In their weekly audio discussion – Part 1 & Part 2 – Stephen F. Cohen asks John Batchelor an important question:
Doctors are frequently sued for malpractice if they make any mistakes. How come journalists can’t be sued for REPEATED systematic malpractice?
#JournalisticMalpractice
Journalists are scum. Parasites on society. The only trade that exploits its primary resource for free and sells it back. At least the National Inquirer will pay for your story before they sell it back to you. And the CBC still needs taxpayer dollars to work after getting the stories for free in the first place. Scum.
*
remember the big media splash about ontario’s first
bricks & mortar dope shop?
Travel to the Bay of Quinte Mohawk Reserve and take your pick of
the estimated four dozen “smoke shops” that have been fiercely
competing with one another since last year. No dope tax bonanza
here.
*
That’s where we usually gas up….the car, that is…….expanding exponentially.
The answer is easy: journalism is not a profession; it’s a vocation.
Doctors and lawyers, among others, belong to self governing organizations like the CMA or the Law Society. They have codes of conduct that they have to adhere to. They can be sued for malpractice or negligence if they fail to meet a reasonably high standard of competence. The harm caused by a negligent doctor or lawyer can be devastating.
What so called journalists have done reasonably well, at least up until now, is to persuade the general public that they are “professional” and unbiased in their approach to reporting. Anyone paying attention knows that that simply isn’t true, and hasn’t been true for more than 20 years.
The most effective way to deal with these people is to ignore them. Stop watching and stop reading. Stop buying the product.
I know, I know! It’s because you have reason to expect that a doctor will know what he’s doing, and that following his instructions is in your best interests. With journalists, if you believe what they tell you, you deserve to be screwed over.
Here’s a recent letter to the Star about Tony Burman’s track record:
“The Star makes a fuss about fact checking Trump. Let’s check Tony Burman’s track record on Trump related predictions.
Prior to the last U.S. Presidential election he wrote: “And his campaign has ended, with fewer than 20 days until election day, with a largely clueless Trump providing the most eloquent case for a Clinton landslide.”
Last December Burman made this fearless prediction under the heading ‘Mueller declares Trump illegitimate:’ “America’s great constitutional crisis finally unfolds. In spite of Trump’s attacks, special counsel Robert Mueller is able to issue his report, which is a scathing condemnation of the president and his family for committing a multitude of crimes. He concludes that Trump is an illegitimate president acting more like the boss of s crime family in the pocket of the Russian mafia than the duly elected head of the world’s oldest democracy. Mueller reveals that Trump conspired with the Russian government to steal the 2016 election and worked tirelessly after that to cover it up.”
So, now we are asked to believe that Robert Mueller is just meekly sitting by while Attorney General Barr lies to the American people by completely distorting the key findings of the his report. Columnist Burman tells us that dirt fatal to Trump’s presidency is obviously being covered up in a massive conspiracy.
Trump derangement syndrome is apparently an incurable disease impervious to facts.”
The Red Star makes a big deal out of checking every rhetorical flourish of President Trump but is remarkably silent on the transgressions of Prime Minister Trudeau. They need to stick to their own country. Of course they have no credibility on anything and cannot see their own bias. The holier than thou liberal Canadian is an international embarrassment. The slogan “the world needs more Canada” is disrespectful and nauseating.
The press should be sued in instances of wilful misrepresentation of the facts. That’s a difficult thing to prove but repeated and gross misrepresentations constitute significant evidence. An obvious agenda would also go to motive.
There was a time when Used Car Salesmen, Ambulance Chasing Shyster Lawyers, Politicians and even Prostitutes used to be considered lowest on the scale of respect for an occupation. Well now Journalism and News Reporters have slipped to a position so far lower than any of these. These Media people used to have so much power, but now we can see them for the scum they are. Thanks to the internet, their control of the narrative has all but been lost, their manipulative methods have now been exposed.
When you are lowest form of life on the planet, when you are suck ups to power, when you are hidebound ideologues, and seek only self aggrandizement as the narcissists you are and therefore can’t even comprehend the damage you routinely do, what would constitute malpractice?
Journalists can’t be sued for malpractice because no established, professional standard exists to define and control journalism’s behaviour as it does for professions such as doctors, lawyers, engineers, and teachers.
Second, if journalists could be sued, then anyone who publishes ANY sort of news could be hauled into court and sued for even a simple mistake.
Third, if journalists could be sued, then anyone in any other line of work could be hauled into court and sued for even a simple mistake.
The best way to hold journalists accountable is to avoid purchasing their product.
Gary D.
There is no way to keep journalists accountable in Canada any more. The confiscated taxes the government takes at gunpoint is now used to buy that same product. Isn’t socialism great?
And, as we can see from their new climate change piece of information this week, government largesse will buy any kind of journalism they want.
FREE SASKABERTA!!!!!!
How come journalists can’t be sued for REPEATED systematic malpractice?
I believe the answer to that question falls under the public policy principle of FYTW (“F*ck you, that’s why”).
Or meteorologists, or politicians, or economists, or school administrators or…………………………..
When you can prove you’ve suffered damages due to a reporter, we usually call it a claim for libel, or slander, or defamation. You can sue a reporter for those things.
If a reporter profits personally from an intentional lie, we can also get him for fraud.
We just don’t call it malpractice.
It’s worse than you think.The Toronto Star and most others belong to the National NewsMedia Council, an organization that supposedly polices integrity in the print media. Hah! When you file a complaint the NNC will ignore objective easily ascertainable facts and go to the wall to defend the Star’s right to lie to people.
I am currently complaining about a Star article that claimed “the world has become nearly five times as dangerous since the 1970’s due to climate change.” In reality, deaths due to extreme weather have dropped significantly despite a doubling of the population. There is only one credible source for data and the Star claim can be traced back to a mathematical error by a sloppy and/or dishonest activist reporter. It’s a slam dunk case but I fully expect the NNC to rule in the Star’s favour.
Did I forget to mention that the NNC is funded by the Star?
it is almost impossible to sue leftists
95% of journalists are leftists
leftists are above the law
although not journalists Podesta and Manafort did the exact same job were paid by the same people in the same way, Podesta the democrat is free as a bird, Manafort will spend 20 or 30 years in jail
Hillary did too many crimes to list here, she is free as a bird
in this day and age, being a leftist gives you universal immunity
malpractice? in other words a mishtake through ignorance, fatigue, inattention inETFCKINCETERA. but NOT deliberate.
as opposed to malfeasance: deliberate, calculated, willful, intentional distortions?
ya mean THAT difference?
iow, the accusation malpractice does NOT apply.
Cause what our preening presstitutes do, is not malpractice.
They are performing exactly as trained.
What I love is the political response, we the consumer have stopped buying the media’s product..so the pollies bail them out with our money.
This does make the naked propaganda from both groups very obvious.
I think CNN and the Washington Post are being sued for their biased, non-facts based reporting about the Convington Catholic students who happened to be at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington at an unfortunate time (for them).
Sued yes, but not for malpractice, rather for libel.