Skip to main content

View Diary: In 'defense' of ABC's Jon Karl (98 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It raises an even larger point (10+ / 0-)

    Which is the degree to which the Washington press corp must trade accuracy for access.

    Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

    by blue aardvark on Mon May 20, 2013 at 07:09:35 AM PDT

    •  This assumes (9+ / 0-)

       the press corp "trades" for anything. They don't--they all have access. What happens is, they do as they're told by the ownership of whatever mouthpiece they collect a paycheck from.  

      Which explains Karl's non-apology. That's a non-pology written by a lawyer if I ever saw one. That shit never comes from anywhere else than "corporate".

      "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

      by lunachickie on Mon May 20, 2013 at 07:20:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not so sure about that, honestly. (0+ / 0-)

        The essence of the story is false, and there is no way an attorney can put a good spin on that to mitigate damage.  

        I think the nopology came from corporate (as you say) but from its PR department (not legal) hoping that the not so news savvy everyday viewer (and even more so, their advertisers) will accept it as an apology and not stray away.

        Advertisers are the key. The advertiser needs to be able to tell furious callers (are we organizing to make calls to sponsors?) that the reporter apologized.

        I think it's all PR, personally.

        My guess is that legal  would just advise firing the guy, most likely.

        © grover


        So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

        by grover on Mon May 20, 2013 at 12:32:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Also begs the question... (7+ / 0-)

      ...why is he still protecting his source?

      That source critically damaged Karl's professional credibility (cough), and ABC News itself.  How much damage can a anonymous source wreak before a reporter finally says, "Enough. I've been burned and here's who burned me."  

      Same with ABC.  Karl should be fired but they're protecting Karl and the source.

      Why?   Hunch: Cuz through retaliation, they don't want to lose access with this (high-ranking) source and the source's (high ranking) GOP peers.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site