http://news.yahoo.com/sarkozy-overheard-telling-obama-netanyahus-liar-122734120.html
Quote
In the remarks Thursday in Cannes, Sarkozy said: "Netanyahu, I can't stand him. He's a liar."
According to the French interpreter, Obama responded: "You are sick of him, but I have to work with him every day."
I wounder what Peres would have said, had he been present? :hmm:
Still, everybody knows that the israeli premier is not truly commited to the peace process with the Palestinians.
Which makes the US opposition to the recognition of Palestine at the UN a clear demonstration that America is not at all impartial (but Washington still keeps trying to be accepted as an arbitrator between both sides, which is laughable).
What does Sarkozy think Netanyahu lied about?
Calling somebody a liar is pretty specific.
If that was Obama's response, then I think we can safely conclude that the OP is the liar.
I'm confused. The title claims that Obama agrees with the characterization of Netanyahu as a liar, but the article doesn't support that. Or even suggest that. It does suggest that Obama doesn't like Netanyahu, which is understandable. Bibi has intentionally embarrassed Obama for reasons unfathomable. Probably because he is an ass.
Quote from: Berkut on November 08, 2011, 08:45:26 AM
If that was Obama's response, then I think we can safely conclude that the OP is the liar.
You are sick of him, but I have to read his posts every day.
Quote from: DGuller on November 08, 2011, 08:47:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 08, 2011, 08:45:26 AM
If that was Obama's response, then I think we can safely conclude that the OP is the liar.
You are sick of him, but I have to read his posts every day.
I am glad you agree with me.
I don't know if this is surprising. As Jeffrey Goldberg tweeted the real story would be if Obama had corrected Sarko and referred to Bibi as a valued friend and interlocutor.
What I found odd about this story is that it was heard by journos in Cannes but's only come out now. I don't understand why they didn't report it then and, from my understanding, the story came out via French blogs.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 08:57:07 AM
I don't know if this is surprising. As Jeffrey Goldberg tweeted the real story would be if Obama had corrected Sarko and referred to Bibi as a valued friend and interlocutor.
What I found odd about this story is that it was heard by journos in Cannes but's only come out now. I don't understand why they didn't report it then and, from my understanding, the story came out via French blogs.
:lol: I wonder if anyone outside Israel likes Netanyahu. Idi Amin's boys shot the wrong brother.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 08:57:07 AM
I don't know if this is surprising. As Jeffrey Goldberg tweeted the real story would be if Obama had corrected Sarko and referred to Bibi as a valued friend and interlocutor.
What I found odd about this story is that it was heard by journos in Cannes but's only come out now. I don't understand why they didn't report it then and, from my understanding, the story came out via French blogs.
Because the French officials got the journalists to promise to not report it on the grounds that they were off the cuff and not formal statements.
Quote from: Viking on November 08, 2011, 09:08:35 AMBecause the French officials got the journalists to promise to not report it on the grounds that they were off the cuff and not formal statements.
That explains it. Though not to the credit of any of the journos involved <_<
You Brits are weird.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 09:03:12 AM
:lol: I wonder if anyone outside Israel likes Netanyahu. Idi Amin's boys shot the wrong brother.
I like him. Though I'm disapointed there's no gigantic bloodbath yet. True peace can only be achieved once nearly everyone is dead on both sides.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 09:20:40 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 08, 2011, 09:08:35 AMBecause the French officials got the journalists to promise to not report it on the grounds that they were off the cuff and not formal statements.
That explains it. Though not to the credit of any of the journos involved <_<
Why?
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 09:21:23 AM
You Brits are weird.
It's not that they're weird. It's just they come from a country where pretty much every media outlet is the equivalent of People Magazine. British journalism as a respectable record of events is pretty much dead.
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2011, 09:43:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 09:21:23 AM
You Brits are weird.
It's not that they're weird. It's just they come from a country where pretty much every media outlet is the equivalent of People Magazine. British journalism as a respectable record of events is pretty much dead.
I find that weird.
Quote from: Berkut on November 08, 2011, 09:42:22 AMAre 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?
If it's newsworthy then absolutely they have a duty to report it. That's what they're there for not to simply pass on the messages that are official and intended for public consumption. I think this is like the Samantha Powers case in the 2008 election. She was being interviewed and said that she thought Hilary was a bit of a 'monster' and after that said 'of course that's off the record'. Off the record is something that should be agreed in advance between reporter and target. You can't say something interesting or in this case cock up and then just get retroactively say 'you didn't hear that' (the only legitimate reason for not reporting something) and get the journalists to acquiesce.
