Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri
He's simply describing the traditional gatekeeper role/responsibility that the press has always had. Once a respected publication writes a story about something, it becomes news;
|
You got the gatekeeper part right...lol. They hold news stories until election year and then use it to harm candidates.
Respected pubs write stories that are untrue, ever heard of Dan Rather?
Quote:
|
that's just the way it is. So make sure the story deserves that kind of attention, and isn't just made up of innuendo, rumor, scandal-mongering, speculation, etc.
|
Or they could simply go ask John Edwards themselves about the story itself. But we all know they take their que from the DNC. Funny how Andrea Mitchell last week was loathing how they had to cover this story and how they didnt like covering sex scandals like this, but they sure dont see a problem of doing so when it is a GOP member.
Quote:
|
Beyond that, reporters don't write articles about everything they hear/know. They couldn't, even if they wanted to -- not enough time or newspaper pages. But good publications also only write stories that are verified, legitimate, newsworthy and relevant. Which means a lot of potentially juicy stories never see daylight, because they cannot be verified. And a lot of small stories don't get written because they aren't newsworthy.
|
And alot of inuendo gets thrown into them as well, b/c all the MSMs have their own agendas to play out.