What is appropriate and what is not…
Ok, I’m going to have to explain something. There are certain subjects that ICN will not touch. One of those is what a news anchor or host does in their private life if the subject doesn’t make print. And even then it better be a darn good reason it made print and be directly relating to what goes on over the air. I don’t care who the talent is. At some point what’s private should stay private. We’ve all heard stories and innuendo about certain talents in this industry and while it might suit some of your purposes to try and put those details into comments, I’m not going to allow those comments to remain on the blog. Other sites and news outlets have their own set of standards about what they feel should get print and I won’t judge their reasons for doing so. But this is how I feel ICN should be run. And I expect my readers to take that into account and react accordingly. End of sermon…
I wish Keith Olbermann had the same standards as you. He’s been talking about Andrea Mackris, loofahs, and falafels for two years.
Comment by Jack — July 12, 2006 @ 10:05 am
Thank you. I have often wondered about some posts I felt
were personal attacks.As for me no more Countdown or Tucker
or MSNBC period.At some point someone has to grow up at that
network,I wonder if we are not witnessing self-destruction
right befor our eyes. Putting a photo of Bill on the air in drag is a new low. Oddly, I rarely see talk of the
actual content of the programs the 24/7’s are doing.It
all seems to be about praising what you like while
trashing others and misinformation campaigns to make
it seem that a particular network is the first to
break news.Not.Unless you are able to watch more than
one channel at the same time you have no idea who was
first.Direct TV has a channel that allows you to view
8 news channels at once.There are also other devices
that permit you to watch more than one channel.Maybe someday
the will be an actual dicussion about the news.
Comment by future tv mogul — July 12, 2006 @ 10:27 am
My mistake, Spud. Btw, I had never heard of the “olbermannwatch” site until you linked to it a while back.
Comment by Terance — July 12, 2006 @ 10:41 am
Did I miss something? This “sermon” is being directed at OlbermannWatch?
What exactly did I do? I forget.
Comment by Robert Cox — July 12, 2006 @ 11:27 am
The Mackris story would be a tough call if ICN had been around back then. The subject matter that came out of the story I would have tried to downplay or ignore. But the lawsuit itself, whether meritless or not, was news and I probably would have written about it. Not sure though. That story is a grey area…
Comment by Spud — July 12, 2006 @ 11:28 am
Did I miss something? This “sermon” is being directed at OlbermannWatch?
You didn’t miss anything. It’s not being directed at Olbermann Watch. Terence is referring to my editing one of his comments. The OW reference has nothing to do with that.
Comment by Spud — July 12, 2006 @ 11:30 am
Spud,
You layed out some noble standards here and then say you think the Mackris matter would have been a “tough call” and a “grey area”, that you would have tried to downplay or ignore the subject matter but that you probably would have written about it. You want to apply some journalistic standards to set your site apart? Then try this one: what do you actually KNOW about the Mackris-O’Reilly matter. Not what she alleged. Not what left-wing bloggers have claimed. What do YOU know. The fact is you know damn little other than the allegations were made but not proven and that the lawsuit was settled out of court and the terms sealed. Even though ICN was not around then, you and your readers have referenced the matter many times. Read my post about this for details.
Comment by Robert Cox — July 12, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
Call it whatever you like to Spud and justify it any way you want it, but what you’re engaging in is selective censorship. If a news anchor or news personality does something that makes the news of other media outlets, then I’m sorry, it IS news, whether or not you find the details too unseemly to mention here. Your ignoring those issues won’t make your blog some high-minded virtue of truth, but instead will make it look like what apparently you wish it to be, a site which engages in selective editing to “protect”(?) certain individuals.
Recent events would suggest that there is quite the hypocritical behavior from both sides of the political/news extremes and your ignoring of these items and your refusal to allow them to be posted here would suggest that you are attempting to protect someone. Why would that be exactly?
Comment by MGM — July 12, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
Call it whatever you like to Spud and justify it any way you want it, but what you’re engaging in is selective censorship.
No. It’s called editorial control. Happens all the time. Don’t confuse the issue.
Your ignoring those issues won’t make your blog some high-minded virtue of truth, but instead will make it look like what apparently you wish it to be, a site which engages in selective editing to “protect”(?) certain individuals.
No it will be a site which engages in selective editing to protect ALL individuals. And I’m not aiming to make the blog some high minded virtue of truth. I’m just saying what I’ll allow and what I won’t. Don’t like it? Find another blog.
Recent events would suggest that there is quite the hypocritical behavior from both sides of the political/news extremes and your ignoring of these items and your refusal to allow them to be posted here would suggest that you are attempting to protect someone. Why would that be exactly?
Recent events would also show that MGM has used multiple aliases and email addresses and is trying to push an agenda. Oh look…a mole. Banned…
Comment by Spud — July 12, 2006 @ 1:12 pm
I lost my Ouija board. Which celebrities are immune from criticism? I gather Olbermann is teflon and O’Reilly is velcro, but what about, say, Maury and Connie? Can you publish a list of cable people who are to be left alone?
Comment by What are you talking about? — July 12, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
A search of the site shows Mackris turning up twice in Spud postings, but as part of quotes being republished from other writers. There are more Mackrises in the comments (most of them courtesy of tanne).
Comment by johnny dollar — July 12, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
Mackris filed a lawsuit. The text of the paperwork is readily available on the Internet. It is a matter of public record. Mackris made it legitimate news when she filed the papers with the specific allegations against O’Reilly. There is nothing wrong with legitimate news sources publicizing such a lawsuit…no double standard about it. No immunity from criticism.
(comment edited for appropriateness)
Comment by tanne — July 12, 2006 @ 9:20 pm
It’s a blog on the internet…anything goes.
Comment by Cable News Watcher — July 13, 2006 @ 8:12 am
I think that’s Spud’s point - anything does NOT go. He’s censored many people from across the political spectrum, and I don’t think he wants his site to fall into the gutter, as many others have.
While he allows us broad latitude in voicing our opinions, he seems to want to ensure those things we state as fact are in fact true. Good idea!
Comment by Missy — July 13, 2006 @ 9:23 am
I believe the fact that a commenter on this post has once again referenced Andrea Mackris, loofahs and falafels in his comment only makes my point that the standards described above are being selectively enforced to the benefit of Keith Olbermann and the detriment of Bill O’Reilly.
Comment by Robert Cox — July 13, 2006 @ 10:07 am
Spud,
I admire your commitment to holding us all to a higher set of standards on this site. I have been guilty of exceeding the limits of good taste at times. I will try to monitor my responses better in the future. No more stomping and fuming!
However, IMO, the picture you are showing of “Ms. Briganti” does nothing to raise the level of discourse. What say you?
Comment by cella — July 13, 2006 @ 11:12 am
Cox that was posted yesterday. I gave Tanne the warning after that. If Tanne doesn’t comply, Tanne gets the boot. And I fell behind on blog maintanence because I was busy arguing with you. I can’t do both at the same time.
Regarding the Image. It was part of the program. It was another tough call. Do I ignore it because it’s a stupid Photoshop job of O’Reilly just because it’s in bad taste in some people’s minds when the thing went out over the air, implying a tacit approval by MSNBC and NBC? It seems to me the story is that it went out that way at all. How does one separate the story from without showing the image?
Comment by Spud — July 13, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
You need not worry, Spud. I know how to play by the rules.
Comment by tanne — July 13, 2006 @ 8:58 pm