In addition I don't think the French officials (or US Press Secretaries, or British spin doctors) get this by appealing to the need for public figures to be able to have private conversations (which is real) or a sense of decency. I think they get journalists to not discuss this because they threaten them. The journalists who spin well will get more access the ones who are inconvenient won't.
I'm not sure if "I thought I may have heard half a conversation between two leaders" is actually newsworthy. That's more like rumor and gossip.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 08, 2011, 09:42:22 AMAre 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?
If it's newsworthy then absolutely they have a duty to report it. That's what they're there for not to simply pass on the messages that are official and intended for public consumption. I think this is like the Samantha Powers case in the 2008 election. She was being interviewed and said that she thought Hilary was a bit of a 'monster' and after that said 'of course that's off the record'. Off the record is something that should be agreed in advance between reporter and target. You can't say something interesting or in this case cock up and then just get retroactively say 'you didn't hear that' (the only legitimate reason for not reporting something) and get the journalists to acquiesce.
In addition I don't think the French officials (or US Press Secretaries, or British spin doctors) get this by appealing to the need for public figures to be able to have private conversations (which is real) or a sense of decency. I think they get journalists to not discuss this because they threaten them. The journalists who spin well will get more access the ones who are inconvenient won't.
What is newsworthy though?
I think journalists have an obligation to be responsible journalists, and just because someone says somethng that might sell a couple papers or get the reporters name mentioned does not make it news.
And I would most freaking definitely threaten any journalist with lost access if they are going to report everything I say when it is clearly not intended for public consumption. Sure, as a journalist, it may very well be worth losing access if in fact what is being reported is truly newsworthy. A aside comment who's newsworthiness amounts to "Hey, it look like Obama doesn't like Netanyahu very much" hardly meets anything close to that standard, and is damaging to boot.
This is a *perfect* example of what actual responsible journalism entails.
And no, this is NOT like someone being interviewed, pretty much by definition anything said in an interview is intended for public consumption. I am a little surprised that you would argue that something said during an interview to a reporter where there is clearly an expectation that your words are being recorded with the intent to publish them "is like" something said not in an interview not to a reporter in a private conversation where there is clearly an expectation that your words are not being recorded with no intent to publish them. I am not sure you could have found a less "like" example.
If a public figure like Obama has to worry that every word he says in private is fair game for any reporter in the area, the solution is obvious - don't let there be any reporters in the area. If I am a reporter, that is bad for me, so I am going to try to be a responsible reporter and let their private conversations remain private, barring some kind of serious revelation, in which case I am perfectly happy to lose my access if necessary to report it.
Yeah, I agree with Berkut. This is classic "gotcha journalism".
Quote from: Martinus on November 08, 2011, 10:04:25 AM
Yeah, I agree with Berkut. This is classic "gotcha journalism".
It's not even that. It's reporting something you may have thought you heard. Since the reporter wouldn't know if he heard it correctly or any of the context of such a statement it's not really responsible to report it. If Sarkozy or Obama had told a reporter about a conversation they had with the other one and they state their opposite number had said something, that might be newsworthy.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 09:56:08 AMI'm not sure if "I thought I may have heard half a conversation between two leaders" is actually newsworthy. That's more like rumor and gossip.
Clearly it's neither rumour or gossip, it's a fact. It was heard by a room full of journalists.
Though rumour and gossip have a part to play in journalism. Otherwise journalists are just enabling loyal cover-ups - Kennedy's ill health springs to mind.
QuoteWhat is newsworthy though?
I think that's something reporters and editors will work out. If the extent of Sarko and Obama's overheard conversation was about the weather they were having in Cannes - that's not newsworthy. Their opinion of the Netanyahu and slight, non-controversial discussions of the peace process on the other hand are newsworthy.
QuoteI think journalists have an obligation to be responsible journalists, and just because someone says somethng that might sell a couple papers or get the reporters name mentioned does not make it news.
A journalists only obligation is to bolster their sales. They're in a business, not the clergy. If there's a story, like this, that's newsworthy then that will sell papers improving their circulation, helping their publication and increasing the amount of information in the public domain. It's a virtuous circle.
QuoteAnd I would most freaking definitely threaten any journalist with lost access if they are going to report everything I say when it is clearly not intended for public consumption. Sure, as a journalist, it may very well be worth losing access if in fact what is being reported is truly newsworthy.
