Thursday, August 09, 2007

What would happen if someone investigated reporters?

I'm not a Barry Bonds fan in the least, but I'm happy he broke the record because it's good for baseball. One of the things that detracted from his accomplishment was the constant drumbeat of Mr. Bonds not deserving the record because of an alleged use of steroids.

The biggest offense was of this slander when one moment a sports broadcaster was slandering Barry Bonds and five minutes later celebrating Michael Irving's induction to the Pro Football Hall of Fame. It torqued me off that this "reporter" would slander someone that has been not convicted of anything, then celebrate someone that has been convicted of all sorts of drug possessions. (Granted being a Cowboys fan I was repeatedly embarrassed by Mr. Irvin's actions and his induction was anything but a celebration for me).

With all the scandal talk that seams to be streaming from the depths of depravity that the media has no boundaries for, forces me to ponder what would happen if someone started to investigate the private lives of the purveyors of filth. If private lives of citizens are fair game to a scrutiny that would make an autopsy look like taking a person's temperature, why shouldn't those of us that consume news have the right to know what a given reporters religious, political, and philosophical beliefs are? Reporters are nothing more than citizens, I know for a fact that they aren't issued blue tights and a red cape from Columbia School of Journalism. Reporters are just citizens and not above the law, and should not be above scrutiny either.

If reporters performed full-disclosure I wonder if we wouldn't get better quality of reporting, better quality of news stories that don't convict law abiding citizens without a trial, let alone those that may be guilty before they are tried as much if we knew if Katie Couric ever was busted on a drug charge.


Tony Myles said...

She was?


IF she was. I was posing a hypothetical.