Thursday, December 07, 2006

Fake Journalism 101

(Lack of) Mass Media Ethics, Journalism and Virtue.

How the educational and journalism communities bring leftwing moon-bats into our schools.

In today’s class, you will learn that “fake investigative reporter” David Podvin’s “fake journalism” is presented and accepted as credible in journalism schools across the US while Rush Limbaugh’s view is presented as “extreme” and the cause of all political polarization in America by those same professional academic experts (all paid for by your tax dollars).

I found a loose string, pulled on it and ended up with a big pile of yarn.

More on David Podvin-“investigative reporter”.

As I wrote earlier in FAKE JOURNALISM= ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY, Mr. Podvin is "shy and wants to remain anonymous" according to Carolyn Kay of who seems to be the only person ever to see or talk to David Podvin, (who is definitely not shy about writing his political opinions as fact and claiming to be an investigative reporter).

Doing a simple Google search for “investigative reporter david podvin” yields a couple of interesting things aside from the praise and glory.
This website is dedicated to responding to Mr. Podvin’s prolific political pontifications and debunks virtually everything written by David Podvin but doesn’t question who he is or whether he even exists (outside the blogosphere).

David Podvin is referred to as an “ investigative reporter” quite a bit on the blogs etc. and even in a couple of newspaper articles like this one from The Boston Phoenix florida recount story . (They debunk “investigative reporter” David Podvin’s claims in the story) This College Newspaper refers to "investigative reporter" David Podvin's story as fact however.

Then this little nugget popped up.

The “Journal of Mass Media Ethics”- “Three Essays on Journalism and Virtue
co-authored by G. Stuart Adam, Stephanie Craft and Elliot D. Cohen.

David Podvin is used in the text of the essays as an “investigative reporter” in reference to the Florida Recount story and Podvin’s reporting of election corruption and results manipulation by NBC and the “big-media” in favor of Bush over Gore.

The thing that’s surprising (and alarming) about these essays, is that they are teaching tools available at a company that “provides academic and professional journals and software to schools, universities, teachers, librarians and professional educators”.

So, David Podvin- a vile leftwing Democrat pundit/fake journalist (at best) is being spoon-fed to teachers and students as an “investigative journalist” by academic authors in a piece titled of all things “Journalism and Virtue”. ???

What’s up with THAT?

I decided to contact the authors of the Three Essays and see if any of them had talked to or seen David Podvin when "researching" their work. (cough cough)
Doing so required a little “investigating” of my own.

Let’s look at the authors of these 3 essays used in our schools…shall we?

Stephanie Craft Phd. Associate Professor Missouri School of Journalism (from her website) conducts research that focuses on press practices and performance, particularly in terms of journalism ethics and the role of the press in a democracy.
Here is a sample of how Dr. Stephanie views Americans and politics in her co-authored piece with Dr. Wayne Wanta Phd. blaming Rush Limbaugh for the polarization in American politics.

“Journalism professors Wayne Wanta and Stephanie Craft and journalism doctoral student Mugur Geana used data from a telephone survey administered nationally to 2,528 adults in the United States”. “The study found radio listeners were the most polarized news consumers, due in part to shows hosted by conservative political commentators such as Rush Limbaugh. Conservative listeners have their ideals reinforced by the shows, which ultimately lead to even more extreme views, Wanta said. Newspaper readers were the least polarized news consumers. Since newspapers do not have the same space and time constraints as television or radio, newspapers are able to provide readers with more information on both sides of an issue. As a result, Wanta said, readers are less likely to adopt extreme attitudes about certain issues.”
"The study was conducted by Princeton Research Associations and sponsored by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. It was presented to the Political Communication Division at the International Communication Association annual convention in New York City in May 2006". (end)

So, Dr. Stephanie (and Dr. Wanta) thinks that people should ONLY read the newspaper (with stories supplied from ONE point of view) rather than read the newspaper and listen to commentary/critique of those stories on talk radio. Providing more than one perspective is considered "extreme" and apparently, alternate views only represent an extreme view.

