The gone post.

Offensive post.

Having spent much of my life as a newspaper reporter I can assure you both the print and TV news people are interested in the story, nothing else. If you are talking about editorial comment, thats entirely different. That's what it is, comment and opinion. If you are referring to the times when Jackson was in court, that's news.
The prosecutor has nothng to do with the media other than that the things he does are news, as are his statements. Any reporter worth his salt, any newspaper or any TV news outlet will report them.
I really don't see your point. Are you suggesting that court proceedings and such should not have been reported because he was a celebrity?

Well said, Dick. Let's not confuse news with commentary or feature writing. Each is a distinct animal. Media is, in fact, plural.

Deleted

Deleted

Deleting your first post was silly. What's the point of the thread if no one knows what was written?

Sheesh, I leave the house for 4 hours and come back to miss it all. As Lane commented,

Quote :

What's the point of the thread if no one knows what was written?

So, what was said?

Delete

Marie, I believe you described what news is all about in the Iowa coach story. It was unusual enough to be picked up by all the wire services. That would likely have been followed up with the story of an arrest, then an arraignment. There normally would be nothing more to say until the trial.
Many people who have never worked in the news business fail to differentiate between news and commentary. On CNN, Wolfe Blitzer is news, Lou Dobbs is commentary.
When I was reporting, it was my job to tell the story without injecting my opinion. When I wrote a column (a blog today) it was opinion. They are as different as day and night.
I don't agree with the way every story is handled. I don't pretend that every reporter is competent and unbiased. I do contend that the vast majority are both. They have one of the toughest jobs on earth and those who never have had an hour's worth of writing to do and twenty minutes to get it finished can't comprehend how difficult it really is.

As the "first responder" I was discussing what you wrote. How else would you define discussion?
Michael Jackson thrived on publicity. Making the news was one way of obtaining it. Without it he would not have been a celebrity. He chose to stand on a SUV while wearing pajamas to be noticed. He was noticed and he was playing to the cameras. Had no one paid attention he would have been upset. Because he was a well-known figure, eccentric behavior was newsworthy. While it didn't take place inside the courthouse, it definitely was part of the proceedings.

Phil wrote:

Now you can tell me about my lack of thick skin and all of my other defects or you could just drop it.

It would be a waste of time. But I'll be happy to comment about your childishness.

Deleted

Deleted

Go back and read your posts, Phil. Your persecution complex is a bit much--and childish.

Deleted

Marie Pacha wrote:

It's news Phil! (I said that sarcastically.)

It is something that should be reported obviously, but you're right. For the past several years "the press" has vilified Michael Jackson, and now they glorify him.

The truth lies somewhere in between I am sure. He had some personal issues that I believe stem from his childhood, but he also made his own choices. Regardless of that, he contributed a great deal to music and the entertainment industry and those cannot be denied either.

This was the first response. Correct me if I am wrong.

Do only men's responses count?

Phil,

Do what you want to do--don't let other people set your agenda.

You have written some entertaining stories here. How about some more?

I don't understand you, Phil. No one asked you to go away. Where did you get that idea? My posts were intended to defend the many fine men and women I know who are reporters and editors. Your initial post and a subsequent one were insulting to them. Your remark concerning CNN was vulgar and offensive.
I have no interest in seeing you leave. I do have an interest in defending the profession I chose to make my life's work.

I understand that, Marie. It is a carryover of "kill the messenger."

Marie Pacha wrote:

And surely you can see that the public might not see (or look for) the same things in a broadcast that you do and our opinions of the resulting product might be different.

And surely you can see, and Phil can see, that journalists have a right to defend public attacks.

Phil, incidentally, forced himself onto the subject line. If one is incapable of defending strong opinions--without tears, one ought not express them.

Marie Pacha wrote:

Do all journalists defend all criticisms of their profession?

Yes, Most professions are defensive to attacks!
Stay out of your room.

We will toughen you up.

Marie Pacha wrote:

Do all journalists defend all criticisms of their profession?

No. It would be an endless, fulltime effort.

Marie Pacha wrote:

What I don't understand is why you mounted such a vigorous defense here. And actually to me, your defense went on the offense pretty quicly. Is it because it's more of a one-on-one situation?

Go back and read my posts. My defense, as you call it, was hardly vigorous. Perhaps a better question is why you so vigorously defend Phil. He's a big boy who ought to be able to defend himself.

"Deleting your first post was silly."
"It would be a waste of time. But I'll be happy to comment about your childishness.
"Your persecution complex is a bit much--and childish."
"Your initial post and a subsequent one were insulting to them. Your remark concerning CNN was vulgar and offensive."
"If one is incapable of defending strong opinions--without tears, one ought not express them."
"He's a big boy who ought to be able to defend himself."

I'm silly. I'm a waste of your time. I'm childish. I have a persecution complex. I'm childish. I'm insulting the entire media. I'm vulgar. I'm offensive. I'm a big boy who can't defend myself.

Marie spoke up because she knows me and knows I'm none of the things you call me. I'm discounted and discredited by guys who know nothing at all about me. Marie does. She is a fine friend. And cute.

How would I defend my opinion when posters go after me instead of my opinion? Why do people insult other people? We all know why and we know that insults hurt. They have nothing to do with having a thick skin either. If one is oblivious to name-calling they must have no feelings at all. Insults are NOT part of any discussion because they destroy discussion.

I can't defend myself against name-calling so I would be silly, as I'm called, to invite it by trying to start any new discussions. There is just no point. There is usually justification for the insults but they are still nothing other than insults.

It matters not at all, but a couple of quotes attributed to me were not made by me.

Have it your way, Phil. We've picked on you--maligned and abused you unmercifully. Enjoy the agony.

Delete