3 ms·

Really? I can think of numerous cases where the press uncovered corruption. Investigative reporting is extremely important - and there is no alternative to that

by katz 18y ago

Really? I can think of numerous cases where the press uncovered corruption. Investigative reporting is extremely important - and there is no alternative to that.

anamax 18y ago
> I can think of numerous cases where the press uncovered corruption. And I can think of numerous cases where the press "uncovered corruption" that wasn't. I can think of cases where the press helped with/caused corruption. Never confuse ideals with reality.
- katz 18y ago
  I have not heard of a case where the press was involved in corruption - honestly. And even if they were corrupt, they were corrupt with private money. Even in cases where the press "got it wrong" the harm of public interest was not that great. Maybe in the USA there are not a lot of corruption - but in my country it is rife. Politicians wants to push everything under the carpet and the police system is wilfully incompetent (since it falls under the minister of safety and security, another politician). The reality is that there are a few publications that do excellent work. Here are a few things in which the press paid a significant part in bringing to light: corruption in a massive arms deal (and by the next president), dealings of a mining magnate (who eventually was murdered), showing corruption by the national police commissioner, shedding light on numerous large fraudulent financial schemes, etc... The list can go on. I doubt a blogger will be able to take on complex and multi-faceted corruption cases while he is being sued from all sides.
  - aristus 18y ago
    Try that line with an actual journalist. There is corruption everywhere, even in the newsrooms. And politicians don't always want to hide things. A few years ago it came out that Deep Throat was Mark Felt -- he had been #3 at the FBI. Felt was disgruntled that Nixon had passed him over for promotion after JE Hoover died, and so carried out a leak campaign through the Washington Post that ultimately brought Nixon down. The Post editors and Woodward & Berstein knew who Felt was. They chose to keep quiet and accept decades of hero-worship. The truth was that they were willing participants in a rather slimy and petty act of political revenge.
    - katz 18y ago
      "There is corruption everywhere, even in the newsrooms." So? What is to prevent a rival paper from reporting on the newsroom? (I actually have memory of this happening - an editor of a major newspaper was a philander and another paper ran an article on him. Another big story happened 20 odd years ago - one paper was funded by the government and another newspaper brought that to light - the result was that one of the people who organised funding did not become president). "And politicians don't always want to hide things." So, if they are not hiding something they would not mind people looking? I am one of those people who think it is a good idea of a healthy dose of cynicism for public officials. "They chose to keep quiet and accept decades of hero-worship. The truth was that they were willing participants in a rather slimy and petty act of political revenge." The question is not if Woodward&Bernstein were upstanding citizens with good values. The question is this: Was the Watergate affair good for the country? Would it be better if it had not been brought to light?
      - aristus 18y ago
        You went from "I have not heard of a case ..." to mentioning a few cases. I took your first comment at face value; now I don't know what to make of it.
        katz 18y ago
        Philandering around the workplace is usually a big no-no but it is definitely not corruption by any stretch of the imagination. I did this to show you that journalists will easily turn on their own kind. As for the case of the government covertly starting a newspaper, I have not heard about it (but read about it in history books). They did this with the express purpose to change public opinion - since the current English newspapers were too critical of the government (with good reason). That really is before my time (20+ years or more). I do not recall a single instance in my country where journalists were found guilty of corruption. Yet for politicians the list of the non-corrupt would probably be shorter.
      - anamax 18y ago
