The difference between what we know and what we can write
One of the common misconceptions of a free press is that we can or will publish any piece of information we get. The fact is, we hold ourselves to extremely high standards when it comes to truth and fairness. There's also the little matter of libel laws. Knowing something - or thinking we know something - isn't enough to go with it. We do need to verify it, and as I wrote in an earlier posting about confidential sources, the process can be very complicated and time consuming.
Do we know more about Operation Phoenix and the Bill Postmus story than we've been able to verify and write? Absolutely. Is it tempting to just want to go with it? Sure, we're newshounds. But we want, and need, to do the right thing, and are working feverishly to get you the whole story.
Comments
My issue with the media in general has not been a matter of not reporting something that hasn't been confirmed, but rather not confirming something because it doesn't fit an agenda or not reporting something because it doesn't fit an agenda. I think with the hits most newspapers are taking these days, the personal agenda of the publisher and/or editor need to be forgotten and newsworthy events be reportsed with all applicable facts given. The internet has made determining agendas much easier. The difference in agendas is quite visible when one compares the Postmus reports from the PE with the Sun and with the Daily Press.
Posted by: Sharon | July 27, 2008 11:08 PM