"British journalist Jonathan Foreman despairs of British journalism:
British newspaper writing is famously more vigorous and readable than its American equivalent. But this comes at a price: there’s a good chance that anything you read in a British newspaper isn’t true.
When I worked as a leader writer for an American paper I was embarrassed when I was told that it was official policy not to trust any item in any British paper except the FT. American journalists work within a stringent code of ethics. If a journalist for a major paper or TV network is found to have run a false story — perhaps because it was “too good to check” — then his or her career is generally over.
In Britain, getting caught telling or repeating a lie is much less serious than cheating on expenses. This is especially true in the world of foreign reporting.
Take the broadsheet reporters who claimed there had been a massacre at “Jeningrad” in the West Bank on the dubious word of a single source. Even after all parties to the conflict pointed out that this massacre was a fantasy, the hoodwinked correspondents retained the trust of their editors.
The ABC’s Peter Cave - a Yasser fan - appeared on ABC radio a week ago to repeat (as he has for years) his claim that the Jenin massacre was real. As well as retaining the trust of his editors, he also retains the money of Australian taxpayers."
"there’s a good chance that anything you read in a British newspaper isn’t true"
"No shit, Sherlock"
No comments:
Post a Comment