This gives far too much power to journalists and politicians and their press secretaries though. If there's not a culture of generally reporting everything then surely the hack can be bought off from one newsworthy (negative) story by getting promised an exclusive on a more newsworthy (positive) story. All of this happens anyway but I think the more the general aim of journalists is to talk about everything including the rumours and gossip then I think the less effective it is and the less the 'elite' of the media and politics are able to regulate information about them.
QuoteAnd no, this is NOT like someone being interviewed, pretty much by definition anything said in an interview is intended for public consumption. I am a little surprised that you would argue that something said during an interview to a reporter where there is clearly an expectation that your words are being recorded with the intent to publish them "is like" something said not in an interview not to a reporter in a private conversation where there is clearly an expectation that your words are not being recorded with no intent to publish them.
It's exactly like someone being interviewed and then trying to declare something off the record after the event. If you're a public figure, in public, with journalists (or anyone else) and you've not been guaranteed that your words won't be reported (Chatham House rules, off the record conversation) then you should assume that anything you say will be reported. And that's entirely right.
If this had been recorded by TV cameras rather than just heard it would be showing on loop on the news as the Bush 'yo Blair ... Syria needs to sort this shit out' conversation was'. I can't see a difference and I don't think that got complained about though it was similarly an accidental recording of what was clearly meant to be a private conversation.
Quote from: Martinus on November 08, 2011, 10:04:25 AMYeah, I agree with Berkut. This is classic "gotcha journalism".
You say that like it's a bad thing. The entire point of journalists is to get them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
If it's newsworthy then absolutely they have a duty to report it. That's what they're there for not to simply pass on the messages that are official and intended for public consumption. I think this is like the Samantha Powers case in the 2008 election. She was being interviewed and said that she thought Hilary was a bit of a 'monster' and after that said 'of course that's off the record'. Off the record is something that should be agreed in advance between reporter and target. You can't say something interesting or in this case cock up and then just get retroactively say 'you didn't hear that' (the only legitimate reason for not reporting something) and get the journalists to acquiesce.
I agree that "off the record" should be agreed to in advance generally. But the media also has an obligation to make a judgment about such things. Your bias shows when you refer to the people the media reports on as "targets". I think we lose much if the media take the position they will report on everything that might be sensational rather than reporting on things that are newsworthy but given recent trends (Fox News and our own copy cat here in Canada) I am not hopeful.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 10:13:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 08, 2011, 10:04:25 AMYeah, I agree with Berkut. This is classic "gotcha journalism".
You say that like it's a bad thing. The entire point of journalists is to get them.
Your timing couldnt be better as that is the very bias I discerned from your earlier post. The entire point of journalism is definitely not "gotcha".
My God, two times in one week I have agreed with Marti.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 10:12:41 AMIt's not even that. It's reporting something you may have thought you heard. Since the reporter wouldn't know if he heard it correctly or any of the context of such a statement it's not really responsible to report it.
Their microphones had been turned on so the journalists sat waiting for the press conference to start could hear them in the next room. That's not something they thought they overheard. A journalist's job is to report so they should be able to take notes of what's heard correctly, a roomful of them should certainly be able to confirm something like this.
Context matters, I agree. But if it's not possible to give that and the facts are still interesting then they should be reported.
QuoteIf Sarkozy or Obama had told a reporter about a conversation they had with the other one and they state their opposite number had said something, that might be newsworthy.
That wouldn't ever happen except possibly in off the record briefings and even then not by Sarko or Obama. Though that's perfectly legitimate too.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 10:12:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 09:56:08 AMI'm not sure if "I thought I may have heard half a conversation between two leaders" is actually newsworthy. That's more like rumor and gossip.
Clearly it's neither rumour or gossip, it's a fact. It was heard by a room full of journalists.
Did they all hear it? Are they sure they got it right? I often mishear things in loud setting.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 10:19:29 AMDid they all hear it? Are they sure they got it right? I often mishear things in loud setting.
This is a roomful of journalists doing their job. There's a reporter sat in a room in Cannes waiting for a press conference, he puts on their little insta-translator headphones on and they suddenly hear a conversation between two Presidents. If he doesn't shush the room, and get that right then he should be fired.
I think a half-dozen plugged their own headphones in before the press conference started.
Edit: Similarly what's the difference between this and the footage we had from Cannes of David Cameron talking to Obama. The news channels here got lipreaders in to see what Cameron was saying. That footage with subtitles (again quite dull 'we need the Eurozone to sort this out...maybe get the IMF involved...' Obama shakes his head) is probably less reliable and less newsworthy than this but still, it seems to me, a legitimate item to broadcast or write up.
