You bet I'm going to check all packaging from now on. And as far as I'm concerned,skippy,starkist, scott toilet tissues, are never going to be in my shopping cart EVER!!!!!
Author, artist and activist Anne Elizabeth Moore has been writing about the process behind the "special edition" New York Times (and her frustration with it) on her new blog, [http://theprivatelifeofthepublicintellectual.wordpress.com/ Democracy Guest List].
She also points to a [[video news release]] put out by the people behind the "special edition" (who include but are not limited to the Yes Men). You can see the fake TV news behind the fake print news, here:
http://www.nytimes-se.com/2009/07/04/video
When I was told this "Africa" story by a co-worker, I asked about the source and was told "anonymous sources in the McCain campaign." Then I watched Carl Cameron's report and was equally unimpressed.
Regarding the use of "anonymous sources", how about recognizing them as unreliable, thus worthless, and simply finding them unacceptable? Anonymous sources are rejected in scientific inquiry as well as in judicial proceedings. So why are they acceptable in journalism? This is not a rhetorical question.
Are they acceptable for entertainment value? To me "anonymous resources" create the confusion and, more seriously, the loss of journalism's integrity. I read science fiction and fantasy, prefer books over film. I follow news and politics. I love it when books and news are done well. I do not like news that is rife with conjecture, voyeurism, sensationalism, and fantasy. In reporting of this nature I have noticed that the sources are usually "anonymous."
Without the use of "anonymous resources" this whole situation would be non-existent. But did people get some good entertainment out of it? Is that it then? Journalism would be a much more respected field without the use of anoymous resources.
<em>when a component of our stories may be the subject of a hoax, however indirectly, our suspicions ought to be heightened</em>
Huh? <em>Any</em> story can be fodder for a hoax. I can fool people into believing that, for example, Miley Cyrus has a secret detachment of Oompla Loompas that she forces to perform her scutwork, but that doesn't mean we should be sceptical about her claim that she <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=32409">used to clean toilets</a> for a living.
You bet I'm going to check all packaging from now on. And as far as I'm concerned,skippy,starkist, scott toilet tissues, are never going to be in my shopping cart EVER!!!!!
Author, artist and activist Anne Elizabeth Moore has been writing about the process behind the "special edition" New York Times (and her frustration with it) on her new blog, [http://theprivatelifeofthepublicintellectual.wordpress.com/ Democracy Guest List].
She also points to a [[video news release]] put out by the people behind the "special edition" (who include but are not limited to the Yes Men). You can see the fake TV news behind the fake print news, here:
http://www.nytimes-se.com/2009/07/04/video
Pages