-
Sofia 2022-01-07 15:54:50
Classmate, is this your virginity?
The guy is so handsome. If he looks a little bit ugly and special, he should have won an early fame and won the prize. This film is absolutely terrific, and he is a natural actor. Although in the past few years as Yishui, I followed the trend of the same type of biographical movies of liars,...
-
Celestine 2022-01-07 15:54:50
About "news truth" mapping the current news industry crisis is worth seeing
I didn't plan to write anything, but when I was about to shut down, I saw the misleading "kind" face on the poster with the male pig's feet. I was also in love with the news industry and I had to sigh with emotion about this film.
The long-shot monologue at the very beginning (which is repeated at...
James Berlingieri
Related articles
-
Stephen Glass: I'm so dead. I mean, I'm over. Nobody's ever going to hire me again, are they? I was so sloppy trusting my sources like that... and then lying about it. And to Chuck, of all people. I mean, the one guy who's hated me all along.
Michael Kelly: [talking on the stairs inside the lobby of his office building] I'm sure that none of this is personal.
Stephen Glass: No? Chuck keeps a list in his head... everybody who's a "Michael Kelly" person. A couple of times, I said some things I shouldn't have said... about you. So now I'm on it. That's why he's so set on killing me now.
Michael Kelly: Well, I have to tell you, Steve, he's within his rights. The things you did were fireable offenses.
Stephen Glass: I know. I'm not saying that they weren't. I did some terrible, terrible things. But believe me, Michael, Chuck doesn't care about any of it. It's my loyalty to you that he's punishing me for.
-
Stephen Glass: [Speaking to Mrs. Duke's students] I'd like to pause for a moment. You can't really go into the world of journalism without first understanding how a piece gets edited at a place like TNR. This is the system that Michael Kelly brought with him from The New Yorker, a three day torture test. If your article is good, the process will only make it better. If your article is shaky, you're in for a long week. A story comes in, and it goes to a senior editor. He or she edits it on computer then calls in the writer, who makes revisions. Then the piece goes to a second editor, and the writer revises it again. Then it goes through a fact-check where every fact in the piece, every date, every title, every place or assertion is checked and verified. Then the piece goes to a copy editor where it is scrutinized once again. Then it goes to lawyers, who apply their own burdens of proof. Marty looks at it, too. He's very concerned with any kind of comment the magazine is making. Then production takes it and lays it out in columns inches and type. Then it goes back on paper, then back to the writer, back to the copy editor, back to editor number one and editor number two, back to the fact-checker, back to the writer, and back to production again. Throughout, those lawyers are reading and rereading, looking for red flags, anything that feels uncorroborated. Once they're satisfied, the pages are reprinted, and it all happens again. Every editor, the fact-checkers, they all go through it one last time. Now, most of you will start out as interns somewhere. And interns do a lot of fact-checking. So pay close attention. There is a hole in the fact-checking system. A big one. The facts in most pieces can be checked against some type of source material. If an article is on, say, Ethanol subsidies, you can check for discrepancies against the congressional record, trade publications... LexisNexis, footage from C-SPAN. But on other pieces, the only source material available are the notes provided by the reporter himself.