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 08, 2011, 08:36:04 AM
Still, everybody knows that the israeli premier is not truly commited to the peace process with the Palestinians.
Which makes the US opposition to the recognition of Palestine at the UN a clear demonstration that America is not at all impartial
The second does not follow from the first.
Quote(but Washington still keeps trying to be accepted as an arbitrator between both sides, which is laughable).
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 10:25:26 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 10:19:29 AMDid they all hear it? Are they sure they got it right? I often mishear things in loud setting.
This is a roomful of journalists doing their job. There's a reporter sat in a room in Cannes waiting for a press conference, he puts on their little insta-translator headphones on and they suddenly hear a conversation between two Presidents. If he doesn't shush the room, and get that right then he should be fired.
I think a half-dozen plugged their own headphones in before the press conference started.
Edit: Similarly what's the difference between this and the footage we had from Cannes of David Cameron talking to Obama. The news channels here got lipreaders in to see what Cameron was saying. That footage with subtitles (again quite dull 'we need the Eurozone to sort this out...maybe get the IMF involved...' Obama shakes his head) is probably less reliable and less newsworthy than this but still, it seems to me, a legitimate item to broadcast or write up.
Perhaps you should look into the legitimacy of hiring lip readers.
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.
To a certain point, editorial opinion pieces rise above this so long as they are clearly presented as an individual's opinion, not that of the publication.
A story will be published (or approved for pursuit) if it fulfils these and ideally trumps competitors so your publication ensures its ongoing survival.
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 08, 2011, 10:35:14 AM
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?
Quote from: Brazen on November 08, 2011, 10:41:39 AM
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.
Quote from: Brazen on November 08, 2011, 10:41:39 AM
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".
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 10:45:43 AM
Quote from: Brazen on November 08, 2011, 10:41:39 AM
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.
Quote from: Brazen on November 08, 2011, 10:41:39 AM
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.
QuoteEven 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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 10:45:43 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2011, 10:52:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 10:45:43 AMIf 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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2011, 10:47:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 10:45:43 AM
Quote from: Brazen on November 08, 2011, 10:41:39 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on November 08, 2011, 10:49:29 AM
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.
:lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 10:55:03 AM
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?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 10:55:03 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2011, 10:58:15 AMSo 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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 08, 2011, 09:42:22 AM
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.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wouldyoubelieve.com%2Fgraphics%2Fcone_title.gif&hash=de7b500ad86d01364781dd7045ce541041aae83a)
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2011, 10:15:26 AMI think we lose much if the media take the position they will report on everything that might be sensational rather than reporting on things that are newsworthy but given recent trends (Fox News and our own copy cat here in Canada) I am not hopeful.
Are you talking about that Sun News or whatever it's called? Are people watching them?
Quote from: Brazen on November 08, 2011, 10:41:39 AM
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?
Total strawman, nobody has made any such argument.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 10:55:03 AM
That's right - as I say my view of journalism is that it exists to spread information
In what way is the OP report informative?
Sarkozy calling Netanyahu a liar is a dog bites man story. The Obama quotation is devoid of any content.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 08, 2011, 12:16:19 PMSarkozy calling Netanyahu a liar is a dog bites man story. The Obama quotation is devoid of any content.
Indicates true feelings (kind of like the Jesse Jackson-Obama comment which was similarly dog bites man story). The report I read before that Yahoo one also had quotations about Obama telling Sarko that he should have warned that he was going to vote yes on UNESCO and 'that weakened us' and asking the French to put pressure on the PA to stop (especially as the PA seemed to be targetting useful UN bodies like the WIPO, WHO, WFP and the like). They also agreed to agree on any UNSC vote on Palestinian statehood, unlike in the UNESCO vote.
The Guardian have put together a list of other microphone minutes, again they all seem like legitimate stories to me and the only difference between them and this is that there's no footage. That doesn't seem terribly significant:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/08/politicians-best-microphone-gaffes
Whether informative or not, it's still newsworthy. The test for this is if it gets in the news and it is being widely reported in newspapers (at least online) on both sides of the Atlantic.
If you follow French-Israeli relations this might be a dog bites man story. Most of us don't and so this is of some passing interest.
This thread demonstrates why (a) Nobody respects British journalists and (b) why British newspapers do far better than Americna ones.
