Showing posts with label progressive. Show all posts
Showing posts with label progressive. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 02, 2019

The Bill of Rights and Responsibilities of the News Media



The press, or news media, are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


This is the Code of Ethics used to guide the news media in the exercise of their work.  Do you think they are following their own Code of Ethics?



SPJ Code of Ethics

Preamble

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity.

The Society declares these four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism and encourages their use in its practice by all people in all media.


Seek Truth and Report It

Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should
be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting
information.

Journalists should:

Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before
releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.

Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.

Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in
promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.

Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.

Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.

Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible
to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.

Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for
sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information
that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.

Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism
or allegations of wrongdoing.

Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information
unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.

Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
Give voice to the voiceless.

Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and
government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the
open, and that public records are open to all.

Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.

Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience.
Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.

Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and
experiences may shape their reporting.

Label advocacy and commentary.

Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information.

Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.

Never plagiarize. Always attribute.


Minimize Harm

Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of
the public as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort.
Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.

Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use
heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes,
and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent.
Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.

Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification
to publish or broadcast.

Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about
themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or
attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal
information.

Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.

Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider
the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.

Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of
publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.


Act Independently

The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve
the public.

Journalists should:

Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political
and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality,
or may damage credibility.

Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for
access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid
or not.

Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests,
and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.

Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines
between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.


Be Accountable and Transparent


Ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one's work and
explaining one’s decisions to the public.

Journalists should:

Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil
dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news
content.

Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.

Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain
corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.

Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.

Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.


The SPJ Code of Ethics is a statement of abiding principles supported by additional explanations and position papers (at spj.org) that address changing journalistic practices.

It is not a set of rules, rather a guide that encourages all who engage in journalism to take responsibility for the information they provide, regardless of medium. The code should be read as a whole; individual principles should not be taken out of context. It is not, nor can it be under the First Amendment, legally enforceable.
.

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Susan Sarandom on Hillary Clinton and Life from The Guardian

.





Susan Sarandon: ‘I thought Hillary was very dangerous. If she'd won, we'd be at war’

Once the bete noire of the right, now the actor finds herself even more hated by the left for refusing to support Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump. She talks about Hollywood sexism, female empowerment and playing Bette Davis



Susan Sarandon at 71 is bright-eyed and airy, and perhaps shyer than she can publicly seem. When I walk into the room – a private members’ club in downtown New York, where she sits with a small dog at her feet – she doesn’t say hello or make eye-contact, giving what I suspect is a false impression of rudeness. It may also be that she is uncertain of her reception. For a long time Sarandon was despised by the right, her protests against the Vietnam war and US aggression in Nicaragua and Iraq making her the kind of target that, for progressives, is an affirmation of sorts. Her latest unpopularity, by contrast, comes exclusively from the left and is much tougher on Sarandon. “I’m not attacked from the right at all,” she will tell me. Instead, she is accused of not checking her white privilege, of throwing away her vote on a third-party candidate (the Green party nominee, Jill Stein) during the US presidential election, and of recklessly espousing a political cause that let Trump in through the backdoor. Liberals in the US, it seems, can summon more hatred for Sarandon right now than they can for Paul Ryan.

Most infuriating of all, to her critics, is that she won’t admit her error. Sarandon’s very physiognomy suggests defiance; she looks indignant even at rest. She also looks a lot like Bette Davis, so much so that Davis herself, in her dotage, approached Sarandon to play her. That project never happened, but in the new eight-part Ryan Murphy series Feud: Bette and Joan, about the battle for Hollywood supremacy between Davis and Joan Crawford, Sarandon gets her chance. The two leads are terrific: Jessica Lange, by turns monstrous and pathetic as Crawford; Sarandon steelier, smarter, less obviously vulnerable. She sees a lot of similarities between herself and Davis. “We’re both east coast,” she says. “I didn’t consider myself a star; I was a character actor from the very beginning and not really sold as pretty, which is probably what’s allowed me to survive as long as I have. I have this broader phase.”


Sarandon as Bette Davis and Jessica Lange as Joan Crawford in Feud: Bette and Joan. Photograph: FX

Sarandon is working well beyond the age at which women in Hollywood’s golden era could expect to carry on – “besides playing witches and bitches,” she says. The interesting thing about Feud is that it tells an unavoidably feminist story about two women who would have abhorred that particular term. A few years ago, Sarandon herself said: “I think of myself as a humanist because I think it’s less alienating to people who think of feminism as being a load of strident bitches.”