        > The question is not if Woodward&Bernstein were upstanding citizens with good values. The question is this: Was the Watergate affair good for the country? Would it be better if it had not been brought to light? "Don't say anything" isn't the only alternative to "tell only part of the story". Woodward and Bernstein deliberately withheld relevant information to make themselves and their source look good. If anyone else does that, the press screams "coverup", "corruption", etc.
  - anamax 18y ago
    > I have not heard of a case where the press was involved in corruption - honestly. And even if they were corrupt, they were corrupt with private money. It's actually fairly commonplace for "the press" to be involved in public corruption. They'll even defend the corruption. > I doubt a blogger will be able to take on complex and multi-faceted corruption cases while he is being sued from all sides. And how many press organizations will do that? More important, that's irrelevant because corruption investigations rarely involve lawsuits.
    - jibiki 18y ago
      > It's actually fairly commonplace for "the press" to be involved in public corruption. They'll even defend the corruption. Could we please have some examples? I can recall many cases where the press has made mistakes, but none where they were actively corrupt.
      - anamax 18y ago
        > Could we please have some examples? I can recall many cases where the press has made mistakes, but none where they were actively corrupt. What definition of "actively corrupt" are we using? Is it enough for them to get paid off in return for looking the other way/not reporting, or do they have to actually steal something? Does it matter who pays them and what the connection is between the source of the money and the evil-doer. Note that "the press" is often a cheap date. They'll go out of their way to avoid writing bad things about folks/programs/issues that they like. They'll trade access for non-coverage. For example, CNN admits that they didn't report things that Saddam Hussein didn't want known in return for being able to report from pre-war Iraq. That let them make money, money that didn't come from SH. Do you count it as corruption? (I don't, but many folks who get excited about corruption do.)
    - katz 18y ago
      > It's actually fairly commonplace for "the press" to be involved in public corruption. They'll even defend the corruption. Can you give some examples? > And how many press organizations will do that? Not all papers - but some do. In my country there are 2 good English newspapers and one magazine that does excellent investigative reporting. > More important, that's irrelevant because corruption investigations rarely involve lawsuits. Corruption cases are full of lawsuits! My favourite investigative magazine (http://www.noseweek.co.za/ http://www.noseweek.co.za/) was closed for almost a year because the person running it was sued for libel. He won that lawsuit - but he had to stop publishing that year while defending himself in court. In 2007 he was sued by a bank to prevent him from naming a list of clients that the bank helped with tax evasion - he won again and published the list of names.
  - thisrod 18y ago
    See < http://www.google.com/search?q=cash+for+comment http://www.google.com/search?q=cash+for+comment > for a notorious case of Australian journalists taking bribes.
- bluishgreen 18y ago
  Both of you, kindly include atleast one or 2 examples to make your respective cases. I can think of Enron, Nixon which were uncovered by the press. But where did press uncover something that wasn't? How does that work ..
  - katz 18y ago
    I can think of a few corruption cases that the press uncovered (or shed significant light on) - it is country specific though (South Africa): - The arms deal (in which half of the ANC had a share). - Corruption by the National Police Commisioner and head of Interpol (Jackie Selebi) and his links to organised crime. - The Fidentia financial fraud scheme by Athur Brown - A tax evasion scheme by RMB (a private bank for rich individuals) - Tokyo Sexwale's (a businessman with links to the ANC) involvement in Iraq oil-for-food fraud. - Fraud by state owned oil company PetroSA who passed on R15 million before an election to an ANC financier. - Links between the ANC investment vehicle Chancellor House and government contracts (i.e. conflict of interest) I am pretty sure you can make the same list for your own country.
alecco 18y ago
Yep, I didn't say they don't work. But as a watchdog it's a very bad system of influence with the wrong goals and backers.

