PURPOSE OF THE ADDENDUM PAGE: More of anything that is first Posted... the details... the follow up... MORE.
Posted on 01-17-17
Addendum to Bi-Polar Passionate/Depressed/Obsessed
Posted on 01-17-17
Addendum to Bi-Polar Passionate/Depressed/Obsessed
Buzz Feed did the right thing in publishing the document.
And CNN also did the right thing, but their decision to go public with what they had, without any details of the material, was not as bold a move. CNN played it safe with their decision.
The difference in the decision-making process speaks volumes. So does the fact that the two organizations were all by themselves with their choices to go public with the story.
This is a perfect opportunity for all the major news organizations to update their journalistic standards.
Apparently all of the major news organizations had the Trump / Russian Dossier in their possession for a while before the general public knew anything about it. Indeed, some of the media outlets had the material as far back as August or September of 2016. Most of these news organizations have since claimed they did not go public citing journalistic integrity as their guiding principle behind their decision. Specifically, no one could apparently verify the veracity of the content in the Trump / Russian Dossier.
The problem that needs to be highlighted is when access to the Dossier became so wide spread, that at some point a lot of people working in the media knew about the material. This is when the decision to withhold its contents from the public should have been re-evaluated.
The 2016 election campaign ended up triggering a lot of soul searching within the media. For instance, CNN admitted that their daily campaign coverage, prior to Donald Trump becoming the Republican candidate was excessive. At the conclusion of the general election, Facebook was called out by critics as a major culprit in helping elect Trump President because of their neglect in monitoring the “Fake news” that was running non-stop through their site’s feed.
News organizations have an ethical responsibility to report the information they gather in a truthful and balanced way. In performing their jobs, there will be times when stories they encounter can’t necessarily be reported with this high standard despite their best efforts. This will at times lead to the major news organizations becoming “gate keepers” of information, which is actually one of the problems they are seeking to prevent when covering the actions of government officials/representatives. The problem becomes deeper when other so-called news organizations have long ago abandoned this journalistic prime directive. The recent rise of such entities as Wikileaks makes this holy standard even more questionable. Things are changing so fast that the phrase “news cycles” now seems antiquated.
The decision not to “publish,” because it cannot be verified, should stop being the sole or major guiding principle for major news organizations. There’s a very good chance that when a news organization decides not to publish, the news material will end up being published anyway, but without any “context” when it is released/dumped/leaked to the public at large.
Therefore, it’s better that a major news organization, (obviously still cognizant of the basic foundation of journalistic ethics), be the one to put a news story out there because it will come with context (such as “this has not been verified as true”) and allow the public to judge on their own.
The problem with Facebook was the lack of “Framing” of the so-called “News” that was going through their feed. This is the major take away from the 2016 election coverage.
hoarding potentially relevant information from the general public under the sole pretense that the material in hand can not be verified is no longer acceptable. The new normal, the new standard that needs to be updated by all the media organizations is that because we live in an age of 24/7 news leaks, data dumps and instantaneous reactions to everything published on the Internet, withholding material from the public and justifying the decision as in the “public best interests” is not acceptable. Journalistic context, not the proven veracity of the material in hand, must become the overriding guide when deciding whether to go live with a story.
----
So I've been a Dodger Fan since my Father took me to my first game in 1973. And I love Vin Scully.
In 1999, when I produced my First Film, "100 Girls," I worked
During production and post-production I worked with a great Music Supervisor named Erin Scully. She was amazing in all aspects of what she did for the production, and wonderful to work with on top of her top notch professional effort. The best testimonial to her work on the film is that I still get people writing me asking about the soundtrack for the film, wanting to buy it.
I don't know how these things happen, but at no time during my experience in working with Erin I never put one and one together to realize that she was the daughter of Vin Scully.
I've always look back at this lapse with relief and regret.
I probably would have made a fool of myself telling her how much her father's work had meant to me growing up. And you never know how kids feel about hearing over and over again about how great their parent is.
But I regret missing the opportunity. Knowing Erin (even in the short time I worked with her), she would have probably been great about hearing my words. And then there would have been a chance that Vin would have actually heard how much he meant to me.
ORIGINAL POST: As Creative Artists Age… What should onefight to hold on to? Could it be our Dark Side?
RESPONSE on Linkedin by Heather Ferreira 1st
Director, Cinematographer, Casablanca Pictures (formerly Sellino Films)
This is a very good discussion you've started, Richard. Personally, I found myself fighting the same battle. In a bloodsoaked world and an America riddled with senseless gun violence, I've found it increasingly hard to commit to writing the kinds of scripts I've been hired and known for - the ridiculously violent Scorsesean kind - and have instead committed to the light and love of Taoism and The Oprah Religion (we all know the one). However this choice drained every bit of screenplay out of me, and I have found myself opting out of filmmaking more and more often every year. All Hollywood seems to want anymore is more of the gun-cluttered fare, films where characters solve problems by shooting each other. Can we really, without conscience, continue to create art that rejoices in such behavior, especially when we know better? Thank heavens I also write and record music: that's where my soul is now, and I'm enjoying it. I even left the United States for Europe to escape the increasingly loud drum beat of guns, bullets, hatred and racism in the former. Will I ever return to filmmaking? Well, first, I have to make it "all right" in my heart, mind and soul that making movies about guns and men who use them does not have a ripple effect on society. The jury remains in on that. And no films are being made. At least by me. What is the right choice? I'm not 50 yet, but this article you've written is timely and speaks to me. I'd love to see a dialogue on it. My ex boyfriend even came out recently against increasing cop violence against blacks. You probably know who he is. Too late, Quentin: you're it and it's you. This discussion can never be yours because you sold out your soul three decades ago. As for the rest of us...
No comments:
Post a Comment