Contrary . . . it exists, like all commercial media outlets, to generate income by apealling to a market segment that is underserved by anyone else. Murdoch products are hardly different than those from General Electric, Time Warner, Westinghouse, Disney, Sony or for that matter, Larry Flynt.

Sorry, I honestly believed that there was some integrity in the news business and that the truth was to prevail above all else.

What a fool I've been.

It's no different than the practice of law. My own attorney will never go to the mat on a principle. If there is any possibility of settling the case........at any value.......it's better than spending the money and time on a trial. Another sad commentary of our times.

some might be right, it is certainly less now. Brian Williams of NBC news opined that Cronkite and his ilk could never exist in the newsrooms of today.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/tempe/articles/2009/11/19/20091119cronkite1119.html

In Cronkite's era, facts mattered more, he said. Opinion was kept out of the news. Now, it's difficult to separate news from opinion, but good journalism is out there for those who know where to look, he added.


An attorney does his client a disservice by not discussing the impracticallities of "going to the mat" for "the principle of the thing." Personally, I have seen fortunes squandered "for the priniciple of the thing" despite my own warnings. As a profession, attorneys are often depicted as "hired guns" but that tends to reflect that part of the practice that is all about the billing and not so much about the client.

Fox deals alot in manufactured news which is much different than opinion news.

No objection to an attorney explaining the case to the client and the likelihood of prevailing if he can possibly put a realistic number on it.

But, as you know, most torts are taken on contingency and the cost of the litigation is borne by the attorney. As a profession, it takes an attorney with some integrity who views the law above the last dollar, to take a case to trial rather than settling for a reduced monetary value in order to get the "sure thing".

Nothing in the above paragraph suggests that an attorney should attempt to take a case to trial that has no chance of standing on it's own merits.