Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
He seems to be an old fashioned journalist. He cares whether or not he gets it right and tries to give the benefit of the doubt to the people he exposes. How he's kept his job under those circumstances is a mystery.
I honestly don't think most reporters give a damn about the pain they cause others. All they want is the story. Perhaps I'm too jaded. Back in 1975, my best friend's older sister got herself in an emotional situation she couldn't handle and committed suicide. She was a beautiful young woman with three daughters. I'd known her for over 6 years. Everyone who knew her was shocked and her family was devastated. Somehow, some scumbag reporter got his hands on her suicide note and published it. The story got picked up and was printed across the country. Her grieving family endured hate mail for weeks afterwards. To this day, if I knew who it was that printed the suicide note and could find him, I'd gladly beat the crap out of him. Her suicide might've been a newsworthy story but publishing the note was not.
Be fair. Bend over backward to be fair. Be more than fair.There's no such thing as a fair journalist. He knows that. He's used to lying and lying again, whether to his readers or himself we can't know at this point.
Stockman seems like a decent person. Whether Big Mike's correct or not as far as Stockman's concerned, he's certainly correct as far as the left-wing MSM goes. They know which way the story's going before they know the subject.
"I know how to print what's true. And I know how not to hurt people. I don't know how to do both at the same time and neither do you."--Absence of Malice (1981)
"but I have never been comfortable with destroying lives and reputations – however necessary'How enlightened he is. The arrogance of the media, "The truth must win out, and I must do it, even if it hurts or kills people." The part the pisses me off is how many times these relectant hit men target religious, conservative and out of favor (in the media mindset) members.
As long as the story is both true and meaningful I'd agree with the reporters assessment. People involved in fraud or corruption shouldn't be protected because they might react crazily.
I am reminded of that classic Journalism movie, "Absence of Malice"Paul NewmanSally Fieldsand a wonderful cameo by: Wilford Brimley: James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Now we'll talk all day if you want to. But, come sundown, there's gonna be two things true that ain't true now. One is that the United States Department of Justice is goin' to know what in the good Christ - e'scuse me, Angie - is goin' on around here. And the other's I'm gonna have somebody's ass in muh briefcase.James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: You're a smart man, Mr. Gallagher. I'm pretty smart myself. Don't get too smart. Michael Colin Gallagher: Everybody in this room is smart, and everybody was just doing their job, and Teresa Perrone is dead. Who do I see about that? James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Ain't nobody to see. I wish there was. You're excused, sir. James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: We can't have people go around leaking stuff for their own reasons. It ain't legal. And worse than that, by God it ain't right. James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: What'd you figure you'd do after government service, Elliott? Elliott Rosen: I'm not quitting. James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: You ain't no Presidential appointee, Elliott. One that hired you is me. You got thirty days.
It would have been nice to see that rigorous level of journalism when T Rezko "sold" his real estate to B Obama. I guess it's just directed at the proles.
Mr. Stockman can put all this unpleasantness behind him as soon as he redefines suicide as self-murder.
The man was responsible for his own actions when he committed fraud and other crimes, and he was responsible for escaping (or carrying out) the punishment for his crimes by committing suicide.
Compare and contrast with the journalism that was practiced on George Zimmerman.....Facts are as subjective as opinions. In your lead paragraph you can mention Zimmerman's past conviction for assault or you can mention his tutoring of black children. Your understanding of the Martain shooting will be shaped by the prominence and spin given to those two facts....There's no reason to doubt the accuracy or integrity of Mr. Stockman's work, but, on the other hand, prior to his investigation there was probably no reason to doubt the integrity of the subject of Stockman's investgation.....Narratives sometimes shape our understanding of events far more than the facts or even the events themselves.
"The part the pisses me off is how many times these relectant hit men target religious, conservative and out of favor (in the media mindset) members."If public figures are liars to their friends and neighbors and associates, con men who take advantage of those who trust them, they should have their deceptions published in the newspaper or broadcast on television.
"There's no such thing as a fair journalist. He knows that. He's used to lying and lying again, whether to his readers or himself we can't know at this point."Obviously a rant by a crank.
"Facts are as subjective as opinions."No. Facts are facts. Facts are what is true.The perception or interpretation of what the facts actually are may be in dispute, and what they add up to or mean, what weight to give certain facts over others, and what conclusions one may arrive at according to one's appraisal of the facts as they are understood may be subjective.
At least there's remorse.When David Hackworth accused Adm Jeremy Boorda of wearing decorations he hadn't earned, Boorda also committed suicide.Problem was, Hackworth was found to have awarded himself a Ranger tab he hadn't earned. He never wrote a word about it. The Lefties loved him because he hated the Army (for kicking him out for running a black market, among other things), so he was safe.