“And then suddenly it became OK to say feminist,” she says now. “That’s been very recent. There was a period when that wasn’t really happening. So now there’s been an opportunity to include men as allies. And I have to say, I remember going to the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment] march where there were 100,000 women and we were going around talking to senators for this vote and I got on the elevator, and the women were like: ‘We’re going to show them what the fuck we want.’ And I kept saying: ‘Calm down, that’s not the way we’re going to get things done.’”

You thought it was counterproductive to be that angry? “It was counterproductive, clearly. But that image of the shrill woman became the definition of a feminist for a long time. And women had a right to be angry, and to feel empowered. But that was just one glimpse of a fairly emotional and strident definition, and there was a period when young women didn’t want that label.”

And now? “It’s come back, and it’s gotten warped, especially with the election, where if you’re a woman you have to support Hillary Clinton.”

Now, of course, no one in Sarandon’s industry would get caught dead having a flaky opinion on sexism in Hollywood. Still, the actor is cautious. One gets the feeling that the Harvey Weinstein business simply isn’t very interesting to Sarandon, that there are other causes – the Keystone pipeline, fracking, oil and gas money in politics – that she considers more urgent. She is no apologist for the Weinsteins of this world, but she can, at times, sound positively libertarian about where the responsibilities of the women involved lie.


Sarandon listens to Bernie Sanders campaigning in Iowa, Jan 2016. Photograph: Chris Carlson/AP

“There are a lot of people who did say no,” she says. “I think the big question here is that if Harvey Weinstein exposed himself to you when you were on a yacht in Cannes and you told everybody – this is Angie Everhart’s story – and everyone said: ‘Well, that’s just Harvey’ and it wasn’t a big deal – those are the people who are perpetuating it, too. Now, I’m sure there’s a lot of men who were much smoother at seducing than-” she bursts out laughing – “James Toback and Harvey Weinstein, who a lot of women felt very flattered to be sleeping with, even if they didn’t get the job. There’s just a culture, starting in the 60s and 70s, where there was a certain amount of liberation that made it possible for those things to happen without even seeing yourself as a victim.”

One of the questions currently being asked is whether what Sarandon describes – the inability of many women even to conceptualise themselves as victims – is a function of “liberation” or internalised misogynistic denial. For Sarandon’s part, nothing post-Weinstein has made her reassess her own past. “Certainly, I experienced both having people come on to me and being told that I wasn’t interesting enough to get a part, or sexual enough, once they found out I was married,” she says. She also admits she was lucky; that, unlike many of the women coming forward today, Sarandon’s resolve was never put to the test. “In my case, I just said no, in many clumsy, stupid ways, but the people didn’t push on. They didn’t show up in my room. They didn’t corner me, or batter me, or get on top of me. It was an invitation: ‘Yeah, why don’t you spend the night now that you’re here in the middle of nowhere on location?’ And I said: ‘No, I gotta get back to my room.’ But I didn’t feel super offended, because it wasn’t a thing that became super difficult.”

There were other hard things. “I remember another really famous actress saying to me: ‘Well, don’t have children because that’ll really change the parts that you’ll be available for. And you won’t work past 40 anyway.’ And a lot of that has changed. And a lot of women are assessing how they feel; were they victimised or did they feel that it was their own choice?”

There is no question, she believes, that there are more choices today and that this is slowly correcting the imbalance of power. “More and more women are able to greenlight their own projects. My last few films have had women directors – they’re not the big blockbusters, but I’m not sure those big blockbusters are very interesting to direct. But there is definitely more power in the hands of women than there was – the Reese Witherspoons, who are getting books, putting together projects, telling women’s stories. I think that’s where the difference is. The culture itself is ... it’s a tricky thing because you are selling yourself using sex, and your looks, for the most part. And I think that when you have these men in positions of power, they assume that [sex] goes along with it. And until you get women to have an economic power base – I mean, look at Brit Marling’s article [in the Atlantic], where she talks about being able to walk out of an uncomfortable situation with Harvey even though she hated herself for going in the first place, because she knew she could write and produce and direct. So when people see themselves as having their own power base, it becomes imaginable that you could turn somebody down and still survive.”


With Geena Davis in Thelma And Louise, 1991. Photograph: c.MGM/Everett/REX

It is often overlooked that in 2001, Sarandon supported Hillary Clinton’s run for the Senate. There are photos of them posing chummily together, grinning. Then Clinton voted for the war in Iraq and it all went downhill. During the last election, Sarandon supported Bernie Sanders, then wouldn’t support Clinton after she won the nomination, and now all the moderates hate her, to the extent, she says, that she had to change her phone number because people she identifies as Hillary trolls sent her threatening messages. “I got from Hillary people ‘I hope your crotch is grabbed’, ‘I hope you’re raped’. Misogynistic attacks. Recently, I said ‘I stand with Dreamers’ [children brought illegally to the US, whose path to legal citizenship – an Obama-era provision – Trump has threatened to revoke] and that started another wave.”

Wait, from the right?

“No, from the left! ‘How dare you! You who are responsible for this!’”
I ask if she’s aware that Katha Pollitt recently called her an idiot in the New York Review of Books and she looks momentarily taken aback. “I’m flattered,” she says. These people are furious with you, I say.

“Well, that’s why we’re going to lose again if we depend on the DNC [the Democratic National Committee]. Because the amount of denial ... I mean it’s very flattering to think that I, on my own, cost the election. That my little voice was the deciding factor.”

Is it upsetting to be attacked?

“It’s upsetting to me more from the point of view of thinking they haven’t learned. I don’t need to be vindicated.”

But it’s upsetting that they’re still feeding the same misinformation to people. When Obama got the nomination, 25% of [Hillary’s] people didn’t vote for him. 
Only 12% of Bernie’s people didn’t vote for her.”

But she didn’t advocate voting for Hillary! Come on.

“Hmm?”

Didn’t she advocate voting for Jill Stein?

“I didn’t advocate people voting for anything. I said get your information, I’m going to vote for change, because I was hoping that Stein was going to get whatever percentage she needed – but I knew she wasn’t going to make the difference in the election.”


Sarandon with Cher and Michelle Pfeiffer in The Witches of Eastwick, 1987. Photograph: Allstar/Cinetext/WARNER BROS

Does she have any sympathy with the critique that casting a protest vote is the luxury of those insulated from the effects of a Trump presidency? “It wasn’t a protest vote. Following Bernie wasn’t a protest.” Voting for Jill Stein was, by any definition, a protest vote. “Well, I knew that New York was going to go [for Hillary]. It was probably the easiest place to vote for Stein. Bringing attention to working-class issues is not a luxury. People are really hurting; that’s how this guy got in. What we should be discussing is not the election, but how we got to the point where Trump was the answer.” (We should also, she says, inching towards the space where the extreme right meets the left, be discussing how “you can’t judge by the mainstream media what’s going on in the country. How did we lose all our journalists and media?”)

Has she lost friends over all this? “No. My friends have a right to their opinions. It’s disappointing but that’s their business. It’s like in the lead-up to Vietnam, and then later they say: ‘You were right.’ Or strangely, some of my gay friends were like: ‘Oh, I just feel bad for [Clinton]. And I said: ‘She’s not authentic. She’s been terrible to gay people for the longest time. She’s an opportunist.’ And then I’m like: ‘OK, let’s not talk about it any more.’”

Still, I think while there was vast political error on both sides, the inability of Sarandon and her ilk to embrace the lesser of two evils permitted the greater of the two evils to rise. And yet I like Sarandon. It takes real courage to go against the mob. Her inconsistencies are a little wild, but in the age of social-media enforced conformity, I have never met anyone so uninterested in toeing the line.
Did she really say that Hillary was more dangerous than Trump?

“Not exactly, but I don’t mind that quote,” she says. “I did think she was very, very dangerous. We would still be fracking, we would be at war [if she was president]. It wouldn’t be much smoother. Look what happened under Obama that we didn’t notice.”

It seems absurd to argue that healthcare, childcare, taxation for the non-rich wouldn’t be better now under President Clinton, and that’s before we get to the threat of deportation hanging over millions of immigrants. “She would’ve done it the way Obama did it,” says Sarandon, “which was sneakily. He deported more people than have been deported now. How he got the Nobel peace prize I don’t know. I think it was very important to have a black family in the White House and I think some of the stuff he did was good. He tried really hard about healthcare. But he didn’t go all the way because of big pharma.”

