ZZZZ EAA SportPilot promotes ANN and Zoom

On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 13:47:52 -0500, "Montblack"
wrote:

("Richard Isakson" wrote)
Knowing Jim's previous problems with the truth, how can you believe
*anything* that's written in ANN?

...or TIME, or NEWSWEEK, or The Mpls Star-Tribune, or CBS News, or NBC's
Dateline, or The NYTimes, or the local TV news, or Rush, etc, etc, etc.

You pays your monies, and you takes your chances.

But in most other cases, you've got a lot better chance of eventually getting
the real story.

There have been a number of journalistic ethics scandals over the past ten
years, from Stephen Glass to Jayson Blair to CBS News and beyond. Heck, Reuters
just admitted that some of the photos they'd published of the battles in Lebanon
had been altered for more dramatic appearance.

In most of these cases, the unethical journalist was caught because complaints
or his own actions triggered an investigation by the publication's editor.

But...what happens if the editor is the one fabricating the story, or altering a
photo, or hiding a personal relationship with one of the story's subjects? What
if the editor is also the publisher?

Back in the 90s, Jim Campbell wrote an "expose" accusing the employee of a
certain kit company of criminal actions. What he *didn't* say in the story is
that the target was one of his own former employees. And she was also his
ex-fiance.

I mean, shoot, there wasn't any question of it: He'd given sworn testimony to
the fact that she was his ex-fiance (while denying it here on RAH, of course).

If he had been employed by any normal publication, he would have been out on the
street and never worked in journalism again. But of course, he WAS the
employer.

You may not like CBS, you may not like Fox, but there ARE some checks and
balances available in these and most media. But not where the author, editor,
and publisher are one in the same person. Separation of these roles brings an
unjaundiced eye to emotional topics and ensures that the editorial aspects of
the publication receive some isolation from the business (e.g., advertising)
aspects.

How much isolation exists at ANN, do you figure? When the editor-in-chief
claims that five aviation companies haven't paid advertising bills, how much
does that affect editorial coverage of these companies?

Even if the companies aren't mentioned negatively in articles, how much false
praise do their competitors receive?

I view ANN and "The Onion" about the same way...read for entertainment if you
like, but don't come to any conclusions based on it. :-)

Ron Wanttaja