I think one particularly interesting story that appeared on Gawker on the night of Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention is this one, in which Reuter's published a story on Palin's speech before it actually happened.
I clicked on the link in the story before the speech took place and
Reuter's did, in fact, publish the story before the event.
This story,
tagged by author Ryan Tate as "Journalismism," writes, "Presumably,
Reuters's coverage of the forthcoming Republican convention address by
Sarah Palin
is based on a pre-distributed written version of the speech, and that's
why the report at left was posted at least an hour ago. But shouldn't
the future tense be employed, or a disclaimer be included, given that
the speech hasn't, you know, occurred yet?"One of the reasons I found this particular story on Gawker so interesting is because it specifically addressed these issues. The Reuter's author cannot possibly write a neutral, balanced piece reviewing Palin's speech if the story is written before the speech has even taken place. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why it was taken off the site.
It seems as though a general rule of thumb when deciding if journalism is neutral or transparent is that the journalist will probably let you know that he is being transparent by telling you so. One example I can think of is "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," in which host Jon Stewart does not hesitate to remind you that his show is a comedy show and is not designed to serve as a balanced news source. A recent episode of Jon Stewart's show discussing Sarah Palin can be seen below.
Leave a comment