3 ms·
"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 h
by 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 agoYou 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 agoPhilandering 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> 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? I'm always amused by the assumption that Watergate was a relatively big deal. Yes, taking down a president was a major accomplishment, but I'm talking about the underlying crime and coverup. Does anyone seriously believe that far worse things don't happen fairly regularly? I'd argue that Watergate actually argues that the press is relatively useless.