Why does it appear that interested readers so often attribute flaws to 'the press' rather than taking particular issue with particular reports?
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I read a great number of press reports and find comfort in the fact that they are nearly always conflicting.
The best way of dealing with the press, customers, and critics is to come clean when things go wrong and admit when you make a mistake. We are humans, and no one expects us to be perfect.
We have got to make sure there is proper independent scrutiny and accountability for people in the press, just as there should be in any other industry where things go wrong. But let's not try and think it is for politicians or governments to tell people what they stick in newspapers. That is deeply illiberal.
I have been reading the press more regularly than others over 50 years and it seems to me that there are things that have changed in the press that have changed its character.
The press are animals, and they need to be treated that way.
There's a longstanding tradition that journalists don't cheer in the press box. They have opinions, like anyone else, but they are expected to keep those opinions out of their work.
Careful writing is important for many reasons, not least that intelligent but hurried reporters will trust the presser, resulting in a cascade of secondary damage.
I think when companies are struggling, they don't want to talk to the press. The guys who write business books aren't interested in it because nobody wants to learn what it's like to be a mess, you want to learn how to be successful. That's slanted the whole thing quite a bit.
The press these days should be rather careful about its role. We may have acquired some tendencies about over-involvement that we had better overcome.
I do think the biggest problem newspapers have is loss of trust, and I feel that's a result of failure to speak truth to power.
No opposing quotes found.