Jump to content

Menu

The PP outcome and the 1st Amendment


MSNative
 Share

Recommended Posts

Oh my. PP were not selling human baby body parts.

 

It's really disappointing to see discredited information appearing again and again.

Just saying that over and over does not make it true.

 

And it hasn't been thoroughly discredited.

 

The issue, again, is that if cost recovery is legal, then costs can be charged, but if prices are negotiable, which seems to have been the case based on the recorded conversations, that could suggest a non-cost recovery approach to setting them.  It's a subtlety, and I'm not sure to what extent I buy it, but the argument shouldn't be misrepresented nor should be dismissed without some sort of definitive evidence one way or another.

 

And in any case, I was just explaining the argument, not advocating for it.  I think it's important to understand all sides clearly.  

Edited by Carol in Cal.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, this doesn't even begin to get into the idea that not all people are appalled by the supposed 'discovery'.

I don't believe that that is in dispute, but most of the people who I know who are not concerned about the material in the videos haven't actually seen them--they just repeat over and over that they are fake, something that they heard but did not investigate for themselves.  

 

But here we are, a classical education board.  I figure we all like primary source material more than average.

Edited by Carol in Cal.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saying that over and over does not make it true.

 

And it hasn't been thoroughly discredited.

 

The issue, again, is that if cost recovery is legal, then costs can be charged, but if prices are negotiable, which seems to have been the case based on the recorded conversations, that could suggest a non-cost recovery approach to setting them.  It's a subtlety, and I'm not sure to what extent I buy it, but the argument shouldn't be misrepresented nor should be dismissed without some sort of definitive evidence one way or another.

 

And in any case, I was just explaining the argument, not advocating for it.  I think it's important to understand all sides clearly.  

 

Except it wasn't a negotiation.  The reimbursement rate varied on the facility and what would be involved in getting the needed tissue.

 

PP has won every court challenge and no state investigation has found evidence of a crime related to this matter,  and I tend to weight those decisions more heavily than your interpretation of the videos.

Edited by ChocolateReignRemix
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking overnight about the emergence of both technology, and the rise of "citizen journalism," and how these changes affect both the ethical and legal lines.

 

For many types of journalism -- getting to interview a major public figure, getting access to large public events, getting access to cordoned-off and LEO enforced areas -- having formal press credentials gets the journalist access to people and places that ordinary citizens can't go.

 

There's always been some stories-- the muckraking ones, I suppose -- that journalists have always been less open about their identities and intentions.  (Not necessarily unethical or illegal, but less transparent).

 

And there have always been some stories for which some old-style credentialed journalists veered close, or stepped over, the legal line in pursuit of the story.  I do think their training and supervision helps professional journalists at least to KNOW where the legal lines are.

 

 

The emergence of this newer, amateur, freelance type of story-chasing -- which I think has strengths as well as negatives, and in any event the horse has left the barn -- changes the environment in ways that the rest of society has not quite caught up to...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my mind, PP isn't selling baby parts any more than a woman who places a baby for adoption and gets her medical care and other negotiated costs paid for by the adoptive family is selling her baby to them. Recouping costs is *very* different from selling for profit and, in my opinion, there is a distinct moral and legal difference.

 

I'm really enjoying the discussion about the legal and ethical side of undercover journalism. I like Sadie's idea that, if someone is accused of committing illegal acts to obtain information, then they need to show that the information benefits the public and that there was no other way to obtain it.

 

Also, I can see the point that it doesn't necessarily matter if the wrongdoing uncovered wasn't illegal (although I think that makes it harder to prove that it's in the public interest), but since what PP was doing is explicitly legal in the states they were doing it in, then that argument is a lot harder to prove. Early investigative journalism didn't always uncover illegal acts; often it uncovered major gaps in the law and serious corruption. Neither of those is the case here.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say it's borderline, myself. I can see why people might want to give people the information in a more raw way, first. The logic would be, and I think there is some real psychological truth to it, that if it is really a horrible thing to trade in fetus parts, the legality of it isn't really the issue. In the same way, someone who smuggles footage out of a factory slaughterhouse isn't necessarily concerned with presenting information about the legality of the behavior - they want people to see it and respond to it in a very visceral and immediate way.

