And for the record. Jacobsen admits wrongdoing, thought an apology with network executives she "loved" and who loved her, would get her out of trouble. I find it interesting that Channel 2 was next door at the same exact moment as Amy J?
Sounds like the perky little cheerleader who edited our high school yearbook.Obviously, her feet were nowhere near the ground. What is this France? It's inappropriate and, if nothing else, creates an appearence of impropriety. She claims she has new stuff to report -- but it's less important to her to share what she's learned so the truth can come out than to wait until she's hired by someone else before sharing what she's allegedly learned?
Keep your head high Amy!The only thing Amy is guilty of is "poor judgment." She crossed the line in the story, and a male reporter who would've done the same thing would've caused controversy as well. And yes, I know, he's not been even formally accused of any crime, but there are questions about Craig Stebic which he has not been able to satisfactorily resolve. Amy Jacobson explains why she … I don't view this guy as a source, I view him as a potential suspect.
5. Amy Jacobson's interview today added dimension to the story but, in hindsight, didn't change what I had to say all that much. Channel 2 established itself as sleazy prevaricating mud-slingers the way they chopped their video and reported the story.
They've dominated the market for 21 years and will do so for another 21. While you're at it you should also feed me some super-sized McDonalds, a pack of cigarettes, and transport me to that nudist colony because your consumer sample base may want those things too.One minute you have an industry of learn-ed academics with some kind of code of ethics that's so gray I'd mistake it for a elephant's-, the next minute you report, react, and write. CBS-2 should be ashamed.Until I hear "I sinned, I'm sorry for it, and God has forgiven me", I have NO sympathy for her plight. By countering as you did with exagerated timing like a week that tells me you just flat out don't care about the accuracy of the story (see West Virginia coal miners above).
Posted by: Drew | Wednesday, July 11, 2007 at 11:13 AM. Trying to help a family friend of hers and her husband's? They understand as we understand and you probably understand as well that things change, information evolves, sources come forward, tales turn on a dime.
This has nothing to with ethics but everything to do with gender. What is the difference between that and any other place? NBC has a lousy prime-time lineup and executives who make Fred Silverman's time at the network (in the '70's) look like a success, while CBS News and CBS Radio are nothing home to write about. Both WMAQ-Ch. I can't imagine what they were thinking in letter her go.
It's about perception, and a business has a vested interest in protecting their perception and reputation.
If management cannot reveal the specific source, then at least come clean and tell the public HOW they obtained the video...The secrecy adds an air of impropriety on their part as well. 5 and let her bosses know during her hour long drive out to Plainfield? Jeez, now there's some terrific insight. Wow. This shows the hypocrisy or two-face attitude of the news media. Yup, I'm still employed. '"She did cross a serious line in her behavior, and it is inappropriate to talk about news sources as "good friends.
Suck it up, learn from it and move on, dear Amy. I think she was one of the sedxiest reporter, but I think that move was not to smart to make to swim at a persons house that is under investigation for his missing wife. She thought they were all her friends? Zorn, you and she both are off base on this one. The impression of the bathing suit and the children present admittedly did not look good...it presented a much "cosier" situation than what was actually happening.
Isn't the origin of that tape an important part of the story? it's definitely a weasely move on ch.