From: jbs@rti.rti.org (Joe Simpson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Time Magazine and objective journalism
Summary: mutually exclusive terms
Message-ID: <1991Jul22.183111.7226@rti.rti.org>
Date: 22 Jul 91 18:31:11 GMT
References: <1991Jul18.041312.21393@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <34404@usc.edu> <1991Jul19.213657.2236@eff.org>
Organization: Joe's Bar and Grill
Lines: 59

In article <1991Jul19.213657.2236@eff.org> rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis) writes:
>>The point is this.  It appears Mr. Hubbard may have been misquoted or
>>the quote taken out of context.  Not that the editors of TIME care, as
>>long as it sounds good and is fun to read.  That sells.  What if
>>journalist's just reported "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
>>the truth".  The news wouldn't be much fun to read and except for the
>>funny pages they'd all look practically alike.  And that's not good
>>marketing.  TIME may not have much respect for the truth but they sure
>>know how to sell magazines
>
>	I have *never*, even in my days tutoring freshman comp, seen
>such a slipshod interpretation of a quote.  You *obviously* have no
>experience with journalism.  

Neither do you, apparently. Read on.

>	When you take advertising, you compromise a small part of your
>journalistic integrity because it makes it hard to publish an article
>slamming Nissan when they take out full-color glossy centerfolds every
>week.  Notice Consumer Reports does *not* take advertising.

This is not always true. There are several audiophile magazines I've read
that thoroughly "slam" their advertisers' products if they don't like them.
The advertisers are aware of this, and seldom seem to pull advertising due
to bad reviews. Admittedly, these are very expensive products that appeal
to a small segment of the population, so the "laws" of mass media may not
apply. But it does show that regardless of your posturing, you don't know
*everything*.

>	As for respecting the truth, if Time didn't, it would most
>definately *not* enjoy the respect it is accorded.

This is a laugh. TIME (Gloria Hammond, in particular) has candidly admitted
that it no longer reports objectively on the issue of gun control, and has
"closed editorial ranks" in order to continue pushing anti-gun articles
because, in Ms. Hammond's words, "the time for opinions on the dangers of gun
availability is long since gone."
TIME has an axe to grind on the gun control issue, apparently as well as
on the Scientology issue, and the facts be damned.

>	What makes a journalistic piece different from another on the
>same subject is how it is written.  It is rediculously easy to slant a
>piece one way or another just by who you choose to quote, how you
>arrange the pieces of the story, what you spend the most time talking
>about.  Notice that the whole time you are telling nothing but the truth.

You make it sound as if there's only one kind of "true journalism", and that
it's objective, fair, and factual. If you have the vast experience in
journalism that you imply (and that the two misspellings in the text I
quoted from your posting belie), you know that this is hogwash.
Sensationalism, be it violence, sex, national indignation, exposure of the
foibles of the rich and/or famous, or whatever, is what sells newspapers and
news magazines, and the publishers know it.

>Rita Marie Rouvalis              rita@eff.org 
>Electronic Frontier Foundation

  -joe