Were you, like me duped into
watching "20/20" last night to hear what names they'd name based on the big list forked over to them by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who's accused of running a prostitution ring in Washington?
“Our decision at the end was not to name any names,” said Brian Ross, the news correspondent who presented the segment. Mr. Ross said that the network went with a “conservative approach,” and that “based on our reporting it turned out not to be as newsworthy as we thought in terms of the names.”
At least they're being honest -- it seems -- in not pretending they'd belatedly discovered some ethical compunction about it.
ABC had reported on its Web site on Monday that the list included a Bush administration economist along with senior military officials and lobbyists, among others.
The administration economist turned out to be a mid-level employee at the Office of Thrift Supervision who was not worth naming, ABC officials said. But the man’s case, network officials said, demonstrated that men sometimes exaggerate their importance to the women they pay for company.
And networks sometimes exaggerate the importance of their upcoming news shows to the viewers they sell to advertisers.
Posts
11 comments:
Well, I'd hate to be some random employee at the Office of Thrift Supervision. Might be a tough couple of weeks at home.
"We're in the boredom-killing business"
Must've been too many Dems on the list for ABC's conscience, and the Congress and Senate are still close enough for that to be a factor. Last thing ABC wants is to be blamed for either of those switching back from blue to red.
I suspect the list was not sufficiently full of high ranking conservative people, and thus it was not considered worthwhile to out everyone else.
But of course all we need do is wait. Someone will get the list, and begin the process.
In line with the above, I would also suggest that Rahm Emmanuel saw the list and noticed a preponderance of Clinton appointees and very few Conservatives. ABC acted on the pressure, milked it for what it could, then moved on with a renewed appreciation for knowing their democratic "ABC's"!
Nothing to see here! Keep on moving!
I agree with Ann and you all--they bagged a Bush official, who led his $15 billion AIDS funding which required the anti-prostitution pledge, and that's all that counts. They just had to discredit that one worthy Bush program and they succeeded. Hey, let's cancel the program--when it comes to AIDS and malaria, liberals know best.
Ross on O'Reilly promised something entirely different. He is as honest as a carny barker. And Stossel should resign to save what's left of his credibility.
Oh, you're no fun anymore...
Not to mention, that the list maybe contained some names of ABC, CBS, and NBC, Washington bureau, executive types.
Yes, I am embarassed to admit I watched that crap. After it was over in 10 minutes I was like was that it?
All week the media was pounding the drum and I was pathetically into it. I was a sucker.
After the 10 minute piece was over I actually felt guilty and disturbed at myself for actually wanting to watch something in order to maybe take glee in someone elses pain. Very sad, I thought this says something about me I don't like.
After all I think prostitution or "fantasy role play" is completely fine and should be legal.
I think equally sad was that I ended up watching the first 5 minutes of John Stossel.
OMG. Now that man is something else. Someone mentioned he should resign for the sake of his credibility. I would suggest, after watching him for 5 minutes, he doesn't have any credibility.
Well, certainly the litigation department at ABC waxed silent on this one. NOT.
So legal eagles...if someone's phone number turns up on that list and it is perhaps a wrong number (just callin for info on your services ma'am) and the conversation is pleasant enough but not conclusive as if he/she "ordered up a blue plate special to go"....and ABC named the name...would the defense ABC would have to pose be proving that he did order and get take out service? Wouldn't it be that ABC would have to have proof that the phonecall wasn't a lark or accident in order to publish a name?
Just curious.
Post a Comment