What, if anything, does Raitt-tapegate say about the practice of journalism?
The
story about cabinet minister, Lisa Raitt, the private conversation she
had last January with her aide, Jasmine MacDonnell, the accidental tape
recording which then fell into the hands of a reporter for the Chronicle Herald, certainly seems to be “sexy” judging by the coverage.
Some are reporting…
What, if anything, does Raitt-tapegate say about the practice of journalism?
The story about cabinet minister, Lisa Raitt, the private conversation she had last January with her aide, Jasmine MacDonnell, the accidental tape recording which then fell into the hands of a reporter for the Chronicle Herald, certainly seems to be “sexy” judging by the coverage.
Some are reporting on the reporting, questioning journalistic practices and news judgment: some journalists are sympathetic to Raitt, dishing disdain for their colleagues’ reporting, arguing we all say things in private that we would never say in public.
On the other hand, columnists such as Naomi Lakrit of the Calgary Herald, argue this is a fine (not finest) hour for journalism, giving “lie to those who declare newspapers are obsolete in this day of blogging and citizen journalism. …. Bloggers will sit at home at their computers and opine to their heart’s content about these issues, but it was newspaper reporters who did the work and broke the stories.”
The nine-page affidavit by the Chronicle Herald reporter, Stephen Maher, is a fascinating “tick-tock” of the decisions the source, the reporter, and his editors made in assessing the story.
At J-Source we’re scratching our heads, asking, “What should we be asking?” Are there questions of news judgment here? Or ethics? Or emphasis? Or is it even possible that all the journalists involved have (gasp!) simply done their jobs? We’d like to hear from you. What do YOU think?
[node:ad]
What, if anything, does Raitt-tapegate say about the practice of journalism?
What, if anything, does Raitt-tapegate say about the practice of journalism?
The
story about cabinet minister, Lisa Raitt, the private conversation she
had last January with her aide, Jasmine MacDonnell, the accidental tape
recording which then fell into the hands of a reporter for the Chronicle Herald, certainly seems to be “sexy” judging by the coverage.
Some are reporting…
What, if anything, does Raitt-tapegate say about the practice of journalism?
The story about cabinet minister, Lisa Raitt, the private conversation she had last January with her aide, Jasmine MacDonnell, the accidental tape recording which then fell into the hands of a reporter for the Chronicle Herald, certainly seems to be “sexy” judging by the coverage.
Some are reporting on the reporting, questioning journalistic practices and news judgment: some journalists are sympathetic to Raitt, dishing disdain for their colleagues’ reporting, arguing we all say things in private that we would never say in public.
On the other hand, columnists such as Naomi Lakrit of the Calgary Herald, argue this is a fine (not finest) hour for journalism, giving “lie to those who declare newspapers are obsolete in this day of blogging and citizen journalism. …. Bloggers will sit at home at their computers and opine to their heart’s content about these issues, but it was newspaper reporters who did the work and broke the stories.”
The nine-page affidavit by the Chronicle Herald reporter, Stephen Maher, is a fascinating “tick-tock” of the decisions the source, the reporter, and his editors made in assessing the story.
At J-Source we’re scratching our heads, asking, “What should we be asking?” Are there questions of news judgment here? Or ethics? Or emphasis? Or is it even possible that all the journalists involved have (gasp!) simply done their jobs? We’d like to hear from you. What do YOU think?
[node:ad]Janice Neil
June 12, 2009
It was thievery, pure and
It was thievery, pure and simple. If I find a wallet, do I empty the contents before giving it back? Do I download the content from a blackberry or iPhone I find before the owner comes to get it? NO!
You find a tape recorder in the washroom, you turn it into security. End of story.
Besides, all I read in the stories about the tape was a politician speaking frankly – something ALL reporters say they want to hear. But apparently, we only want to hear it so we can RAKE them hard over the coals.
So why would any politician speak frankly again? And for that matter, why would anyone want to be a politician??
June 17, 2009
Instead of jumping on
Instead of jumping on Minister Raitt for speaking in ways we are all guilty of, why didn’t enterprising Ottawa reporters explore how people are hired to work on The Hill?
It’s astounding that Ms. MacDonnell would forget important documents not once, but twice, and then not even bother to retrieve them in one instance.
As a taxpayer, and a journalist, I’d like to know where these staffers come from and how they’re hired. Why not some in-depth reporting about the lightweights working for the heavyweights in Ottawa?