Jun 22 2007
Disclaimer: No Reporters Have Been Harmed By This Post
Tom Elia at The New Editor points to a really, really arrogant statement by Roger Ebert that actually speaks volumes about the mindset of the media.
Though I disagree with his political views, I like movie critic Roger Ebert, and respect his abilities as a movie reviewer.
However, this excerpt from a review of A Mighty Heart, a movie about the kidnapping of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, is simply ridiculous and speaks volumes about how many in the press seem to view their critics:
The Americans who complain about "negative" news are the ideological cousins of those who shoot at CNN crews. The news is the news, good or bad, and those who resent being informed of it are pitiful.
Which brings up the question: how, exactly, has Ebert made his living for all these years? Why it's by criticizing others! While I certainly derive no financial benefit from running this blog, Ebert has lived quite well off his complaints about movies and movie makers. But to point out what is perceived to be biased reporting in not akin to trying to shoot a journalist. Ebert appears to believe - as do many in the media - that by virtue of their position that they are above criticism - regardless of reason. If the news was, indeed, the news that would be one thing. Unfortunately, the "news" these days is increasingly the criticism and opinion of the reporter. Shining a light under the rock isn't intellectually akin to shooting a reporter. Demanding accurate coverage from the media should not even be necessary. But, sadly, it is.