 

Putting it first in the context of a legal activity can, I think, mute that first response - we start to create a sort of psychological barrier.

 

That being said, I think that it is a bad idea to manipulate people in that way, at least not without being very carefull to scrupulosly fill out the whole picture in short order. It's one thing to say - now look at what is going on with this practice in light of how wrong it seems in itself, what has happened - and another thing to allow people to think that the whole scenario is some kind of nefarious conspiracy.

 

It is certainly common though - all kinds of documentaries try and get away with that kind of manipulation or just leaving out things that would put what they are saying in a more complex light. Roger Moore is notorious for it, Forks Over Knives comes to mind as tending in that direction, that creationist documentary with the Nazi footage... all of them seem to be fairly respected by their target audiences though.

 

It seems to be very typical of the pro-life lobby to do things that way, and it seems very counter-productive to me, there would be much more effective ways to use footage like that with more integrity.

What you said about documentaries is so true. It makes me think of Food Inc. Very powerful but also misleading in some areas I think. I haven't seen it in years but I do remember when I was watching it that it was very obviously biased in one direction. And as you said, many documentaries are biased.

As an aside, I found a great resource for studying bias in the media. It has sites that links to examples of word choice, omission, etc. http://umich.edu/~newsbias/links.html

 

This is another site that deals specifically with undercover journalism. It's def pro-undercover journalism and gives examples of how it has had a positive impact.

http://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/political-social-justice/undercover-reporting.html

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

debinindy, would you please consider starting a new thread to explore your opinions. People would like to continue discussing the journalism issue, and continued comments about abortion will likely get the thread shut down. That's not fair to those who are playing by the rules, even when that takes considerable effort to sit on fingers to do so.

Interesting...so you won't be derailing anymore threads regarding Christianity because you plan to take your own advice in the future? Good plan!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am really confused by the information presented in that report. It says that no editing took place other than for what you outlined above. However, CNN had this report that said some of the video was not shot at PP. I believe that Daleiden confirmed this. So, if that's the case, then why wouldn't the splice show up? What am I missing technologically?

 

The CNN article mentions nine different videos produced by the Center for Medical Progress. It's my understanding that the report was done on the material contained in four of those videos, the ones we've been discussing here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are a lot of threats at the moment to seruious journalism, and its something to be very concerned about.

 

The fact is that most newsrooms are under tremendous financial pressures, and can't afford to do real investigative journalism.  Many are shutting down.  Those that remain are mostly part of large media conglomerates.

 

Magazines are the same.  Even most of the "alternative" press just repeat the press releases that fit their worldview without any kind of analysis.

 

Bloggers are muddying the waters - they are for many a source of news, and often more trusted than conventional sources, but they are bound by no ethical codes.  I just finished reading a book which I reviewed in the BAW thread - one of the things it talks about is lifestyle blogs.  The author describes going to a conference for bloggers and a panel discussion on getting corporate sponsorship by doing reviews.  One of the panelists told the bloggers and wannabe bloggers you guys deserve to be remunerated for your work just like journalists do, you are also writers.  Of course - getting remunerated by outside entities is considered a major breach of ethics in journalism and will get you fired.

 

I don't have a lot of trust that authorities putting limits on journalistic investigation is going to be for the public good.  The trend both here in Canada and in the US has been for government and through it business to control information for their own benefit.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re how evolving business models have affected journalism:

 

I think there are a lot of threats at the moment to seruious journalism, and its something to be very concerned about.

 

The fact is that most newsrooms are under tremendous financial pressures, and can't afford to do real investigative journalism.  Many are shutting down.  Those that remain are mostly part of large media conglomerates.

 

Magazines are the same.  Even most of the "alternative" press just repeat the press releases that fit their worldview without any kind of analysis.

