Now, Chindu expresses concern that media houses lose "balance" and "objectivity" when they choose to embed with the troops.
Embedded reporting turned journalists into an extension of the army, governed by a rigid code of conduct that hugely cramped their independence. The deal was that they would get a ringside view of the war but, in exchange, they would not see, hear or report anything that the army with which they were embedded did not want them to see, hear or report
http://www.hindu.com/2007/12/04/stories/2007120498360800.htm
This, coming as it does, from a publication that crawls at China's feet and has dedicated itself to eulogizing China. Where did his "objectivity and balance" go when he unashamedly wrote a two part article, brimming with naked lies, seeing only what the Chinese officials wanted him to see?
Posts
1 comment:
I doubt if Naxal R even saw what the Chinese wanted to show him. It seems more like Naxal R went, saw and reported what he wanted to without nary a concern for "facts (which) are sacred."
To say that embedded reporting is nothing but hack journalism that Chindu promotes is to take a cheap aside at the integrity of countless professional journalists who work for American media. At any rate Mr. Naxal R won't measure up against them on any journalistic standard. But then, perhaps, people get the newspaper they deserve.
Post a Comment