by katz 18y ago

Really? I can think of numerous cases where the press uncovered corruption. Investigative reporting is extremely important - and there is no alternative to that.

anamax 18y ago

> I can think of numerous cases where the press uncovered corruption. And I can think of numerous cases where the press "uncovered corruption" that wasn't. I can think of cases where the press helped with/caused corruption. Never confuse ideals with reality.

katz 18y ago
I have not heard of a case where the press was involved in corruption - honestly. And even if they were corrupt, they were corrupt with private money. Even in cases where the press "got it wrong" the harm of public interest was not that great. Maybe in the USA there are not a lot of corruption - but in my country it is rife. Politicians wants to push everything under the carpet and the police system is wilfully incompetent (since it falls under the minister of safety and security, another politician). The reality is that there are a few publications that do excellent work. Here are a few things in which the press paid a significant part in bringing to light: corruption in a massive arms deal (and by the next president), dealings of a mining magnate (who eventually was murdered), showing corruption by the national police commissioner, shedding light on numerous large fraudulent financial schemes, etc... The list can go on. I doubt a blogger will be able to take on complex and multi-faceted corruption cases while he is being sued from all sides.
- aristus 18y ago
  Try that line with an actual journalist. There is corruption everywhere, even in the newsrooms. And politicians don't always want to hide things. A few years ago it came out that Deep Throat was Mark Felt -- he had been #3 at the FBI. Felt was disgruntled that Nixon had passed him over for promotion after JE Hoover died, and so carried out a leak campaign through the Washington Post that ultimately brought Nixon down. The Post editors and Woodward & Berstein knew who Felt was. They chose to keep quiet and accept decades of hero-worship. The truth was that they were willing participants in a rather slimy and petty act of political revenge.
  - katz 18y ago
    "There is corruption everywhere, even in the newsrooms." So? What is to prevent a rival paper from reporting on the newsroom? (I actually have memory of this happening - an editor of a major newspaper was a philander and another paper ran an article on him. Another big story happened 20 odd years ago - one paper was funded by the government and another newspaper brought that to light - the result was that one of the people who organised funding did not become president). "And politicians don't always want to hide things." So, if they are not hiding something they would not mind people looking? I am one of those people who think it is a good idea of a healthy dose of cynicism for public officials. "They chose to keep quiet and accept decades of hero-worship. The truth was that they were willing participants in a rather slimy and petty act of political revenge." The question is not if Woodward&Bernstein were upstanding citizens with good values. The question is this: Was the Watergate affair good for the country? Would it be better if it had not been brought to light?
    - aristus 18y ago
      You went from "I have not heard of a case ..." to mentioning a few cases. I took your first comment at face value; now I don't know what to make of it.
      - katz 18y ago
        Philandering around the workplace is usually a big no-no but it is definitely not corruption by any stretch of the imagination. I did this to show you that journalists will easily turn on their own kind. As for the case of the government covertly starting a newspaper, I have not heard about it (but read about it in history books). They did this with the express purpose to change public opinion - since the current English newspapers were too critical of the government (with good reason). That really is before my time (20+ years or more). I do not recall a single instance in my country where journalists were found guilty of corruption. Yet for politicians the list of the non-corrupt would probably be shorter.
    - anamax 18y ago
      > The question is not if Woodward&Bernstein were upstanding citizens with good values. The question is this: Was the Watergate affair good for the country? Would it be better if it had not been brought to light? "Don't say anything" isn't the only alternative to "tell only part of the story". Woodward and Bernstein deliberately withheld relevant information to make themselves and their source look good. If anyone else does that, the press screams "coverup", "corruption", etc.
- anamax 18y ago
  > I have not heard of a case where the press was involved in corruption - honestly. And even if they were corrupt, they were corrupt with private money. It's actually fairly commonplace for "the press" to be involved in public corruption. They'll even defend the corruption. > I doubt a blogger will be able to take on complex and multi-faceted corruption cases while he is being sued from all sides. And how many press organizations will do that? More important, that's irrelevant because corruption investigations rarely involve lawsuits.
  - jibiki 18y ago
    > It's actually fairly commonplace for "the press" to be involved in public corruption. They'll even defend the corruption. Could we please have some examples? I can recall many cases where the press has made mistakes, but none where they were actively corrupt.
    - anamax 18y ago
      > Could we please have some examples? I can recall many cases where the press has made mistakes, but none where they were actively corrupt. What definition of "actively corrupt" are we using? Is it enough for them to get paid off in return for looking the other way/not reporting, or do they have to actually steal something? Does it matter who pays them and what the connection is between the source of the money and the evil-doer. Note that "the press" is often a cheap date. They'll go out of their way to avoid writing bad things about folks/programs/issues that they like. They'll trade access for non-coverage. For example, CNN admits that they didn't report things that Saddam Hussein didn't want known in return for being able to report from pre-war Iraq. That let them make money, money that didn't come from SH. Do you count it as corruption? (I don't, but many folks who get excited about corruption do.)
  - katz 18y ago
    > It's actually fairly commonplace for "the press" to be involved in public corruption. They'll even defend the corruption. Can you give some examples? > And how many press organizations will do that? Not all papers - but some do. In my country there are 2 good English newspapers and one magazine that does excellent investigative reporting. > More important, that's irrelevant because corruption investigations rarely involve lawsuits. Corruption cases are full of lawsuits! My favourite investigative magazine (http://www.noseweek.co.za/ http://www.noseweek.co.za/) was closed for almost a year because the person running it was sued for libel. He won that lawsuit - but he had to stop publishing that year while defending himself in court. In 2007 he was sued by a bank to prevent him from naming a list of clients that the bank helped with tax evasion - he won again and published the list of names.
- thisrod 18y ago
  See < http://www.google.com/search?q=cash+for+comment http://www.google.com/search?q=cash+for+comment > for a notorious case of Australian journalists taking bribes.
bluishgreen 18y ago
Both of you, kindly include atleast one or 2 examples to make your respective cases. I can think of Enron, Nixon which were uncovered by the press. But where did press uncover something that wasn't? How does that work ..
- katz 18y ago
  I can think of a few corruption cases that the press uncovered (or shed significant light on) - it is country specific though (South Africa): - The arms deal (in which half of the ANC had a share). - Corruption by the National Police Commisioner and head of Interpol (Jackie Selebi) and his links to organised crime. - The Fidentia financial fraud scheme by Athur Brown - A tax evasion scheme by RMB (a private bank for rich individuals) - Tokyo Sexwale's (a businessman with links to the ANC) involvement in Iraq oil-for-food fraud. - Fraud by state owned oil company PetroSA who passed on R15 million before an election to an ANC financier. - Links between the ANC investment vehicle Chancellor House and government contracts (i.e. conflict of interest) I am pretty sure you can make the same list for your own country.

alecco 18y ago

Yep, I didn't say they don't work. But as a watchdog it's a very bad system of influence with the wrong goals and backers.