Therefore...Any opinion other than a newspaper journalists opinion is “extreme”and "polarizing".?

Note to Dr. Wayne Wanta Phd: Since newspapers have just a few fixed columns of type and a few hours each day to collect, write, edit, print and deliver a story and talk-radio being fluid instead of fixed has the “time constraint” of virtually 24 hours a day/5days per week to verify, confirm, debunk, refute and update those same news stories. Your argument that newspapers provide “more information on both sides of an issue” is not only completely and totally false, but in fact impossible. It is newspapers which are under a time constraint along with limited space.
It is also interesting that there is no mention of "polarization" whatsoever by Al Franken/Air America, Michael Moore, hip-hop/rap musicians or Hollywood. Just Rush Limbaugh. Sorry Sean Hannity, ya' didn't make the cut unless you are the "such as".
Is this Dr. Wanta's example of "providing more information on both sides of an issue"?

But let's move on...
G. Stuart Adam Phd Professor of journalism and political studies at Carlton University in Ottawa prefers to teach Americans about journalism from the safety of the free speech capital of the world CANADA (where Fox News is banned). He has written books such as “Journalism: the Democratic Craft”. (as opposed to the Republican craft)

Which brings us to…
Elliot D. Cohen Phd.
Professor of Philosophy and Dept. of Humanities Chairman at Indian River Community College.
Dr. Cohen’s specialties are professional ethics, law, journalism and Critical Thinking.

Author of several books and articles like this ripping President Bush over the term “enemy combatant”. He frequently writes articles for the leftwing blogs Buzzflash and Democratic, like this unbiased, virtuous, journalistic hit-piece “Would a Dictator Graciously Relinquish Power?” Hint, it’s about Bush.
The unbiased journalist and ethics professor Cohen writes “Given the voracious appetite and tenacity the Bush administration has displayed for power, and given its blatant disregard for constitutional limits of executive authority and the extremes to which it has already gone to acquire power, there is reason for concern about just how cooperative the Bush administration will be in allowing a smooth transition in January”. He continues… “The image of the Bush administration declaring Martial Law is not one any of us would care to entertain, but it could serve as a convenient way to disrupt the changing of the guard. “While the transition to a Democratic congress promises a fresh start, the Bush administration's continued policy of inbreeding is anything but refreshing. This administration is still just as clandestine and powerful as ever; and its history of guile and deceit is a useful gauge for making rational predictions about what it might try next. In this interim period of uncertainty, keeping our collective eye on the ball can be crucial to the survival of democracy in America.”

Yikes, marshal law in late 2007? Bush Dictatorship?
Journalistic virtue and ethics?

The good Dr. Stephanie pointed me to Dr. Elliot saying that her essay did not refer to David Podvin, but she believed Dr. Cohen’s did.
She knew of David Podvin, but had never talked to him.

When I contacted, Dr. Cohen and asked about David Podvin, he confirmed that Podvin was used in his essay and he said he was “uncomfortable” with including the reference to Podvin when he wrote the essay and had never actually seen or talked with David Podvin, but did refer to the “story” (on the 2000 election) by David Podvin as fact in the essay anyway.

So, Three academic “media experts” (one of them, Elliot Cohen is also a Democrat pundit) teach journalism students how to be good journalists by using anonymous fake investigative reporters/democrat pundits in their material, which is sold to our schools, teachers and librarians to teach them about “ethics and virtue in journalism”. (purchased with tax our dollars of course)

How poetic.
Perhaps it should be a lesson in “Hypocritical Irony” or “Indoctrination For Fun & Profit” instead.

But, still unanswered is the question, Who/What is/was David Podvin?

…next time.

Stay tuned, I’m pulling on another piece of string….

-Red "not an investigative reporter" Stater


Post a Comment

<< Home