Well. He will be labelled as one who does not want there to be TRANSPARENCY to aid the public. That is the label given when reporters want to be in the know to ensure they come out from there with evidence in hand - before anyone else if possible.
Already I've read comments about possible ways to evade compliance with this request. We are or we can be willfully stiff-necked about our druthers on the pretext of wanting the public "to know." No. I suggest in this situation the nay-sayers want to be the FIRST to get the word out, even if illegally, since they are being asked to refrain from using social media reporting DURING the speaker's time at the podium. The agency should band having gadgets for all speakers, which would help anyone who has labored in preparation for the work, and which is no small feat.
It is a sorry state of reporting when journalists fail to see the big picture of media. Who wants to take a chance on having such highly important and intelligent communications as this will be, interrupted by foreign elements and interference, even if so-and-so did it in the past ("last year").
The subject and purpose of this meeting (I suggest) has world-wide importance or they would not be having it. Some journalists' ego-mania will get the best of them, though, and they will probably "disregard" whatever they please. I would not want to miss a word Mr. Clinton (or the other speaker(s) either) will say. He is thorough, and he is an excellent orator.
Now watch the media be plied daily about this requirement. Probably there will be topics on prime time reporting, talk show news, radio stations, etc., unless something truly drastic happens elsewhere. If journalism concentrated more on that word, those who are prone to sensationalism and drama would cease and desist, thereby becoming news reporters again instead of overbearing intruders and actors (I miss the dry (precise) and orderly facts of news I used to delve into when CCTV news was on the air. I could use my own imagination and think for myself more, without having so much to filter out.
Of course, we know ALL media are not this way, including biased among other things. But those that are, are unprofessional. It is amazing. Where media should be staunch in their resolve to report things of utmost importance, they allow for the most part for that reporting to be overlooked, distorted, or compromised in some way.
In this case, the implications of not having media devices in the meeting place is being blown out of proportion at this minute and will probably get more distorted, while suggesting someone be held in suspect for lack of transparency. I believe in transparency, but not self-willed intrusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment