Sarkozy calls Netanyahu a "liar". Obama agrees.

[Razgovory]

But in reality, the opposite is true - it is the PA that keeps trying to get the US engaged, because the PA believes (probably correctly) that the US is the only party that can help put pressure on Israel and get any results.
Ask yourself why the PA doesn't look to the EU as anything other than a glorified bank.

Does anyone not in the EU really take them seriously?

[Razgovory]

Wow, a lot of you want some really bland news.

If we want spicy gossip, we'll read gossip magazines.  Real news is often bland.

[crazy canuck]

Wow, a lot of you want some really bland news. How long do you think it would take a publication to die from lack of advertising revenue if its circulation depended only on news voluntarily released  from official sources?

Quick precis of the journalistic law and best practice that applies here. Yes, you are obliged to say "off the record" BEFORE Saying anything that could otherwise be used by a journalist. A story can be published if the editorial team agrees it is in the public interest (not just interesting to the public) and they have gone to "reasonable lengths" to ensure its veracity.

How do you get your first observation from the rejection of "gotcha journalism"?  Indeed your precis expressly rejects the notion of "gotcha journalism". 

[crazy canuck]

Wow, a lot of you want some really bland news.

If we want spicy gossip, we'll read gossip magazines.  Real news is often bland.

Real news isnt bland.  It just takes longer to read and involves more understanding then gossip passing as news.

[DGuller]

Wow, a lot of you want some really bland news. How long do you think it would take a publication to die from lack of advertising revenue if its circulation depended only on news voluntarily released  from official sources?

Why is there such a focus on advertising revenue, isn't that an impediment to journalistic integrity on its own?  In Soviet Union, media didn't depend on advertising revenue, so they didn't have to stoop to reporting unapproved news stories.

[crazy canuck]

Even in the restricted field I work in, my "scoop quotes" often come from people I'd interviewed earlier in the day who later talk more casually over a glass of wine.

In this market reporters who do that sort of thing are quickly identified and no longer trusted.  Everything is then on the record and formal with them and as a result rather quickly fade from the scene.  But the emphasis here is on balanced and fair reporting.  You have said the emphasis there is on revenue.

[Brazen]

If we want spicy gossip, we'll read gossip magazines.  Real news is often bland.

I'm not talking gossip, I'm talking finding news. Look at the home page of your favourite publication today and try and work out where the stories came from. If it's something widely reported elsewhere, see how they got the quotes and insights that made their version unique.

[Brazen]

In this market reporters who do that sort of thing are quickly identified and no longer trusted.  Everything is then on the record and formal with them and as a result rather quickly fade from the scene.  But the emphasis here is on balanced and fair reporting.  You have said the emphasis there is on revenue.

Balanced and fair reporting is also part of journalistic law. The revenue is where the hard work comes in to keep your job.

[Sheilbh]

If we want spicy gossip, we'll read gossip magazines.  Real news is often bland.

Again I think this is real news.

I should say though I fully support 'gotcha journalism' I do have a huge love for the in-depth report on specific stories.  The sort of thing you get news documentaries on on Channel 4 or long reports on Newsnight.  In that field I think the American long Pullitzer bait article is brilliant (though can also sometimes just be tedious).  But, I don't know that they're that commercially viable.  That's one of the reasons I like the BBC, support balance regulations on TV and the requirement that basic channels show a minimum amount of news programming.

Even a real story like the expenses scandal dealt with by a quality newspaper like the Telegraph was handled in a very sensationalised way to maximise sales.  That's right - as I say my view of journalism is that it exists to spread information, well written pieces in the NYT don't necessarily do that.

[Razgovory]

Wow, a lot of you want some really bland news.

If we want spicy gossip, we'll read gossip magazines.  Real news is often bland.

Real news isnt bland.  It just takes longer to read and involves more understanding then gossip passing as news.

The fine details of the Greek bailout stuff is kinda dry.  Truth be told, a lot of important things are fairly mundane and dull.  I think that's part of the reason people come up with conspiracy theories to explain stuff.  Conspiracies are interesting and dramatic.  The real reason the price of Chocolate went up is due to market factors like demand, transportation, production bottle necks, crop yields etc.  Very dull.  If the reason is because THEY don't want you have to chocolate, that's interesting.

[Brazen]

Why is there such a focus on advertising revenue, isn't that an impediment to journalistic integrity on its own?  In Soviet Union, media didn't depend on advertising revenue, so they didn't have to stoop to reporting unapproved news stories.

[crazy canuck]

I should say though I fully support 'gotcha journalism' I do have a huge love for the in-depth report on specific stories.  The sort of thing you get news documentaries on on Channel 4 or long reports on Newsnight.  In that field I think the American long Pullitzer bait article is brilliant (though can also sometimes just be tedious).  But, I don't know that they're that commercially viable.  That's one of the reasons I like the BBC, support balance regulations on TV and the requirement that basic channels show a minimum amount of news programming.

Even a real story like the expenses scandal dealt with by a quality newspaper like the Telegraph was handled in a very sensationalised way to maximise sales.  That's right - as I say my view of journalism is that it exists to spread information, well written pieces in the NYT don't necessarily do that.

So you support poor journalism over good journalism because the poor journalism appeals to the lowest common denominator - is that your argument?

[Razgovory]

Even a real story like the expenses scandal dealt with by a quality newspaper like the Telegraph was handled in a very sensationalised way to maximise sales.  That's right - as I say my view of journalism is that it exists to spread information, well written pieces in the NYT don't necessarily do that.

I think it exists to spread useful, true, and important news.  The NYT and Der Sturmer both spread information, but Der Sturmer's information wasn't actually true.

[Sheilbh]

So you support poor journalism over good journalism because the poor journalism appeals to the lowest common denominator - is that your argument?

Getting the expenses story was superb journalism.  If The Sun had done it and decided to print it as a cheats' league over the breasts of page 3 girls that wouldn't diminish the quality of the journalism.  Though  I'd admire the editorial commitment to maximising sales I'd worry about their judgement in that particular case.

I think it exists to spread useful, true, and important news.  The NYT and Der Sturmer both spread information, but Der Sturmer's information wasn't actually true.

No-one's disputing the useful and true stuff.  We disagree on important.

[grumbler]

Are journalists obligated to report *everything* anyone says, even if it is clearly not official, and  intended to be private conversation? Do public figures have to employ extreme measures to have a moment to speak to one another without concern that their words are going to be repeated, even when the conversation is not formal?

I think it is perfectly reasonable to recognize that private conversations between public figures are just that, and they should have the freedom to speak with an expectation of privacy, within reason. Otherwise public figures will simply not allow journalists around them at all, if they have to be worried that every off hand comment is going to be shared with the world.