13 April 2006

One Bad Apple

Lots to learn about today's America in this story.
Ultimately, however, I think this case really comes down to the definition of "journalist." Ask yourself: If O'Grady's original story had appeared under his byline in The New York Times, would Apple have ever brought suit? Of course not. Note that Apple didn't even have the guts to take on Ziff-Davis, but rather went after O'Grady's poor little ISP. What the Apple lawyers have bet on, it seems, is that they can pivot the case upon the question of whether a blogger is a real journalist or not and then convince the judge he's not.
These days, the MSM is hurriedly trying to pull up the drawbridge to protect the "professionals" inside from the nonjournalists beyond the walls. But the public isn't fooled. For all the sniffing by the MSM about bloggers in pajamas and amateur journalism, most readers have figured out they can trust the reporting of a lone blogger like Iraq the Model as much if not more than the entire news apparatus of Reuters. The cynical lawyers at Apple are trying to capitalize on that dispute and use the ignorant courts as its weapon in the process.
Remember when Apple marketed itself as the anti-big brother, the machines for everyone else, and the tools that empowered the average person to do great things? Yea, that was so 1984 . . .

Bottom line: Journalism does not belong exclusively to those who list "journalist" as the occupation on their tax returns.


flamer said...

"TV Spy’s ShopTalk reported Monday that two TV journalists have challenged the license renewal of WTVT Fox-13, charging that it deliberately broadcast false news reports about Monsanto’s secret use of potentially cancer-causing growth hormones in milk. Reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson filed a petition Monday against Fox’s Tampa station after a Florida Appeals Court overturned a $425,000 jury award to them and then ordered them to pay court costs and issued rullings allowing Fox to seek $1 million in legal costs from them for defending itself against their Whistleblower lawsuit. The court said broadcasting false news reports is not a crime, striking grounds for their suit. "

It's not a crime...
The mainstream media is not (and never was) under any obligation to tell the truth.
So we've stopped trusting them.
And where did we hear about this?

A blog.


flamer said...

And from another blog today:

Rumsfeld lies, AP covers it up
Eli Stephens, Left I on the News

April 11, 2006

"Here's what U.S. Secretary of Defense [sic] Donald Rumsfeld said today: "There is obviously concern about Iran. It's a country that is -- supports terrorists. It's a country that has indicated an interest in having weapons of mass destruction."

Now read how AP reported the story, and pay very careful attention to the placement of the quotation marks: Said Rumsfeld: "There is obviously concern about Iran. Iran is a country that supports terrorism. It is a country that has indicated" a desire to obtain nuclear technology.

AP completely fabricated the last part of the quote!!!! Rumsfeld said nothing about "nuclear technology"; indeed, in the entire briefing, he doesn't even utter the word "nuclear." So there can't be any question that he was really referring to "nuclear technology" (or nuclear power) and simply misspoke; he very deliberately refers to "weapons of mass destruction." Which, I should point out, since AP doesn't, is an absolute lie; Iran has very specifically denied any interest in weapons of mass destruction. But it wasn't enough for AP simply to have failed to point out that lie; no, they took the much more active step of fabricating a quote from Rumsfeld to make it appear that he did not lie.


Not really.
I'm done with AP, too.