Journalism etiquette

July 24, 2007 3:25 AM

Since Rupes went to great lengths to protect Wendi, see some other examples of newspaper self-censorship
posted by Geezum Crowe (14 comments total)

I bought some Chinese rag just to read their translation of that Wendi Deng piece. Comes to something when it's in the Chinese press but squashed abroad. That said, it was rather dull and gossipy and I never finished reading it.
posted by Abiezer at 3:29 AM on July 24, 2007

I'd say you're right. It was thousands, and thousands, and thousands of words long and had absolutely nothing interesting to say. It was obviously well researched, and Ellis knows his subject, but it was a little too dull to be gossipy and a little too dumb to be educational.
posted by Geezum Crowe at 3:33 AM on July 24, 2007

I had no idea what the hell you were talking about until I clicked on the link. I suppose it is good to beat censorship, so, now I know, but uh... context next time, maybe?
posted by blacklite at 4:09 AM on July 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

Streets of shame.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 5:33 AM on July 24, 2007

Creepy Media Tycoon silences journalists for personal benefit, News at 11:00.

What? We're not running that piece?
posted by MasonDixon at 6:09 AM on July 24, 2007 [2 favorites]

Well, besides the Chinese version where can I read the Wendi Deng article? I would like to judge for myself whether the article has merit on it's own rather than a cause or example of Murdoch's usual interfering ways.
posted by jadepearl at 6:42 AM on July 24, 2007

Shades of Citizen Kane.
posted by empath at 6:45 AM on July 24, 2007

I'm more concerned about possible market manipulation by his impending purchase of Dow Jones, and am getting a headache trying to connect the dots between that story and Wendi.

On the other hand, Geezum Crowe is my favorite user name of the week.
posted by SteveInMaine at 7:16 AM on July 24, 2007

Thank you very much. If I told you were it was from I'd have to explain to you where it was from.
posted by Geezum Crowe at 7:56 AM on July 24, 2007

Consider what Murdoch also owns.
posted by davy at 8:33 AM on July 24, 2007

Yes, but he's given Groening and Brooks an inordinate amount of freedom over the years to do exactly what they want with the show. The episode where Kent Brockman quits his news job features repeated, explicit attacks on Fox News and its relationship with the Republican Party.
posted by Geezum Crowe at 9:11 AM on July 24, 2007

the freedom afforded a few artists is barely perceptible to the damage he's done to democracy through manipulating news. sure, the simpsons take jabs on occasion, but it's nothing compared to giving the likes of bill o'reilly a soapbox.
posted by andywolf at 9:47 AM on July 24, 2007

*notes that Geezum Crowe has suppressed all personal information including location in his/her profile*
posted by Cranberry at 1:23 PM on July 24, 2007

I only pay attention to Australian news when it involves Sir Les Patterson. That guy is outrageous.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 1:34 PM on July 24, 2007