Quote from: Gups on November 08, 2011, 12:23:04 PM
why British newspapers do far better than Americna ones.
They "do better" than American ones for the same reason British buggy whips "do better" than American ones. :bowler:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 12:22:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 08, 2011, 12:16:19 PMSarkozy calling Netanyahu a liar is a dog bites man story. The Obama quotation is devoid of any content.
Indicates true feelings (kind of like the Jesse Jackson-Obama comment which was similarly dog bites man story). The report I read before that Yahoo one also had quotations about Obama telling Sarko that he should have warned that he was going to vote yes on UNESCO and 'that weakened us' and asking the French to put pressure on the PA to stop (especially as the PA seemed to be targetting useful UN bodies like the WIPO, WHO, WFP and the like). They also agreed to agree on any UNSC vote on Palestinian statehood, unlike in the UNESCO vote.
The Guardian have put together a list of other microphone minutes, again they all seem like legitimate stories to me and the only difference between them and this is that there's no footage. That doesn't seem terribly significant:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/08/politicians-best-microphone-gaffes
Agree to disagree I guess, I don't think any of those are newsworthy, except to the extent that they are "scandal" lite. That kind of crap is everything that is wrong with what passes for actual journalism.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 10:13:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 08, 2011, 10:04:25 AMYeah, I agree with Berkut. This is classic "gotcha journalism".
You say that like it's a bad thing. The entire point of journalists is to get them.
No, the entire point is to inform.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 10:13:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 08, 2011, 10:04:25 AMYeah, I agree with Berkut. This is classic "gotcha journalism".
You say that like it's a bad thing. The entire point of journalists is to get them.
That may be right or not, but sure as hell Marty should like it after the berzerk support he showed for Assange.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 10:13:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 08, 2011, 10:04:25 AMYeah, I agree with Berkut. This is classic "gotcha journalism".
You say that like it's a bad thing. The entire point of journalists is to get them.
So how does hacking dead girls' cellphones fit into their virtuous circle?
Still, they sure 'got' those unsuspecting parents, didn't they?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 12:22:08 PM
The report I read before that Yahoo one also had quotations about Obama telling Sarko that he should have warned that he was going to vote yes on UNESCO and 'that weakened us' and asking the French to put pressure on the PA to stop (especially as the PA seemed to be targetting useful UN bodies like the WIPO, WHO, WFP and the like). They also agreed to agree on any UNSC vote on Palestinian statehood, unlike in the UNESCO vote.
That I would agree is informative and appropriate to publish.
Yet it is interesting that aspect appears to have been pushed off the leader by the personal gossip angle. One of the problems of reporting non-news is there is less room to publish and analyze the actual news.
QuoteIndicates true feelings
Assuming for the sake of argument that "feelings" are an appropriate news subject, it is still a dog bites man story. The personal tension between Netanyahu on the one hand and Obama and Sarkozy on the other (and for that matter pretty much everyone else other than Bibi's close relatives and his dog) is hardly a state secret. I take Gups point that not everyone follows Israeli-French and Israeli-US relations but why would this story matter to such people?
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2011, 01:21:03 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 10:13:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 08, 2011, 10:04:25 AMYeah, I agree with Berkut. This is classic "gotcha journalism".
You say that like it's a bad thing. The entire point of journalists is to get them.
So how does hacking dead girls' cellphones fit into their virtuous circle?
Still, they sure 'got' those unsuspecting parents, didn't they?
I was thinking the same thing. Sheilbh's version of Journalism justifies the actions of News Corps. I don't really like sort of bizarre scrutiny that the private lives of politicians receive.
Quote from: Jacob on November 08, 2011, 11:43:05 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2011, 10:15:26 AMI think we lose much if the media take the position they will report on everything that might be sensational rather than reporting on things that are newsworthy but given recent trends (Fox News and our own copy cat here in Canada) I am not hopeful.
Are you talking about that Sun News or whatever it's called? Are people watching them?
Yeah, that is what I was trying to think of.
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2011, 01:21:03 PMSo how does hacking dead girls' cellphones fit into their virtuous circle?
Still, they sure 'got' those unsuspecting parents, didn't they?
Phone hacking's illegal. It should be and the law should be enforced.
In addition Milly Dowler's parents are in no way public figures who deserve significant media attention.
I always struggle with it because I love celebrity gossip, but I do think it's probably right that there's a right to privacy and family life. That should extend to politicians and celebrities. Unless their private life does, somehow, become a public interest story it should be left alone.