It’s tempting to read some of Sarandon’s fervour as a reaction against her own family’s Republicanism – during the Bush years, her now 94-year old-mother was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly, and encouraged to speculate on where she went wrong with her daughter. (Sarandon’s mother would probably have voted for Trump, she says, but “I don’t think she got out to vote.” She smiles. “We didn’t facilitate that.”)

All of which makes the actor’s position on feminism more puzzling. Sarandon is close to her three children – Eva Amurri, whom she had with the Italian film-maker Franco Amurri, and Miles and Jack, her two sons with her former partner of 23 years, Tim Robbins, with whom she is reportedly on good terms. It was her daughter, Eva, who as a teenager didn’t like the word feminism, says Sarandon, because “it seemed redundant to have to say you were a feminist”.

But it wasn’t.

“No, but she grew up in a house where she had a mother who earned her own money and was powerful and she’s in a progressive city, with other progressive kids – she wasn’t even exposed to the more Republican part of Manhattan. So she was in a progressive bubble. I think the secret is maybe now we have to just say no one is going to fix it for you. It’s up to you to fix it. You have the strength. You shouldn’t turn to be validated by anyone, male or female. You carry your power within you, and if you surround yourself with people who respect you, that will happen, be they male or female.” It is a strange statement from someone who believes that structural inequality requires political solutions. Earlier, she makes the point that Clinton’s refusal to back the $15 minimum wage, “tells you she’s not a feminist, when 50% of the households in America are headed by women.” Clinton espoused a $12 minimum wage, with scope to raise it to $15 in metropolitan centres, but that’s not the point. The point is self-validation doesn’t pay the rent.)

After the interview, we leave the club and walk towards the subway. “What was her name?” she says. “In the magazine?”

“Katha Pollitt,” I say. We part at the corner of Seventh Avenue and Sarandon disappears up the street, dog under one arm, hat pulled low, assistant at her elbow. “Will I get a load more hatred when this article comes out?” she shouts, looking back over her shoulder.

“Probably,” I say. I have a hunch she can take it.

Feud: Bette and Joan starts on BBC Two on Saturday 16 December at 9pm. The full series will be available on BBC iPlayer from 10.45pm that evening. 
  • This article was amended on 27 November 2017. Jill Stein was the Green party presidential nominee, not an independent.

Since you’re here …
… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.
I appreciate there not being a paywall: it is more democratic for the media to be available for all and not a commodity to be purchased by a few. I’m happy to make a contribution so others with less means still have access to information.Thomasine F-R.
If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps fund it, our future would be much more secure. For as little as $1, you can support the Guardian – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.


Thursday, January 26, 2017

Fox News beats out all Cable and Network news for Trump Inaugural - Crushes CNN by over 8 million viewers

.


.



Fox Tops Broadcast and Cable News in Inauguration Ratings; CNN Posts Strong Primetime Numbers

by Justin Baragona | 10:37 am, January 23rd, 2017

Friday was Inauguration Day and therefore a huge day for broadcast and cable news coverage. And the undisputed winner of the ratings battle for the day was Fox News.

During the peak coverage block of 11 AM to 4 PM ET, Fox News averaged 8.77 million viewers and 2.19 million in the key 25-54 demographic. The cable news network pulled in nearly three million more than the runner-up NBC, who drew 5.90 million viewers and 2.02 million in the 25-54 demo. ABC and CBS finished third and fourth, with 4.90 million and 4.65 million viewers respectively.

As for the other cable news channels, CNN nabbed and audience 2.61 million and 942,000 in the demo in that time block. They nearly doubled up MSNBC who brought in 1.38 million and 309,000 in the demographic.


During the the Oath and Inaugural Address, Fox really dominated. The channel drew 11.77 million during that timeframe and 2.99 million in the demo. CNN, meanwhile, attracted 3.38 million viewers and 1.21 million in the 25-54 age range. MSNBC was at 1.49 million and 315,000 demo viewers.

In primetime coverage, which featured the inaugural balls, Fox News pulled in 6.96 million total viewers and 1.77 million in the 25-54 demographic. CNN enticed 4.53 million total people to watch and 1.39 million in the demo. MSNBC drew a total audience of 1.62 million and 395,000 in the key demographic.

As for the business channels, Fox Business topped CNBC in the 11 AM – 4 PM block. FBN pulled in a total of 536,000 viewers and 104,000 in the 25-54 age group compared to CNBC’s 314,000 total viewers and 91,000 in the demo.

