Fox: "Current Press Ethics Unlikely to Enable Second Watergate"

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160755,00.html

NEW YORK — It's been more than 30 years since Bob Woodward (search) and Carl Bernstein (search) broke the Watergate scandal that brought down an American president.

Many media analysts say a story like Watergate, in which the two enterprising Washington Post reports relied on "Deep Throat" as an essential source, likely couldn't be broken in the same way nowadays because many news outlets have reined in the use of anonymous sources in the wake of recent ethics controversies.

"It depends on whether the next Watergate will rely on anonymous sources. And even if it does, it's a tough call," said media analyst Eric Burns, host of "FOX News Watch."

"What is likely to happen now, when an anonymous source is used … is that they’ll have to use more than one anonymous source before they're comfortable. Obviously, the more controversial it is, the more important it is to get it accurate," Burns said.

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. They sure are trying to protect Judith and Novak, aren't they?

Very simple retort. Media ethics requires that the reporter be prepared to spend time in jail for protecting his source. If the information is that important to the public, the public will move to demand his release. It's not a perfect solution, but then we won't have puppets like Judith and Novak being used as a loudspeaker for the White House without fear of recrimination. On the other hand, I'm sure there are reporters out there who would be willing to take the hit if they felt it was for the good of the country.

[unblock]

2. deep throat was never a single source for anything

one of the conditions he insisted on was that he wouldn't give any fresh information. he would only confirm things that woodstein had already learned from another source. so deep throat was only ever a confirming, second source for information. so fox's analysis is, as usually, completely wrong.

the other thing deep throat supplied was deep background and moral support, which would never be quoted in a story anyway, it simply guided the reporters.

all of this is completely consistent with today's press 'ethics'.


what IS different is the tolerance and approval of silence and covering up for the shrub thugs. the people in the know do not have the sense of ethics that, e.g., john dean did.

[Clark2008]

4. It does amaze me that certain members of society

will scream "LIBRUL MEDIA" at each and every instance of reporting that doesn't completely make the Bush Administration look squeaky clean.

Do people not have objective thought, anymore? Do they honestly believe that Bush can do no wrong? Have they ever even considered that it's not the press being biased, but their own rose-colored glasses in regards to this administration?

How do we overcome this? I, for one, didn't blame the media when they reported on Clinton's affairs. My reaction was that the three-judge panel and Ken Starr had overstepped any Whitewater investigation, but I certainly didn't yell "CONSERVATIVE MEDIA" at every blip.

I do yell "CONSERVATIVE MEDIA" often enough, now, though, because it's a consistant cover-up with them: they've dropped the ball on Iraq, they've dropped the ball on the exit polls vs. outcome, they've dropped the ball on the DSM. Either they're all tools of the right wing or they're the lazist bunch of so-and-so's working. And I don't believe they're THAT lazy.

[Roland99]

3. Hell, they have the DSM and related docs and STILL the press is mum

They're complicit in this disaster!

[kitkat65]

5. "Write what you know" as my creative writing teacher told me. n/t/

[annabanana]

6. Current press LACK OF ethics.. you mean?

Got this today from www.PCActionfund.org

A congressman took a trip paid for by a corporation that he helped get a government contract, but he didn't to disclose it – an apparent violation of House rules. And, what's worse, the corporation's employees were the congressman's top contributor in the 2004 election.

Does that sound like reason enough to have the House Ethics Committee investigate him?

But what if that member of Congress was Doc Hastings of Washington state, the chairman of the Ethics Committee?

This is the man that is, so far, refusing to appoint an outside counsel to investigate Tom DeLay.

Enough is enough. Doc Hastings should step down from his Ethics Committee chairmanship and support the appointment of an outside counsel to investigate the House lobbying scandals.

Call him today at [phone].

Hastings is standing in the way of an independent investigation into DeLay, who has given him $5,930 in Political Action Committee contributions, and trying to appoint his chief of staff from his congressional office to head the nonpartisan Ethics Committee staff, contrary to Committee rules.

[warrens]

7. Deep Throat was barely mentioned or quoted in the stories

He pointed them in certain directions, they checked it out, they found their guy. Deep Throat only became a major character in the book and the movie, not in the stories.

[cally]

8. Fox is trying to reassure the base

Repubs are jumping ship....I hope.