, "snooty". Would their link to Znet threaten their isolation?

What's wrong with establishing links to the Z project, or other progressive media outlets? How would this "blind" the New Standard from how (you believe) "the new journalism really works these days".

The participatory economics (or parecon) model is not old-fashioned, and I say this because it has only been developed since the 1960s. Not relying on advertising is a great step forward for an outlet that is attempting to put together their version of a daily paper.

Lastly, I think paying people for their work is better than asking them to do it for free. For journalists, butchers, plumbers, etc. Many people don't have the amount of leisure time needed to do a blog, or other similar projects. In your opinion, is paying people to research an article a bad thing?

I'm still interested to hear other views on the possibility of a project like New Standard in Ireland. I spoke to a several groups of people a few months ago about a similar project, and there was an interest expressed. I would also like to hear from Indymedia contributors. "Redjade" (sorry, I think this was the name) had asked about sustaining independent media at the Goodman talk. What does he (or anyone else) think of New Standard's methods?

thanks,
Sean

by redjade Mon Jan 31, 2005 21:14

download print out pass around...

indyamygflyer.pdf 0.85 Mb