Wednesday, November 26, 2014

That Expose Corruption Project

Who watches the watchmen? Our media is protected by a constitutional amendment that they view as an all encompassing shield. What does it say?

1.        The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press,

This is not about coercing the government to infringe on the freedom of the press. This is about holding the media to the same standards they hold us to. This is about fighting corruption. If we can fight corruption in the media, then the media can properly do its job against other forces in the nation. I strongly believe that the media's power to shape opinion and mold minds is the most powerful weapon in America. Let us clean the stables in whatever way we can. This is especially topical watching the NY Times despicably just published Officer Wilson's home street. If you are like me and dislike the way the modern media works, support Pax Dickinson's project Expose Corruption.


nikcrit said...

This is especially topical watching the NY Times despicably just published Officer Wilson's home street.

What were the circumstances? Are we sure it wasn't just a standard protocol? (I'm literally asking; not being coy or sarcastic).

Regardless, I doubt those wishing to do him criminal harm or harassment are reading

Son of Brock Landers said...

Nikcrit - they did it and then pulled it after outcry. I hope youre playing dumb to grt a conversation going. Fuck off if you think the NY Times was being harmless. 30 years ago a local paper published my mom's name as a juror in a murder trial. Journalists know nothing about accountability.

peterike said...

I doubt those wishing to do him criminal harm or harassment are reading

Very wrong. The Social Justice Warriors who are the pied pipers and funders of these riots, leading on the black hordes, very much read the New York Times.

nikcrit said...

Fuck off if you think the NY Times was being harmless.

No, I meant 'are you sure' the listing of his address didn't follow some standard, long-implemented policy of, say, including bio info with the names of accused, or whatever.

I was a critic and feature writer at a top-25 paper for more than ten years, and I can't tell you how many times inconvenient but coincidental circumstances led to full-blown accusations of conspiracy. Even on the entertainment beat, every time you ran a picture of a local musican or theater troupe, their respective competition would be on the phone with you, or even blabbing in other publications, about how you had some bias and covert agenda and were dead-set on excluding them. When, in fact, you ran with what you did because the statement was vouched and the picture with necessary detail (Wh/what/where/how much?) was included by your tight daily deadline. People forget: newspapers are run by tight daily deadlines; two-thirds of what appears is because the proper detail has been included; (can't tell you how many times those accusing you of consciously omitting them had submitted info with key, necessary info omitted, like, sya, the price and time of an event they wanted advanced.

Anyhow, that's not exactly what you're contending here; but I tend to give the press the benefit of the doubt because of my vantage point ----- i,e., in terms of accusations like these, I always first ask: what possible rote or practical reason could there have been for things to have occurred the way they did, etc.
As for your personal anecdote, i have no idea why that would've occured. I can't think of any publication that would, as part of policy, include the names of jurors in a story. Even if a case was notorious. I can't even think of a one-time extenuating circumstance ---- unless, say, it was like the OJ Simpson case, where the jurors themselves published books and made it a point to present themselves before the press.

They even managed to remain anonymous during their sequestered status, at least.

nikcrit said...

30 years ago a local paper published my mom's name as a juror in a murder trial. Journalists know nothing about accountability.

Specifically to the point: unless the publication was some super-small-time local weekly, publishing the name wouldn't have been left to the discretion of the individual reporter; it would've been a protocol newsroom policy that would've determined that ---- though, like i said, i can't imagine even the most rinky-dink paper doing something like publishing the name of jurors, particularly in a felony case.

I recall similar discussions with CR at GL Piggy; it's sorta naive to think that and,, etc., sit around and try to find ways to be 'politically correct'; yeah, there is p.c. sanctimony, and, yeah, their respective organizations have falled into hard p.c. orthodoxies ------ but t he reporters themselves, believe it or not, are probably some of the most cynical reactors among those exposed to that fact. Such orthodoxies aren't a result of the collective newsroom ethos but moreso its larger forces, many of course financial.

I recall CR grabbing his laptop and putting on his fedora and crashing the Zimmerman trial for a few days; he was genuinely surprised to learn that the pool of national reporters covering the trial were --- gasp! ----- cynical about the entire proceeding and far from being dupes in the p.c./anti-Zimmerman cabal that the man-o-sphere near-unanimously presumed.
Some of the msot anti-p.c. folk I know were big-city daily news reporters.

peterike said...

Happy Thanksgiving homies!!!

peterike said...

New York Times reporters who outed Wilson are themselves exposed.

There was a time I'd find this kind of thing offensive, but not anymore. We need more of this. Though of course nothing will come of it, while Wilson may very well get shot.

nikcrit said...

Happy holidays, peterile
(Try your best to keep your dinner tab under $500 tomorrow, you decadent-ass big apple epicurean, you!!!!!

nikcrit said...

this article gives some detail and context on the nytimes' publishing darren wilson's address.

nikcrit said...

Back in my 90s grad-student days, the media-studies consensus on how to liberate the stranglehold on 'the media' was the emerging popularization of the internet; no more 'barriers to entry;' no more 'one-to-many' tyrannies, as we were no on the cusp of the 'many-to-many' frontier of free speech, etc., ad infinitum.

Well, be careful of what you wish for, 'cuz, while I love the 'net's potential, there certainly has been a downside, some anticipated and some not so much foreseen.

Accountability is pretty much down the toilet; and glut is a major contemporary symptom now too ---- whether one speaks of a ideological glut as well as a overall 'content glut,' whether it be one's precious writings, music, movies or whatever personal charms being maxed out.

Neil Postman; where are you now that what you always screamed about came true and we need you?

peterike said...

Speaking of the media, for shits and grins I decided to start infesting The Guardian with my crime think. It took all of six posts to get myself "pre-moderated," meaning they moderate me first rather than post-then-moderate which is their usual approach. And I hardly even said anything bad! Well, until I very calmly commented on an article about "having an honest race discussion" that we ought to acknowledge the genetic differences among races. It wasn't ten minutes later that I got pre-moderated.

They really, really don't allow such thoughts to escape.

nikcrit said...

Consider this WaPo editorial in the light of peterike's preceding comment:

Axe Head said...

nikcrit: way to rally to TeamMedia! As they say, once CIA, always CIA...

nikcrit said...

way to rally to TeamMedia!

Wasn't 'rallying'; moreso marveling at their turning into a moral platitude what should be considered a ideological comeuppance.....

Actually, I spent too much time working for a 'teammedia' publication to ever, EVER it becoming something I could rally 'round...LOL!!

Now, if you'll excuse me, if I have some more pressing cyber-espionage to indulge on select other five-man-network blogs, fool!