Open Topic Sunday ... Honesty and the LA Times
Like Sabrina, I cannot sleep either. Too much tossing and turning for my tastes, so I decided to get us started on Open Topics for today, but I see she already beat me to the punch. Oh well. It was a solid analysis of the current questions regarding Mary McCarthy, and the leak scandal within the CIA. And while I appreciate her praise for my post updating people, I am glad that the record was corrected regarding Dana Priest. Indeed, she committed no crime; at least not one prosecutable by Justice Department standards.
She did however pull a "Dan Rather" by pushing a phony story forward. Now we must acknowledge that, for the most part, her information for that story came from Mary McCarthy. But what ever happened to fact-checking? Why not investigate the claims herself? Was she lazy, or is that how lazy collective journalism has become. Simply taking one person at their word does not make a story. It makes it hearsay, unless you have corroboration. Now, Sabrina did point out that Ms. Priest did have a second source for that story. But, they remain unnamed right now. It can only be speculated who that might be. (I can assure our readers that if it does turn out to be another person, and not a Michael Hiltzik sort of fantasy, that head will be rolling, as well under Justice Department charges.)
But, I would actually like to address honesty, and I would like to focus on Michael Hiltzik. More precisely, I would like to know when my better half decided to change his mind on Hiltzik's punishment that he called for on Friday. Thomas called for his dismissal. Today, he changed his tune. He stated that he had thought about this, and decided it would be best to leave him where he is.
Personally, I would love to know when this changed, and why?
It is clear that Mr. Hiltzik violated the Code of Ethics the LA Times has in place, so why allow him to stay? Would this not send a bad message, not only to the newspaper, but to the readers of that paper, as well? That they support and endorse deception by their journalists? That anyone who does this again will not be fired or reprimanded, but instead maintain their job with the company? This looks surprisingly like a Dan Rather moment where rather than being fired (like he should be) he will likely be transferred elsewhere.
Maybe he will be relegated to the food critic, or even better, because he does like fantasy so much, maybe they will make him the permanent movie reviewer. (Maybe once a week for five minutes, Hugh can have him on opposite Emmett of the Unblinking Eye and argue movies instead of politics.) Regardless of what the Times does, I believe Michael Hiltzik should be let go. If for nothing else than to maintain the last shreds of integrity the LA Times has, and uphold their Code of Ethics.
Thomas disagrees. I would like to know why. Thomas? Any comment?
The Bunny ;)
Like Sabrina, I cannot sleep either. Too much tossing and turning for my tastes, so I decided to get us started on Open Topics for today, but I see she already beat me to the punch. Oh well. It was a solid analysis of the current questions regarding Mary McCarthy, and the leak scandal within the CIA. And while I appreciate her praise for my post updating people, I am glad that the record was corrected regarding Dana Priest. Indeed, she committed no crime; at least not one prosecutable by Justice Department standards.
She did however pull a "Dan Rather" by pushing a phony story forward. Now we must acknowledge that, for the most part, her information for that story came from Mary McCarthy. But what ever happened to fact-checking? Why not investigate the claims herself? Was she lazy, or is that how lazy collective journalism has become. Simply taking one person at their word does not make a story. It makes it hearsay, unless you have corroboration. Now, Sabrina did point out that Ms. Priest did have a second source for that story. But, they remain unnamed right now. It can only be speculated who that might be. (I can assure our readers that if it does turn out to be another person, and not a Michael Hiltzik sort of fantasy, that head will be rolling, as well under Justice Department charges.)
But, I would actually like to address honesty, and I would like to focus on Michael Hiltzik. More precisely, I would like to know when my better half decided to change his mind on Hiltzik's punishment that he called for on Friday. Thomas called for his dismissal. Today, he changed his tune. He stated that he had thought about this, and decided it would be best to leave him where he is.
Personally, I would love to know when this changed, and why?
It is clear that Mr. Hiltzik violated the Code of Ethics the LA Times has in place, so why allow him to stay? Would this not send a bad message, not only to the newspaper, but to the readers of that paper, as well? That they support and endorse deception by their journalists? That anyone who does this again will not be fired or reprimanded, but instead maintain their job with the company? This looks surprisingly like a Dan Rather moment where rather than being fired (like he should be) he will likely be transferred elsewhere.
Maybe he will be relegated to the food critic, or even better, because he does like fantasy so much, maybe they will make him the permanent movie reviewer. (Maybe once a week for five minutes, Hugh can have him on opposite Emmett of the Unblinking Eye and argue movies instead of politics.) Regardless of what the Times does, I believe Michael Hiltzik should be let go. If for nothing else than to maintain the last shreds of integrity the LA Times has, and uphold their Code of Ethics.
Thomas disagrees. I would like to know why. Thomas? Any comment?
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:11 AM
1 Comments:
I don't take or read the LA Times. I'm shocked, I tell you shocked, that the paper has a code of ethics! Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home