David Quarter davidquarter at sympatico.ca
Fri Jul 18 12:00:19 MDT 2003

From:           	"David Quarter" <davidquarter at sympatico.ca>

> From:           	"Mark Lause" <MLause at cinci.rr.com>

> which is that the media DOES get to expose
> > the president's duplicity and lying but NOW... after they let the
> > president produce some very lucrative news that would not have been
> > produced had they exposed the duplicity and lying earlier.>>>>

  [I missed this]....No I don't agree at all. There is much that
journalists could expose during or prior to the incident that would
make the story just as big. To take an example: the Rambouillet
agreement.  It was the pretext to the war against Yugo. It was
basically a declaration of war by the U.S. against Yugo., but the
press basically presented it as peace treaty between the Yugo gov.
and the KLA. Some excerpts from the documents were leeked to
the press prior to the commencement of the bombing., and one or
two journalists exposed it for the fraud that it was.  The
independent press picked up on this, and the story was all over the
internet. The corp. press was uniformly silent.  Why wouldn't
exposing the document then, as opposed to after the fact as
sections of the "liberal" press had done, make the story any less

Sure. You could argue that waiting for the crime to happen in the
end makes for a bigger, more juicier report than exposing a crime
in the making.  Yet, some crimes don;'t happen -- they take time to
build, and exposing them before they occur could still make more
for a just as juicy story.

I kind of see your point now, but I think that you're assuming that
what drives journalism is the decision of journalists? What about
the editors? What about the publishers? Unfortunately, journalists
have little say on what reaches the public.


More information about the Marxism mailing list