Generally I think society's moved in that direction and the media should catch up. Boris Johnson's been caught out cheating on his wife a few times, on of our Ministers has divorced his wife and come out, Ken Livingstone has an extraordinary family situation. In none of those cases has anyone had to step down or really been attacked over it.
Having said all of that the press should be encouraged to revel in their natural state and be like rats in a gutter over things like this or any public aspect of a story.
QuoteNo, the entire point is to inform.
That's so weak though. It also seems just weirdly 1950s to me. We should listen to our betters and let the press decide that lots of things aren't newsworthy, they're not really informative so we don't need to know about it.
Non-story. Sarkozy, Obama and Netanyahu are all politicians, hence liars. :homestar:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 10:54:27 PM
In addition Milly Dowler's parents are in no way public figures who deserve significant media attention.
I think you're lagging behind here. Even if the fact that their daughter disappeared didn't turn them into public figures, in the age of the internet and reality TV, everyone is fair game.
Eh, I suppose that's where we differ. I don't give a damn about celebrity gossip. I don't mind amusing anecdotes in history books like this that give us an idea of how figures think of one another, but it's not really news. As JR points out, few people like Bibi. The man is not an honest dealer and is an annoying blowhard. I suppose there is some satisfaction in world leaders saying what everyone is thinking, but it's not really news or even very helpful.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 10:54:27 PM
It also seems just weirdly 1950s to me. We should listen to our betters and let the press decide that lots of things aren't newsworthy, they're not really informative so we don't need to know about it.
But the reality is that the press *always* functions as gatekeeper, if through nothing else, then through their decisions what to report, what not to report, and how prominently to report what they do report. So the press does decide for us, just as it always has. What has changed is the decisions the press makes about what we should pay attention to have degenerated to the least common demoninator. It is still the 1950s, except the Murrows have been completely supplanted by the Winchells of the press world.
So, despite the VERY serious doubts and dangers to the economy, oil is about $97 a barrel right now.
Is it possible that there has been an important decision made in the jewish high command which the world at large do not know yet?
There's a lot more press now. There's a 24 hour news cycle and an internet. The days of a half dozen editors meeting at their club to decide what the public will know and what they won't are over. It's inconceivable that the Prince of Wales could have an affair reported all over the glbe but not the UK or that the prime minister would be inacapacitated for six months without the voters ever knowing about it.
Quote from: Tamas on November 09, 2011, 11:38:54 AM
So, despite the VERY serious doubts and dangers to the economy, oil is about $97 a barrel right now.
Is it possible that there has been an important decision made in the jewish high command which the world at large do not know yet?
What are you talking about?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 09, 2011, 12:06:30 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 09, 2011, 11:38:54 AM
So, despite the VERY serious doubts and dangers to the economy, oil is about $97 a barrel right now.
Is it possible that there has been an important decision made in the jewish high command which the world at large do not know yet?
What are you talking about?
beets.
Quote from: Tamas on November 09, 2011, 11:38:54 AM
So, despite the VERY serious doubts and dangers to the economy, oil is about $97 a barrel right now.
Is it possible that there has been an important decision made in the jewish high command which the world at large do not know yet?
I'd let you know, but I'm not allowed to. :)
Sarko is just shoring up his anti-Israel creds for reelection.
Quote from: Scipio on November 09, 2011, 07:49:58 PM
Sarko is just shoring up his anti-Israel creds for reelection.
That makes sense. He already deported the Gypsies. The next logical move is against the Jews.
Theories of journalism aside, this seems essentially the same as the "oops live mic" gaffes that US networks/newspapers showed us with Obama, Bush, etc. They weren't usually important at all, just funny or revealing.
This particular event doesn't seem funny or revealing. But I think today, with the ubiquitous recording and viral internet blah blah, the general tendency is to treat accidentally recorded comments by public figures -- not just politicians --as per se interesting. Especially when everything is so scripted.
Speaking of which, it could have been worse than callinf Bibi a liar ...
http://www.theweek.co.uk/europe/fall-berlusconi/2191/berlusconi-%E2%80%98called-merkel-unfuckable-lard-arse%E2%80%99
QuoteITALIAN newspapers claim Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi referred to the German Chancellor Angela Merkel as an "unfuckable lard-arse" in a telephone conversation with a newspaper editor.
:lol:
See, now THAT is newsworthy!
"Hey, unfuckable lard-ass, can you spare a few billion?"
