There may not be an ethics code “written down” somewhere for journalists, doesn’t mean individual journalists can’t have their own “ethics codes.”

Which means those journalist won’t run rumors, or random comments from non-named sources. They won’t slaughter a person’s career based on the fact their name is well known and was mentioned in a investigation without some serious facts to back it up. They won’t run the names of victims, no matter how “juicy” the story behind the name may be. They rely on facts and do their darndest to remain unbiased.

Just as lawyers, doctors, etc. have “specialties” so do journalists. Some, very few these days, are investigative reporters who have 3 months to work on one story.

Others, have an hour to write 2 or 3 before deadline to fill the paper on a daily basis, all the while, trying to make sure they are correct and as informative as possible.

That doesn’t make that reporter less gutsy – they are doing their job. They are doing what is expected of them by their employer (who pays their wage) and faulting them for doing less, would be like criticising a civil attorney for not taking on a criminal case.

2nd para: I have a slightly less jaundiced view of what Merkel was up to than you do. Part of it is that in a large sense the things I’m wondering about are secondary to what Merkel was chasing. Unless the criminal trial goes all the way back (I have reasons to doubt it will), I think what Merkel did will be the most we’ll ever know about mcuh of that. Next time I go through those transcripts I’ll think about loose ends not pursued rather than just trying to figure out what happened.

And speaking of Merkle and PL, from my reading of those old transcripts from the depositions of PL and Scruggs ( re PL), the questions posed and leads not followed when they were under oath was a bit disappointing to me from such an experienced attorney. I recall thinking: ” is that it? you’re gonna let them get away with those lame ass vague answers without further challenge or digging”??

On another point, I’ve been pondering all day what people mentioned in the motion or thinking tonight. Now that would be a good interview.

Editors note on last post: All papers are hurting.

The media outlets in MS are barely able to afford keeping up with daily news. If there are any reporters whose job is long term investigative reporting of the deep long term sort, I don’t know them. I really think the problem is lack of $s to do the work, and nothing more. Seriously.

I think P.L. Blake and Trent Lott are different problems.

P.L. Blake is a story that is invisible to any public record. It’s the kind of story a reporter is least able to cover. Charlie Merkel, an agressive lawyer with access to subpoenas, who was chasing Scruggs like Ahab and the whale, never really got to the bottom of P.L. Blake.

Lott– there may have been some similarities in that some of the story was “off stage” without public sources. And an asst US Atty effectively vouched for him, saying he was only a witness (I’ve never bought that).

The bottom line may be the same about both. Calvin Trillin noted that one of the sources of reporter’s facinations with trials is that witnesses don’t get to say “no comment.” The subpoena power is kindred.

But, likely, such investigative reporting is lacking on the above topics for the same reason we will have NO real investigation (by Congress or the news media) of the recent financial crisis.

And the same reason there was no real hard hitting investigation by the news media (or any govt. prosecution) of the past Global Crossing debacle (when it involved as much or more book cooking and crooked dealings than the Enron and Worldcom scandals, and was certainly just as big or bigger moneywise).

Too many big dogs on both sides of the aisle involved in all of these matters. Whose goose is getting cooked seems to trump any “ethics” in journalism and news reporting these days. IF you can’t get the “right” folks, then why bother.