In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:
stuff snipped

Because it bothers you so much! (-: I don't understand why, this is
just
how things play out.

Which sure as hell don't make it right. This is a long-standing
windmill for me to tilt at. I just think that journalists should be held
to some sort of standard that indicates that they don't put out a real
anything that happens to float past and looks like a couple extra
minutes are filled.

By all means, let's have the government license them and publish
journalistic standards . . . no, wait, that's not such a good idea afterall.

Gee, it was really nice of you to succinctly make my point about
taking whatever floats by and mangling it until it fits what you want it
to. Never was there any mention of government intrusion (especially from
me of all people). There used to be internal standards that you had to
meet that were imposed by your bosses, their bosses, or just plain old
peer pressure to get it right instead of merely filling up time with
whatever weirdness happens to pass by or calls looking for air time.


Look at all the supposition that came about after the
Challenger disaster, the OK city bombing, etc. When people have
incomplete
information on a newsworthy subject they resort to "what if" scenarios.

Pretty much makes my point. I have no problem with people doing
that, but journalists should not just pass along the latest rumor.

In most cases, they properly indicate that it's conjecture and not fact. I
think a greater problem is how many news sites co-mingle opinion with
reporting and deliberately "mark up" the former so it looks like the latter.

Sometimes, although I have noticed that CNN tends to get somewhat
inconsistent on that, especially after the first iteration. I'd have to
agree with the other part, and it is indicative of how the mighty have
fallen.


But isn't that an obvious (note I don't say "rational") extension of
what you are saying is perfectly okay. Sorta indicates that every theory
and supposition should get the same weighting unless it personally
offends the journalist??

In an age where Bill O'Reilly considers Darryl Hannah an "expert" on solar
energy and Katie Couric gives ex-Playmate Jenny McCarthy a forum for her
anti-vaccination views, anything goes. You are indeed Don Quixote, tilting
at windmills. The Golden Age of journalism has come and gone.
And that is the direct result of the journalists themselves. And I
have mentioned earlier and numerous times, that don't make it right...

But that is acknowledged as out of the box and not some actual
occurrance UNTIL the actual facts back it up. I get a chuckle out of
the next line fixing a cause and then bending facts. Isn't that exactly
what you are doing with the supposition that it the thing was hijacked
and then either flown into the sea or landed somewhere?

But I am not a news organization or even a journalist. I am allowed to
posit possibilities. (-:

How Jenney-esque of you (grin)\
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein