Originally Posted by addabox
Not really seeing how you're getting that. What I'm saying that Glass's mea culpa doesn't make TAL into a news show. Which it isn't.
Yes, I'm aware of that.
"Journalistic standards" does not equal "news source", or for that matter, journalism. You've never actually listened to the show, have you? And I didn't call you "stupid", but I will say you probably need to put the Skittles and Red Bull down and chill a bit.
I'm not sure if you think you have a point to make or what. I was originally responding to someone complaining about NPR considering itself a "premier news source" and apparently thinking TAL was something akin to "60 minutes."
So again, Mr. Glass is free to defend the ethos of his program, but anyone who listens to that program is aware that what they do isn't ever what most people would consider news, and that their "journalism" is of the profile of an unusual person or examination of a social trend variety. That is to say, yes, a type of journalism, but not investigative reporting, which it seems like some folks are assuming is what they do.
So, sure, they have standards and don't like being publicly humiliated, but when they do a show called, say, "Fiasco!" (entirely typical) that is entirely comprised of people reminiscing about or considering the nature of fiascos they have known, I seriously doubt "fact checking" really enters into it.
Again, I actually don't know what's got you so wound up. Are we supposed to condemn TAL more if we pretend they're CBS? Less? Does it change what Daisey did?
as i've quoted Glass thinks it's journalism saying they " have worked for years to build the reputation for accuracy and integrity that the journalism on public radio enjoys. It’s trusted by so many people for good reason. Our program adheres to the same journalistic standards as the other national shows,"
you say "So again, Mr. Glass is free to defend the ethos of his program, but anyone who listens to that program is aware that what they do isn't ever what most people would consider news, and that their "journalism" is of the profile of an unusual person .. etc"
So once again you think you know more about TAL and it's intentions than the producer?
you say ""Journalistic standards" does not equal "news source", or for that matter, journalism." so what DOES it mean?
You took issue with me saying they considered themselves a "premier news outlet" . Doesn't "have worked for years to build the reputation for accuracy and integrity that the journalism on public radio ... adhere to the same journalistic standards as the other national shows .... etc etc" by Glass imply that they DO consider themselves as a premier news source? (NOTE: I did NOT say I myself believe that they are 'premier news source' but that THEY believed it as can be seen by Glass' statements.
I wrote that they consider themselves a news outlet AFTER I read Glass's statements ).
Do we have to take YOUR view that news is only news in the CNN format? not every news program needs to be CNN to be journalism. Journalism comes in all kinds of formats, studio interviews, document research, photographs etc.
You quote episode examples but not all the episodes are the same.
I listened to BBC this week, it's mother's day there and they had segments where celebrities talked about their mothers, mostly funny stuff, right after that they went into items of the Syria Crisis etc. Don't tell me the the 'my mother stories' (which nobody will fact check) excuses journalism intergrity on the Syria news?
and THIS is what the ORIGINAL Daisey episode says from their own podcast site (go tell me they didn't treat it as NEWS):
"Our staff did weeks of fact checking to corroborate Daisey's findings. Ira talks with Ian Spaulding, founder and managing director of INFACT Global Partners, which goes into Chinese factories and helps them meet social responsibility standards set by Western companies (Apple's Supplier Responsibility page is here), and with Nicholas Kristof, columnist for The New York Times who has reported in Asian factories. In the podcast and streaming versions of the program he also speaks with Debby Chan Sze Wan, a project manager at the advocacy group SACOM, Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior, based in Hong Kong. They've put out three reports investigating conditions at Foxconn (October 2010, May 2011, Sept 2011). Each report surveyed over 100 Foxconn workers, and they even had a researcher go undercover and take a job at the Shenzhen plant."
Wow, they said all these because they didn't want people to think they were serious about being factual?
so TAL didn't for THAT episode consider themselves as serious journalists? "weeks of fact checking" doesn't that SOUND as if for THAT episode TAL was taking itself seriously "like 60 minutes" (60 min is your quote not mine by the way) and projecting it that way? "we did weeks of fact checking" is telling people 'trust us' and not saying "hey this is lighthearted fluff". (ALSO why retract now if it was all a sort of fun and games thing like you are implying?)
as for being 'wound up' you are the one who seems to be wound up . I was the one who being lighhearted in my first post by saying TAL should talk about Syria in terms of James Bond and you were the one who went defending them by saying that what they did was sort of of Ok cause it's not really news ' , want to see 'wound up '? go look in the mirror.