I would like to note that my original objection was not so much about whether or not this should be reported, but to Shelf's claim that NOT reporting it reflected badly on the journalists who chose not to - there is a difference.
The reality is that all politicians should operate as if their words were going to be reported pretty much all the time, because the reality is that they will always be held to the lowest common denominatory of reporting. And that is pretty low, because plenty of people think like Shielbh that there really isn't any standards beyond "sell the story".
But I don't at all think one should disparage journalists who do not ascribe to that mentality. They have no responsibility to anyone to satisfy peoples desire for another "gotcha".
Well, both statements are true. Bibi is a liar and Merkel is unfuckable.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2011, 10:35:07 AM
Well, both statements are true. Bibi is a liar and Merkel is unfuckable.
Neither are news, though.
Quote from: dps on November 10, 2011, 11:11:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2011, 10:35:07 AM
Well, both statements are true. Bibi is a liar and Merkel is unfuckable.
Neither are news, though.
It is so very Italian though to think that it is relevant to share that information with a fellow political leader.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 11:18:49 AM
Quote from: dps on November 10, 2011, 11:11:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2011, 10:35:07 AM
Well, both statements are true. Bibi is a liar and Merkel is unfuckable.
Neither are news, though.
It is so very Italian though to think that it is relevant to share that information with a fellow political leader.
Hey, to Berlusconi, this is vital information! :D
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 10:23:42 AM
Speaking of which, it could have been worse than callinf Bibi a liar ...
http://www.theweek.co.uk/europe/fall-berlusconi/2191/berlusconi-%E2%80%98called-merkel-unfuckable-lard-arse%E2%80%99
QuoteITALIAN newspapers claim Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi referred to the German Chancellor Angela Merkel as an "unfuckable lard-arse" in a telephone conversation with a newspaper editor.
:lol:
I wonder how many times Merkel has had to pay for sex? :hmm:
Just out of curiosity, what did Bibi say to merit the liar tag?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 12:01:34 PM
Just out of curiosity, what did Bibi say to merit the liar tag?
That wasn't heard.
He does seem to have a record of pissing everyone off though. Sharon told him he was born a liar and would die a liar, I think Blair called him an armour plated bullshitter, Robert Gates apparently describes him as 'ungrateful' and I think everyone who came in contact with him in his first government ended up hating him - Clinton administration figures are still scarred from dealing with Bibi and he turned many of his allies and own party against him.
I find this Israeli politician very doable ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einat_Wilf
The "W" in her last name really should be an "M". :D
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 12:34:56 PM
I find this Israeli politician very doable ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einat_Wilf
The "W" in her last name really should be an "M". :D
Face is OK for her age, but you can't tell anything about her figure from the wikipedia pic.
Quote from: dps on November 10, 2011, 01:50:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 12:34:56 PM
I find this Israeli politician very doable ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einat_Wilf
The "W" in her last name really should be an "M". :D
Face is OK for her age, but you can't tell anything about her figure from the wikipedia pic.
You don't have to fuck her figure.
Quote from: The Brain on November 10, 2011, 03:49:04 PM
Quote from: dps on November 10, 2011, 01:50:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 12:34:56 PM
I find this Israeli politician very doable ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einat_Wilf
The "W" in her last name really should be an "M". :D
Face is OK for her age, but you can't tell anything about her figure from the wikipedia pic.
You don't have to fuck her figure.
You don't have to fuck her face.
Quote from: Viking on November 10, 2011, 04:29:03 PM
You don't have to fuck her face.
You don't
have to, but if the opportunity presented itself ... :D
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 04:31:52 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 10, 2011, 04:29:03 PM
You don't have to fuck her face.
You don't have to, but if the opportunity presented itself ... :D
This is all making me nervous.. all this discussion where we can fuck... I'm sure Caliga would like to fuck her tits, Brain would like to fuck her cat, dps would like to take her from behind (with a paper bag) and you seem willing to risk forcing her to get a 2000 shekel stroller using the traditional missionary method.
This all belongs in TBR, where I can't see it and be compelled to comment on it.
Edit: Me? Apparently I'm relying on her not biting.
Edit 2: And, to confirm my perversion street cred, hoping not to get a paper-cut from dps paper bag.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 09, 2011, 11:32:35 AMBut the reality is that the press *always* functions as gatekeeper, if through nothing else, then through their decisions what to report, what not to report, and how prominently to report what they do report. So the press does decide for us, just as it always has. What has changed is the decisions the press makes about what we should pay attention to have degenerated to the least common demoninator. It is still the 1950s, except the Murrows have been completely supplanted by the Winchells of the press world.
