Friday, March 13, 2009

Gag Reflex


"Asked" is apparently the new euphemism for "threatened with immediate termination."

Media Bistro, TV Newser: MSNBC Producers Asked Not to Mention Cramer-Stewart Interview/3.13.09

6 comments:

kanye said...

Just curious...when this kind of thing happens in a newsroom, how high up the food chain does the edict generally come from? Is it in house, or does it come from the parent corporation (in this case, GE)?

Chez said...

That's the point: An edict like this isn't supposed to come from anywhere. What's interesting is that the article never mentions just who asked, but there is certainly such a thing as quiet, implied pressure. A corporate owner can send that kind of thing down the pike; so can upper management. Only Fox News Channel, as far as I know, puts the day-to-day angles and slants its producers should take in writing. That's because Fox just doesn't give a crap whether anyone criticizes them of bias.

Robo said...

I know it wasn't all Framer's fault...he was more of a sacrificial lamb than anything, but do you think it's because Stewart made him look like an amateur? I still wonder if Cramer got the jist of Stewart's point. The journalistic media, ONCE A-FUCKING-GAIN was asleep at the wheel. It's happened in all facets of journalism...sports(steroids)...political(Bush-take your pick)...and now Financial. What the fuck is wrong with these people?

Michael J. West said...

Fox tells its producers in writing how to frame a story? Wow. Can you link us to one of those memos?

Chez said...

No, but Charlie Reina can. His story is well publicized.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/10/31/fox/index.html

kanye said...

No...I get the point. I'm just not sure how applicable (or valid) the point is when referencing modern day, corporate controlled journalism.

When journalism ethics come into direct conflict with corporate interests, you'd like to think that ethics rule the day, but it's not quite that simple. Given the fiduciary responsibilities that corporate executives bear, and the legal decision that news org's aren't legally required to report the truth (we both know the case), how is it that the news division is able to maintain its autonomy?

To be honest, I just assumed that this kind of thing was commonplace, at least at the editorial level. I was wondering how much of this, if any, you saw at a professional level.