So you'd trust the uneducated (in journalism) politicians and bureaucrats to be able to figure out enough about journalism to be able to tell whether a noobie journalist will disobey his/her future employer's wishes to put a spin on a story before they get employment? rofl
That would depend upon who the reporters would be employed by, right? Reporters usually get told by their employers what angle to put on a story. How would these unlicensed reporters even be employed?
This is just what stumbling block he will run into, he will never get it past. No idea why he even is trying.
Shouldn't there be some sort of disclaimer stating that 'manipulation' is a standard practice. Since 'news' covers the 'dealings of politicians' and other public funded 'employees'. The 'target audience' is the same people that pay those salaries and they should not be fed something that has not been thoroughly investigated. If slander is an issue make the 'story' a legal charge and let the Police and the Courts make statements to the press which should also be truthful statements. The best defense for Politicians would be to surround himself with 'listeners' so everything he does in relation to that salary is easily verified. Attending closed door meetings is a conspiracy if the public sector is discussing ways to 'enhance themselves' at the expense of their employers, a charge that does have legal consequences. Once the charges clear the courts (or Gov committee if they start slowing down the courts too much) there isn't much room for a slander suit. The Mulroney/Airbus affair could have been avoided by a crime-stoppers tip and anything in print would have come from official RCMP statements or comments made by the Judge that would hear the details of the charges. Lawyers could not make public statements, unless they want to open themselves up for some person injury cases.
Such a very amazing link!
