Reply #51: Double standards vis a vis accountability: the Jayson Blair example [View All]

> So, why the double standard? Why should I believe them and their anonymous sources and not CHB?

When Jayson Blair was found to be a plagiarist and a fraud:
1) Kurtz of the WP confronted the NYT regarding Blair's stories
2) Blair resigned his position on the NYT staff
3) Both Blair's managing editor and executive editor also resigned
4) The remaining editorial staff and the ombudsman had to offer both an apology for and an investigation of Blair's actions to their readers

Has CHB done anything to demonstrate that they enforce a similar degree of journalistic ethics, however low the bar? I'm really asking this question, not just posing it as a rhetorical device. It's possible the folks at CHB do have some accountability and I haven't heard about it. I would not want to make the mistake of decrying them outright without some notion of how they handle inaccuracies when such errors are brought to their attention.

Nor am I saying that ANY media source should be regarded as credible across the board. Particularly in these dangerous times of media consolidation and overt GOP propaganda, the "mainstream" corporate media has proven itself to be unreliable and irresponsible on many occasions, and does much to wither its own reputation worldwide. What we should be asking of any source is, "What have they done lately to earn our trust?"

Whether the NYT and MSNBC have done much or little to reduce your (really, our) trust, what has CHB done to gain it?