It always does by necessity but that doesn't mean we should transform into a virtue. It's a good thing that the press decide with their privileged knowledge what is and isn't worth sharing with us. My view is that we should simply let the market work which will bend towards a more inclusive and full discourse.
I've always thought the Economist is onto something when they say that one of the possible reasons the populist right hasn't taken off in Britain is because of our media. The anti-immigration stories and political correctness gone mad (such as the bogus 'Winterval' story in the Mail) are reflected in our media. The biggest selling newspapers cover them so the 'metropolitan liberal' media like the Guardian and the BBC have to respond to them, so do our mainstream political parties. That starves the likes of the BNP or the FN. Similarly I think there's also less resentment of our liberal media than there is in the US for that reason. The press are gatekeepers but there's so many angles and they're selling to so many markets that the bar to entry's pretty low and everyone's involved.
The other thing is I always think of this as being like Gladstone's tax cuts. He always, given the opportunity, cut stamp tax on newsprint and other printing, eventually abolishing both. His theory was that it would enable the common man greater access to knowledge, to the Classics, and that they would self-improve and become respectable Victorians. That didn't happen. Instead for the most part there was a flood of yellow journalism, the start of the picture press and penny dreadfuls. But it did end up producing halfpenny classics and cheap translations of Homer and working people who wanted and were able to read more could begin to afford to.
I think the internet's done a similar thing in that it's dragged down our lowest common denominator to roughly just above a British tabloid and expanded the knowledge at the top. At both ends of the market the gatekeeping has been reduced, which is a good thing.
I think the prim and proper American media are otherwise far too intimate with the powerful and it should be to their enduring shame that the National Enquirer got the John Edwards story. They need to muck-rake more. But I think in the US blogs have done a lot of that and they produce a lot of shit but sometimes they actually get a story and they force it to be covered. But on there is also far more high-end stuff out there. It's relatively easy to find short academic papers, consultation papers produced by think tanks or serious journals and I can communicate with experts in their field casually and, sometimes, if they've the time they'll reply. If you want more detail than a good article in the NYT or the Economist gives you then that's also available.
My view which I've said before is that the press's role, the role of the media in general, is to spread information. Assuming they've reason to believe it's true and they didn't acquire it illegally (unless it's of huge significance) then I think they should just publish and let us decide. I don't think they should then have a conversation about whether it's legitimate to publish it. But as I've said I think it's a virtuous cycle: they'll shift more copy, we'll all be more informed to the degree that we wish to be informed.
QuoteBut I don't at all think one should disparage journalists who do not ascribe to that mentality. They have no responsibility to anyone to satisfy peoples desire for another "gotcha".
I think they've a responsibility to report. I also think any good reporter may well decide this isn't a story. If they're then casually asked by a Presidential assistant to can the story they should be demanding it's given a couple of inches on the front page.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2011, 09:03:12 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 08, 2011, 08:57:07 AM
I don't know if this is surprising. As Jeffrey Goldberg tweeted the real story would be if Obama had corrected Sarko and referred to Bibi as a valued friend and interlocutor.
What I found odd about this story is that it was heard by journos in Cannes but's only come out now. I don't understand why they didn't report it then and, from my understanding, the story came out via French blogs.
:lol: I wonder if anyone outside Israel likes Netanyahu. Idi Amin's boys shot the wrong brother.
You are about to cross the line.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 12:01:34 PM
Just out of curiosity, what did Bibi say to merit the liar tag?
He happened to be jewish, and born in Israel.
Quote from: Siege on November 11, 2011, 01:12:27 AM
You are about to cross the line.
What do you have against Yoni? :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 10, 2011, 05:42:22 PM
It always does by necessity but that doesn't mean we should transform into a virtue. It's a good thing that the press decide with their privileged knowledge what is and isn't worth sharing with us. My view is that we should simply let the market work which will bend towards a more inclusive and full discourse.
The market doesn't really work in that respect; the best that can be said is that it is the least objectionable of all the other alternatives.
If we want a free society, I agree we are stuck with giving the press free reign to operate, even if it means tolerating their repudiation of their mission to report on stories of substance in favor of incessant pandering to the lowest voyeuristic interest.
But at the same time it is incumbent on us as citizens of a free republic* to use our voices to critique the media for its failures in that regard and register disapproval for the way they operate.
(*may not apply to the feudal subjects of the UK)