Did anyone else read this today?

[travis2]

I believe seeing "Goodnight and Good Luck," or at least knowing the history of the story (no pun intended), should be a pre-requisite for anyone who wants to start talking about media ethics.

Judith Miller would still have a job with the Times if it weren't for the little pricks who want journalism to be defined by certain, set boundaries.

While I believe what they said about Eva was wrong, and the way they printed it sent the wrong message, it is the right of the press to do that. In fact, I almost prefer it that way. Journalism is supposed to be biased. It is supposed to have a slant, whether you agree with it or not. If it wasn't biased, we'd call it "history" and our newspapers would come with hard binding.

Horray for individual opinions and freedom of the press. Horray for the ability to agree and disagree. You may not like it all the time, but it's better than reading from a text book.

Excuse me, but journalism is MOST DEFINITELY NOT supposed to have a slant.

You want a slant? Go to the opinion pages. That's what they are for.

News stories are supposed to be neutral.

[angel_luv]

Certain media outlets chose not to run the story. If the EN would've run the story under the police blotter, I would've been fine with that, but it didn't deserve to be above the fold. And if enough people are writing in that they are tired of Eva, I can understand the EN running the opinions in their editorial, but I hope that people, other than myself, are writing in their opinions opposing the bashing and are given the same space in that section.

Are you talking about that section in the Metro? That is where I thought the story belonged.

[spurschick]

Are you talking about that section in the Metro? That is where I thought the story belonged.

Precisely.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Ladies, that's exactly what would have happened had the story involved you or me ( , it wouldn't even have made it in there), but since it involved two of the cities most recognizable celebrities (and allegations of verbal abuse with a hint of racism), it meets more of the qualities of news (prominence).

The prominence of those involved meant it was much easier to have a reporter on the story, whereas you or I would have been in agate (very small type) on Metro page 637.

[Phonzie20]

Man.. you people REALLY need another professional sports team STAT!

That was in 'jest' BTW.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

if it weren't for the little pricks who want journalism to be defined by certain, set boundaries.

Before I take that as an slam, what certain, set boundaries are you talking about?

And also, as travis2 said, news and opinions are two different sections and shouldn't be blurred between.

If people didn't want journalism to be "historical," newspapers wouldn't be deemed the "papers of record" for their respective communities.

[spurschick]

Ladies, that's exactly what would have happened had the story involved you or me ( , it wouldn't even have made it in there), but since it involved two of the cities most recognizable celebrities (and allegations of verbal abuse with a hint of racism), it meets more of the qualities of news (prominence).

So here's a question... if it was such a big deal and got picked up by every news wire, why did it completely disappear so quickly? Why haven't I heard or seen one mention of the aftermath anywhere?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

So here's a question... if it was such a big deal and got picked up by every news wire, why did it completely disappear so quickly? Why haven't I heard or seen one mention of the aftermath anywhere?

Really, what else was there to the story. The stories had the SAPD, the Longoria response, witness accounts, etc. (although I will give you that these recent witnesses haven't been heard from really).

But other than that, what real aftermath has there been.

Tony's gonna pay the ticket, the SAPD can't really do anything to Longoria if she did use racial slurs (and if she didn't, same thing) and it doesn't look like Longoria is suffering any blowback from her fans and foes.

People that hated her before still hate her and people that liked her before still do.

[angel_luv]

Ladies, that's exactly what would have happened had the story involved you or me ( , it wouldn't even have made it in there), but since it involved two of the cities most recognizable celebrities (and allegations of verbal abuse with a hint of racism), it meets more of the qualities of news (prominence).

The prominence of those involved meant it was much easier to have a reporter on the story, whereas you or I would have been in agate (very small type) on Metro page 637.

I think Angel being in trouble with the law would have merited front page news.

[spurs=bling]

[xrayzebra]

They love the good stuff, hate the bad. They want the good stuff, they have
to put up with the bad. That simple. He plays good basketball, sometimes. She
is goodlooking and well.........

[spurschick]

Really, what else was there to the story. The stories had the SAPD, the Longoria response, witness accounts, etc. (although I will give you that these recent witnesses haven't been heard from really).

THEN WHY IN THE WAS IT ON THE FREAKIN' FRONT PAGE TO BEGIN WITH????!!!!! AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!

Sorry, I was just quietly reading my Sunday paper and the commentaries pissed me off. We've beaten this dead horse to a pulp, but I thank you for the intelligent conversation.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

THEN WHY IN THE WAS IT ON THE FREAKIN' FRONT PAGE TO BEGIN WITH????!!!!! AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!

Sorry, I was just quietly reading my Sunday paper and the commentaries pissed me off. We've beaten this dead horse to a pulp, but I thank you for the intelligent conversation.

It was a story when it happened, hence the first coverage.

You were asking previously why there wasn't follow-ups, and that's what my answer was to.

[CrashMag]

...

.(Iv)