 

Bloggers are muddying the waters - they are for many a source of news, and often more trusted than conventional sources, but they are bound by no ethical codes.  I just finished reading a book which I reviewed in the BAW thread - one of the things it talks about is lifestyle blogs.  The author describes going to a conference for bloggers and a panel discussion on getting corporate sponsorship by doing reviews.  One of the panelists told the bloggers and wannabe bloggers you guys deserve to be remunerated for your work just like journalists do, you are also writers.  Of course - getting remunerated by outside entities is considered a major breach of ethics in journalism and will get you fired.

...

 

This is very true.  And: I personally feed this evolution, which I agree has had the effect of undermining solid quality journalism.

 

When I was recently out of college, with a lot less disposable income than I have today, I bought a morning paper and an evening paper just about every day, and had paid subscriptions to at least three news or feature (not lifestyle) magazines.

 

Today I pay for one newspaper and one magazine subscription.  All my other news, I expect to get for free.  And I can... for a different type of cost.

 

 

Over the long haul, structurally, as a society, we get what we pay for.  As more and more news sources evolve towards an advertising-supported business model, it does drive traditional independent newsrooms out of business; it does drive the remaining ones standing toward ever closer and dependent relationships with corporate sponsors and/or corporate owners; and it does drive greater fragmentation into echo-chamber news niches.

 

I'm not sure what if anything can be done about the business model dynamics -- the factors driving the News For Free! evolution are as best I can see unstoppable -- but heightened public awareness about the implications of the changes, and heightened demand for quality and independent journalism certainly is possible.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re how evolving business models have affected journalism:

 

 

This is very true.  And: I personally feed this evolution, which I agree has had the effect of undermining solid quality journalism.

 

When I was recently out of college, with a lot less disposable income than I have today, I bought a morning paper and an evening paper just about every day, and had paid subscriptions to at least three news or feature (not lifestyle) magazines.

 

Today I pay for one newspaper and one magazine subscription.  All my other news, I expect to get for free.  And I can... for a different type of cost.

 

 

Over the long haul, structurally, as a society, we get what we pay for.  As more and more news sources evolve towards an advertising-supported business model, it does drive traditional independent newsrooms out of business; it does drive the remaining ones standing toward ever closer and dependent relationships with corporate sponsors and/or corporate owners; and it does drive greater fragmentation into echo-chamber news niches.

 

I'm not sure what if anything can be done about the business model dynamics -- the factors driving the News For Free! evolution are as best I can see unstoppable -- but heightened public awareness about the implications of the changes, and heightened demand for quality and independent journalism certainly is possible.

 

I have this problem too, and it's been something I have been thinking about recently.

 

One of my difficulties is that our local paper is not only ultimatly owned by a conglomerate, it has become really bad.  So do I really want to pay for a paper I am not going to read?

 

THe best answer I have come up with is just to find the best independent voices I can and subscribe to a few, the closer to home the better.  Even if they are the free or online ones, if they are good journalism and independent, find a way to support them.  And look at possibilities that initially may seem out of your area of interest too - the periodical I've decided on is Rural Delivery, which seems odd for a city dweller.  But it has great stories, it is really independent, recipes and gardening info, and great and sometimes scathing editorials.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re examples of positive undercover journalism and how they've been done:

What you said about documentaries is so true. It makes me think of Food Inc. Very powerful but also misleading in some areas I think. I haven't seen it in years but I do remember when I was watching it that it was very obviously biased in one direction. And as you said, many documentaries are biased.
As an aside, I found a great resource for studying bias in the media. It has sites that links to examples of word choice, omission, etc. http://umich.edu/~newsbias/links.html

This is another site that deals specifically with undercover journalism. It's def pro-undercover journalism and gives examples of how it has had a positive impact.
http://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/political-social-justice/undercover-reporting.html

 

Thanks for these.  I spent rather a long while wandering through the Schuster Institute site (second link); there are indeed quite a few compelling examples of Sinclair-style investigative journalism.  

 

Many of the writers -- actually all of the ones I read through -- skate a fine line between not-fully-disclosing-their-full-intentions, and outright lying.  (Along the lines of Barbara Ehrenreich's fine Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, for those familiar with that examination of the day to day experience of American's working poor.)  For example, several of the stories uncovering migrant issues were initiated by Latino writers who took jobs in agriculture or, in this case, turned themselves in to a detention center to expose conditions.  The authors did not lie about who they were, but also did not reveal their intentions to write about what they say.