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

American Elections 8 - Tips for International Followers - What do the Trump and Clinton victories in New York really mean?

.

So Donald Trump, after two bad weeks under assault by the Stop Trump movement and Ted Cruz, did not cave in, give up, or act like the petulant rich kid the news media believes he is.


First, he got mad, then, he started taking actions to be certain he did not repeat his or the campaign's mistakes.  He stayed loyal to his campaign manager when they charged him with assault and battery in Florida.  After extensive review, the Florida prosecutor dropped the case when it became obvious he was trying to protect Trump.


Trump also learned a valuable lesson; the media has far too much access to him, and use the access to try to get him defeated.  When Chris Matthews, MSNBC anchor and Hillary Clinton worshiper got him on his show he caused a whole lot of trouble by twisting Trumps comments on a hypothetical abortion situation.


Then Cruz won Wisconsin, stole a few delegates from Trump in a few minor states, and boldly preached he was the only hope for the Establishment to stop Trump.  There is something soulless about Ted Cruz and his win at all costs attitude.  Cruz, who at one time was public enemy number one to the Establishment he now claims to champion, is all over the place.


When you take the son of a preacher man, send him to Princeton and Harvard where he became an exceptional debater, I guess you expect a return on investment.  What did the media fail to tell you about the debate background of Cruz, debaters are trained masters at advocating and defending BOTH sides of every issue with equal passion and resolve.


In other words, you are a professional at speaking out of both sides of your mouth or you cannot be a Harvard Ivy League debater.  Cruz can point out without hesitation that he will double-cross any bridge thrown in front of his campaign when he encounters it, and do it with hot passion, cold facts, and an intellectual disregard for the lowly humans he so desperately wants to represent.


After getting Ted the most expensive education known to Mankind, he then jumped into politics where he met his wife to be, a rapid climber in the Wall Street and presidential political fields.  Thus the protective shroud of Goldman Sachs was bestowed on Ted who was bailed him out with a ONE MILLION dollar secret Goldman loan to his Texas Senate race when he ran out of money just before a run-off election.


Ted is just following in the footsteps of many predecessors in politics like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, and Barack Obama to name a few, beholden to the Wall Street behemoths like Goldman Sachs and their brethren.


In addition to the "Establishment" which no one can define, add the news media to the Stop Trump movement as they have devoted thousands of television hours and millions of printed words trying to warn people of the dangers posed by a Trump presidency, and promoting any effort by anyone to dump Trump.


The media called him a clown, a joke, an idiot, and a loser before the campaign even started and as more and more people joined the Trump populist revolution, the media found themselves being defensive just like the Trump opponents.  One by one Trump destroyed his opposition, there were 17 candidates running for president.


The Stop Trump political hacks threatened with losing their highly paid place in the American political consultancy if Trump is successful, have spent tens of millions of dollars in attack ads paid for by the Establishment fighting the Trump juggernaut.


Then came NYC with Trump exploding past all prognosticators prognostications, whew, that was a mouthful, and he not only broke the 50% barrier but destroyed it by winning 61% to 25% for Kasich and 12% for Cruz.  Hillary Clinton walloped Bernie Sanders 58% to 42%.


In other words, the media experts were wrong, the political experts were wrong, even the opposing campaigns were wrong.

Then Trump demonstrated he has learned a lot and made changes to address his problems.  He hired new campaign aides, he has toned down the criticism, stopped using derogatory nicknames for his opponents, actually referred to Cruz as "Senator Cruz," and Trump only spoke for eight minutes in one of the shortest victory speeches of the campaign.


Oh yeah, he also increased his delegate lead to nearly 300 and greatly improved his chances of winning the GOP nomination before the GOP convention.


Watch for a rapidly changing campaign as the new Trump starts to shift into position to take on Hillary in the general election.  By the way, for all the Democrats and news media who claim Trump cannot win the presidential election because all women hate him, Trump won 57% of the women vote in the primary.


Hillary provided the knockout punch to Sanders but he has so far refused to fall to the canvas so stay tuned.  Sanders pushed Hillary into becoming the most liberal, progressive, and near socialist candidate to ever win the party candidacy.


Between her being the champion for minorities and illegal residents, the champion for social issues, and a left wing ideologue and demagogue, she has a long ways to shift to win the middle of the road public in the general election.
.