I am a dire critic of the MSM. I believe that it, not ISIS, is a greater threat to this country's existence. The reasons I believe this are well-documented in this blogspace. The MSM has become a lapdog of this adminstration and is no longer concerned with either investigative journalism or holding our government accountable for the decisions it makes or the actions it takes. Simply put, it wants to play with the cool kids.
Knowing that, I would love to see the day when someone in a position of authority -- say, a network anchor, the head of the news division or some such person -- was put under oath and forced to answer these questions without being able to filibuster. It would be interesting to see what truthful answers were obtained, if any.
-- What does the expression The Fourth Estate mean to you? Does that meaning change depending on which party sits in the White House?
-- Where race is involved in an incident, whether it be a criminal action or merely a social action, how is it decided when to cover the story as racially motivated? Who makes such a decision?
-- Is it the responsibility of the press to further the agenda of one party or one politician over the other?
-- Realistically, how big a role do ratings play in what stories are put on the air and what anchors read the news?
-- Does the press believe in the theory of Chinese walls? To wit, is it acceptable for the head of a network news division to be related by blood or marriage to someone high up within the administration or in another position of power within the government? Do you believe such a relationship compromises the impartiality of the press?
-- When the Trayvon Martin shooting occurred, who made the decision to refer to the shooter, George Zimmerman, as a white man or Hispanic descent given his biracial background and why was that done? Furthermore, wouldn't it then be fair to describe President Obama as a white man of African descent, and why isn't this done?
-- In your opinion, is it more important to be first with a story or to get it right? For example, in the Duke lacrosse case, the Aurora, Colorado shootings and the Ferguson incident, the media was wrong with key elements of the story in the rush to be first with the story. How would you change this?
-- Is it proper to give noted agitators like Al Sharpton a platform to push their political agenda under the guise of promoting diversity?
-- What, for you, constitutes journalistic ethics? What would you have done with Britt McHenry, Brian Williams and Martin Bashir?
-- Do you believe that the MSM has a particular political bent? Explain your answer using examples.
-- Can you explain why none of the major networks and cable outlets, besides Fox News, have kept on the following stories: the IRS scandal, Benghazi, the VA story, the Bowe Bergdahl trade, the AP story, the James Rosen incident, the NSA surveillance and Obamacare? Or do you simply believe that Fox News acts out of spite in covering these stories?
-- Why does the MSM avoid reporting on and questioning stories involving black-on-white crime and the administration's handling of such incidents?
-- Do you believe that a debate moderator's role is to ask questions only?
-- Just how close can the media be with the subjects it covers regularly and still maintain an unbiased approach to its coverage?
-- Should one network take potshots at another network?
-- Should there be proper labels on network shows to differentiate between straight news shows and those that either give nothing but opinions or that editorialize?
-- Who makes the decisions as to what stories to cover and are those decisions arrived at impartially, or is there concern that by covering a certain story access to those in power will be shut down?
-- Does the First Amendment protection allow the MSM to be partial, or should the MSM try to be as impartial as possible for the benefit of the American people?
The answers, elicited by a very good litigator, would quite interesting.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
No comments:
Post a Comment