ben
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,874
- Likes
- 2,271
I'll make this easier: I'll sort these out into discrete threads, so to make this more legible.
My original points are in bold black.
Bajo's responses are in red.
My responses are in dark blue.
a) recently defended journalists' 'right' to published unsourced shit;
A) journalist has the right to publish and the limit is the actual malice doctrine. However, for you is a shit any news against the dictator of happiness;
As you might know, there is censorship during this regime.
Actually, no, I don't know that. My family comes from the USSR, and I lived in countries where there actually is a military censor.
You are offensively hijacking a word which means something, to refer to a nothing. There are all sorts of situations beside 'censorship' where people don't want speak on the record, and the widest variety of reasons - from the noble to the less so. You are simply imagining that this may be the case here. As flawed a defense, in both logic and fact, as can be imagined.
The practices of journalism did not evolve in a utopia where there were no repercussions for annoying the powers that be. There have always been reasons, both good and bad, why sources want to be quoted without attribution. Journalism and its standards evolved precisely in an attempt to balance the need to protect sources with the need to have some accountability. Most respectable news outlets allow some anonymous sources, but seek to mitigate the negative effects of said anonymity in a variety of ways. Corroborating with other sources. Being as specific about the source as possible, for example, “a senior White House official who was at the meeting and heard what the president said,” rather than “an official”. At the very least, quoting "a source who asked not to be named".
Mr. Andrés Fidanza, writing for Perfil, doesn't bother with any of this, because it doesn't matter. None of the above matters.
The whole piece is a puff piece. Its links are to barely relevant or not relevant prior articles - what does the campaigns' social media activity have to do with an allegation of the government hiring paid propangadists?
And never mind sources, your hit-piece-of-an-article offers not one example of the alleged trolling. No sources would be burned by pointing that out (helllooooo?). It is fact-free innuendo masquerading as journalism. It is a piece of shit.
So kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth like "a shit any news against the dictator of happiness" because it's just not true. The issue in this piece go way beyond being against Macri. La Nacion and Clarin's treatment of Macri in the offshore issue is hardly obsequious - see point C. Nobody has a problem with that, because it's reporting rather than shit.
b ) then claimed that the journalist 'is a source';
B ) the journalist is in fact a source because the real sources are protected by the National Constitution. So, he has the dutie of protecting them. This is particulary true when there is a context of political persecution.
Protected in what context, from what? Is the journalist forbidden from publishing the source's name? He is always free, of course, not to run fact-free articles.
c) pretends to be ignorant of journalistic standards the world over;
C) standards? Right! Well, in this country journaliam has fallen so low that perhaps, the standard is lower. You need to read international press to know what it is going on with the Panama papers because here the press is too nice, money talks. Ask Niembro. How much was it? 25 million pesos?
Really? Funny that, because in the international press I don't think you'll find much about Macri - there are really bigger fish to fry. But as regards the nice press here, I suppose you neglected to read this, this, this, this, this, and/or this. These are all from the La Nacion and Clarin, the worst of the worst.
Really, you're a work of art.
d) somehow mixes in free speech, as if that is a prerogative of journalists and not anyone;
D) freedom of speach is a constitutional righ in this country for every human being. Your ignorancy seems to have no limits.
FYI the criminal code stabliahes that it is not a crime when you do political criticism because this is the abc of the republican system.
Confusing, isn't it? Let me try to help.
The Constitution (Art. 43) allows you to hide your sources. The Constitution, one would assume, makes no attempt to regulate common sense.
The point of journalism is to inform. When I don't know who the source is, then I am forced, in deciding whether or not I trust the information, to rely on your credibility. The Constitution does not obligate me to believe your baseless, sourceless, example-free assertions. And it doesn't preclude me from drawing conclusions - aloud - regarding a piece that refers to no sources and no examples - regarding alleged activity (social media) which is by definition public.
Think about that. You're writing about Team Macri's shady efforts to influence people online - without one single example of Team Macri's shady efforts to influence people online. And when called out on it, you go to censorship and Constitutional guarantees to secrecy. It boggles the mind.
Does the Constitution allow you to publish whatever you want, with no sources, no examples, and no coherence? Of course. That is not about Article 43, that is about free speech. You need not cite sources, bring examples, or do anything at all - write away. But then we're free to laugh at you. And call your article out for the shit that it is.
e) seems to believe that the right to free speech - to say stupid shit - involves a right not to be mocked over said stupid shit;
E) you believe that whatever you disagree is a stupid shit. No comments.
Some projection here. Reasonable people disagree with Macri, strongly, every day. These range from Carrio to Massa to much of the Fourth Estate. On the English side, Bianca Fernet, of the Bubble, and many others there who were pretty anti-K, come out very clearly whenever they sae something to criticize about the new government. That you fail to distinguish between that and the shit you link to, is your problem.
f) seems to think (see above points) that the label 'journalist' confers a stronger right to say cualquier cosa, rather than - on the contrary - greater responsibility for fact-checking, fairness, etc.
F) Well, there were to many journalist that asserted whatever in the last year. Yesterday I read on the website of Fernandez that the judged signed a certificate that stablished that he has nothing to do with the efedrina case. And he lost the election because of this montage made by Lanata.
"I know you are, but what am I?"
Again, the limit is actual malice, google it and leave ignorancy behind.
So after repeatedly asserting that you are not at court, you bring standards from... tort law.
The limit to sue for damages may be actual malice; the limit for mockery is throwing stupidity at the wall and seeing if anything sticks.
google it and leave ignorancy behind.
I try to leave ignorance behind, but then you write something new and I can't help myself.
As I said, I admit to being an enabler.