Wellington referred to enlisted men as scum. He had them flogged for breaches of discipline. He didn't believe in promoting from the ranks. He thought enlisted men couldn't be trusted to hold their liquor and behave as officers and gentlemen.....Napoleon didn't flog his troops. Some of his most distinguished marshals were promoted from the ranks. He didn't just give lip service to egalite. He truly believed in equality--at least among white, French males of military bearing.....On the plus side for Wellington, he was sparing of his soldiers' lives. He declined battle on several occasions simply because he felt the casualties would be too great. His armies were disclipined and did not engage in looting and pillage.....On the negative side for Napoleon, he abandoned three armies in the field and was utterly reckless with the lives of his men. Napoleon's campaigns were looting expeditions and his armies were hated in the lands they occupied......All of these facts are widely known. I think nowadays the judgemennt is that Napoleon was a kind of proto-fascist. However, during much of the 19th century Napoleon was romanticized as a revolutionary figure who wished to unite Europe and usurp privilege. Wellington was viewed as a reactionary who set back the clock on social progrress.....There are no new facts about Wellington and Napoleon. There are, however, new ways of understanding those facts.....I think the left, at long last, is willing to admit that their first interpretation of Napoleon, Lenin, and Mao were mistaken. Perhaps some day they will admit they got some other stories wrong.
@edutcher, are you certain of the remorse? If he felt he had to write a CYA column because he was getting heat for hounding someone to suicide then in what way would that column differ from the one he actually wrote?
The reporter will never get a job in NYT and WaPo where covering up for their favored, insinuating about their foe is paramount.
If public figures are liars to their friends and neighbors and associates, con men who take advantage of those who trust them, they should have their deceptions published in the newspaper or broadcast on television.But why does that seem to be exclusively a matter for people who belong to groups out of favor with the MSM? There are no con men or people practicing deceptions on the left?
The guy is dead, he cannot be found guilty of fraud. The investors will not get any of their money back, his family is home free with the appropriated funds.Stockman has nothing to apologize for. Only wish our politicians are as "sensitive" as Clapp and do the right thing when they are exposed... when pigs fly...
"But why does that seem to be exclusively a matter for people who belong to groups out of favor with the MSM? There are no con men or people practicing deceptions on the left?'No, Big Mike: it's a well-established fact that right-wingers are more dishonest than left-wingers.
The man was responsible for his own actions when he committed fraud and other crimes, and he was responsible for escaping (or carrying out) the punishment for his crimes by committing suicide.Stopped clocks being what they are, I agree with Cookie on this.Time then passed while I read his other comments...
Cook, based on your previous comments, I believe you really believe so-called right-wingers are more dishonest, crooked, people. This is a popular idea among the left. My wife said something similar yesterday about Jim Demint—that right-wingers are not only mistaken, they are evil. I think this a logical error, similar to a self referential definition. He was caught doing evil, therefore he was a right-winger. In my mind, the guy in this case was a left-winger because he was lying and appropriating other people's property for his own use. That's what left-wingers do. The people he was exploiting were right-wingers. This frequently happens in right-wing groups because they are more trusting, caring people. They contribute more to charity, and they tend to take people at their word.Left-wing groups, like ACORN and its descendants for example, routinely lie and its OK because everyone in the group is in on the deception and knows that the goal is to take something from someone else.
Cook only sees out of his left eye. All partisan, all the time. Dullard.
@Cook, regarding your comment posted at noon.You, sir, have been brainwashed. And apparently proud of it.
"I should like to mark the occasion of this man's suicide with some humblebrag..."
ken in sc said... Left-wing groups, like ACORN and its descendants for example, routinely lie and its OK because everyone in the group is in on the deception and knows that the goal is to take something from someone else.I agree with this. Why are the lefty public commentators like Ezra Klein outraged about Romney's "lies" [which weren't lies but merely didn't draw the conclusions Klein et al felt were appropriate] but unconcerned about Obama's [such as that Obamacare would bend the cost curve]? Obama was lying, we knew it, and Obama knew we knew it. When your policies suck bad enough lies become good, at least I think that's what Meade wrote. The other thing to keep in mind about Cook is that he likes to pretend he's the only real lefty. That way he can tar you with other people's statements but he never has to answer for the left.
(the other kev)I see that The Drill Sgt has already invoked 'Absence of Malice,' but I think a germane quote come from Josef Sommer playing McAdam:'I know how to print what's true, and I know how not to hurt people. I can't do both at the same time and neither can you.'
Of course the MSM pursues leftie crooks as readily as right wing crooks. Just ask John Corzine.
@ Big Mike, regarding your comment posted at 3:09 PM:You, sir, (and many of your peers here), need to learn to read with greater attention to nuance.
Post a Comment