Post Gives Upbeat Review To Its Radio Station [Archive]

View Full Version : Post Gives Upbeat Review To Its Radio Station

bobrobot

03-31-2006, 05:01 AM

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/30/AR2006033002129.html" target="_blank">Post Gives Upbeat Review To Its Radio Station</a> (I got this from DVRTV.COM, I'm no newshound!)Shouldn't something like this be illegal?

Tenbatsuzen

03-31-2006, 05:13 AM

bobogolem wrote: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/30/AR2006033002129.html">Post Gives Upbeat Review To Its Radio Station</a> (I got this from DVRTV.COM, I'm no newshound!)Shouldn't something like this be illegal?  The Post runs a disclaimer that they have a stake in the venture, so no.  It's the same as Entertainment Weekly or Time giving a positive review to a Warner Brothers movie.

EliSnow

03-31-2006, 05:38 AM

(Note:  I wrote the below rant about the New York Post, without reading the article about the Washington Post linked by Bobo above.  Sorry, and unless you want to read a rant about the New York Post there is nothing to see here).I hate the Post for a number of reasons, including a lack of journalistic integrity, but there is one specific reason that gets me pissed off whenever I think about the Post.  Sometime within the year or so, the Post ran the story about the testimony from the Air Force general who said that the airport controllers did not act swift enough in notifying the correct authorities when the 9/11 planes were hijacked.  The general further stated that if the controllers had been quicker the military could have scrambled their jets in time to shoot down at least the second plane that hit the WTC.However, the general also admitted that the White House did not give such an order until a hour or so after the second plane hit the WTC.  So even if the controllers had been quicker, the military could not have shot down the second plane.  The Post runs this story as the top story with a cover essentially blaming the controllers for the second plane hitting the WTC, and picture of the burning Towers.  In the actual article itself, they ran the whole story about the timing of the hijackings, notificaiton, etc., and it wasn't until the very last sentence that they included the admission by the Air Force general that the military did not get the shoot down order until much later.Now my wife lost her brother in the South Tower, and she saw the cover and read the first portion of the article and gets majorly upset about the whole thing and how it could have been stopped if the controllers had done their jobs better.  Because of her emotions, she never finished the article or read the last paragraph.  While the Post's lack of journalism responsibility or competence was not news to me, this event really pissed me off, and I'll never trust the Post on any true news story.Now to get off my soap box.  

This message was edited by EliSnow on 3-31-06 @ 10:05 AM

cupcakelove

03-31-2006, 06:00 AM

Which post are you talking about?

EliSnow

03-31-2006, 06:03 AM

cupcakelove wrote: Which post are you talking about? Good point.  I never even read the article Bobo linked, so I didn't realize he was talking about the Washington Post and not the New York Post (which was the Post I was talking about).   Which I should have realized anyway would be Washington given where Bobo is located.I'm a moron.  Sorry everyone.

cupcakelove

03-31-2006, 06:12 AM

I've done the same thing, in the past.  Given an emotional
response to a subject only to find out after the fact that I was
discussing something completely different.  The Washington Post
gives reviews on many different things and does not hide that fact that
they have a stake in the station.  They even refer to the station
as Post Radio in the title.  I see nothing wrong with what they
did.