 

The article I spent the most time on is this fine piece in Harpers by Ted Conover, who got certified as an USDA meat inspector and thereafter applied for and got a job in a Cargill plant.  Again, he did not lie (and certainly did not fraudulently create a false identity), but he did de-emphasize his background, including his college degree.  He's there for several months (which would be difficult for most do-it-yourself citizen journalists) and in that time uncovers issues to validate all sides of various ideological spectrums: his personal revulsion at Sinclair-esque ammonia-laced "pink slime" renderings into the hamburger, as well as the irritation of Cargill managers at how that issue had come public through sketchily/editorially patched-together footage that they considered to be deceptive (p. 10); an incident in which (OTOH) a number of undocumented migrant plant workers were caught and deported, but (OTOH) through outright deception -- plant managers called a "special shift" one night and workers who showed up as assigned were locked in and held by immigration authorities, with whom Cargill had coordinated so as not to disrupt the regular shift, and (on yet a third hand) Cargill used this incident to undermine the union, which fell apart shortly thereafter (p. 15); and his uneasiness with the encounter with an Eli Lilly scientist, who cheerfully conceded the (positive!) correlation between antibiotic use and contaminating abcesses (p. 17).  Something for everyone, really.  

 

His departure scene (in which, as best I understand, he still did not reveal that he was planning to write a feature article) is revealing about the issues of undercover reporting:

 

 

Stan (his immediate supervisor, with whom he'd become friends) didn’t seem too surprised when I told him I was quitting. I’d been an oddball candidate from the beginning: a New Yorker who had showed up in Nebraska for a job as an intermittent inspector — fifteen dollars an hour and no benefits. It was also unusual to qualify for the FSIS with a four-year college degree — most people came in with two years of experience in food handling — and Stan knew my educational background.
 
Working on Heads one day, I almost choked when he suddenly asked me where I had gone to college. Not wanting to lie to him, I said I would fill him in later. He never did press me for details, but on our break that afternoon, he said, “You’re the first guy I ever met who finished college and doesn’t brag about it. Most of the people here who had some college†— and he named a couple of names — “they really want you to know.â€
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Citizen and investigative journalism can be effective, for sure. And I agree - traditional news sources are struggling, and don't have the cash to do much of the investigative stuff.

 

Maybe we should be teaching citizen journalism, a journalist's responsibilities and the ethics of reporting in schools, idk ?

 

Whatever we do, it will be hijacked at times by groups with an axe to grind. 

Oh please, enough with the bellyaching, woman.   :lol:   Lurching toward the light.  Baby steps.  One world we're struggling to share.  People are good and we'll find some way to get there.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were quite a few videos, and they were shot in different places, but it was always possible to see where they were shot.  Some were over lunch at restaurants, and some were interviews with former employees, etc.  I don't think that all the video had to be shot at one location for the report to be true.

 

ETA:  So maybe what you were missing is that there were quite a few different videos?

 

If this is the case, then it makes the report that MercyA linked even more confusing. I'll have to go back and reread it.

 

The part I was referencing was represented as being shot as part of the investigation and that it was at PP. It wasn't. It was footage purchased from another source.

 

Carol, I always enjoy talking with you and very much respect your opinions. You wrote a thoughtful response to me in #112, I think - I can't see the reference numbers while replying. I'd love to respond to the first portion through pm if you are okay with that? Then I won't be derailing the thread from the original topic, which is definitely food for thought.  I just wanted you to know I read your post; I am thinking and will get back to you a bit later today.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadie,

I'm really glad you posted your link because it shows that to an extent people in this thread are talking past each other.  I've been referring to the claims made by the principals that have been indicted, referenced in the OP.  This link is more about claims made by a bunch of politicians about the films, and I agree with you that they are making allegations that are possibly false and at least quite exaggerated.  I hate it when they grandstand like that, too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...