Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 26 of 26
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    To an extent, it does. If they are expecting their audience to believe its truth because they said it, then yes, it does matter. That is why a journalist will completely lose their reputation if they edit (or fabricate) a video to make their subject look a certain way. If a journalist presents a video clip of something, one should put at least a little more stock in it, than say if Glenn Beck or Michael Moore present it. The latter two may show you a video that is completely true, but the chances that they edited it to present the subject in a way that is not the whole truth is somewhat higher.
    If you said it SHOULD, I might agree with you, but today "journalist" doesn't seem to mean much. People that claim to be "journalists" are often wildly biased.

    I'd love to believe that we have a large contingent of basically unbiased Journalists who are dedicated to reporting the news. I'd say that's fairly rare anymore.

    What we seem to have are partisans who decry the journalists who have bias they disagree with, while ignoring the bias (often blatant bias) in the journalists they do agree with.

    That's why Administration officials whining about Fox news are so pathetic, and wildly hypocritical. They've depended on manipulation of, and cooperation of biased journalists that favor them. The audacity of their hypocrisy is staggering to me. Is Fox biased to the right? Um...yes, but THAT'S a problem while the open bias to the left of many other "news" outlets isn't.

    Back to the key point--Journalism isn't what it used to be.

    KAM
  2. #22  
    First, "he" (i.e. the President of the United States) can't bail out anything. He can propose a bailout, but legislation must come from Congress. Second, I would evaluate any bailout of any industry primarily based upon the overall impact on the economy of a collapse. Personally, I don't think the failure of some newspapers, while a bad thing, would have the impact that the uncontrolled failure of AIG or GM would have had.

    As to "what Anita wants to provide," setting aside the mischaracterization of what she said inherent in this entire thread starting with the first post, every news organization is free to report whatever it wants, and to be held responsible by the public for the job it does. Part of that is looking at its ownership for possible biases, whether it's Rupert Murdoch, GE of NBC, or the gov't in a bailout. I'm a critical consumer of news regardless of the source. {Jonathan}
    Last edited by Jonathan I Ezor; 10/20/2009 at 08:22 PM.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    This isn't a one sided issue, and I'm sure most politicians would love to avoid having anyone question them. That's exactly what the Obama campaign accomplished to a large degree.

    I don't trust the mainstream media anymore than I do politicians, but I find it valuable for them to balance each other out. I'm sure you are aware of the role of the media as watchdogs. When politicians (who tend to promote what is best for them, not what is objective and true) successfully bypass scrutiny, then we are left with a politicians highly massaged and orchestrated message.



    I think you are completely off base here. It isn't a matter of anyone thinking for themselves. Your concept seems to assume that the media are distorting things, but the politician is being honest and truthful. If you don't acknowledge that politicians lie, and omit things in order to pander to particular groups, or to make themselves seem to be something they aren't then you've got a very naive view of the world. I highly doubt that you believe this however.

    What you seem to be suggesting is to simply take politicians at their word, and say its a good thing when they avoiding being questioned. That is a formula for disaster in a free society. I am not willing to place blind trust in politicians or the media, which is why the watchdog function is so vital. Of course, that is nearly non-existent, so I guess I'm really hoping for something that is already nearly dead.

    Political campaigns goals aren't to tell the truth and be objective--its to get a candidate elected, and while I agree theoretically that voters should be informed, we need news reporters to do more than distribute campaign propaganda.

    KAM
    I hardly assume politicians are telling the truth, but nor do I assume the news media reporting what they claim politicians said are telling the truth. Let me hear the complete speech, in its context, and let me decide what I think about it. None of the mainstream or cable news outlets does that, regardless of possible slant; that's why I have long depended on Sirius/XM's POTUS and C-SPAN rather than a "news network" for election or political info. For that matter, when a network is interviewing a candidate or official, I prefer a live to edited interview, since again I can more accurately judge the complete context.

    This isn't about investigative journalism or not asking hard questions; this is about removing editors and pundits as a possible filter and distortion. I continue to ask: what's wrong with wanting to do that?
  4. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan I Ezor View Post
    I hardly assume politicians are telling the truth, but nor do I assume the news media reporting what they claim politicians said are telling the truth. Let me hear the complete speech, in its context, and let me decide what I think about it. None of the mainstream or cable news outlets does that, regardless of possible slant; that's why I have long depended on Sirius/XM's POTUS and C-SPAN rather than a "news network" for election or political info. For that matter, when a network is interviewing a candidate or official, I prefer a live to edited interview, since again I can more accurately judge the complete context.

    This isn't about investigative journalism or not asking hard questions; this is about removing editors and pundits as a possible filter and distortion. I continue to ask: what's wrong with wanting to do that?
    First--you are being excessively generous in your characterization of this I think. It isn't about avoiding malicious editing. It is about packaging a message that is favorable by AVOIDING media scrutiny. If you don't believe that the media has an important watchdog role, then naturally, you won't see a problem with this.

    What's wrong is that this insures that the public is getting a one-sided, distorted message. Campaigns by their very nature are going to put out information that is biased towards their candidate. What this person is bragging about is their success at doing that. What's wrong is that the public is then fed distorted propaganda instead of objective information. I think that's a problem. You are cheering the success at bypassing scrutiny. I think politicians require constant scrutiny.

    Perhaps YOU can spend time listening to all the speeches from both sides and have the additional tools and information needed to distill the truth (although I doubt an individual has those resources to the degree needed), and I enjoy fuller information myself. However, you are not mentioning the reality of things--the voting public does not tend to do that. I claim that the vast majority (especially the older folks) depend heavily on the evening news or even newspapers, because they were brought up to trust them. If a news organization is manipulated successfully (which they were) to the point where they only get the Campaign's biased statements, without questioning and without analysis, and they report this, what is the result? The result is that a large segment (I suspect a large majority) gets this biased information.

    Now, perhaps the media is a willing accomplice and is happy to report a given campaign's propaganda, and if that's the case...well, not much difference, but at least there is a chance that someone will interject some objectivity.

    I think perhaps you are attempting to claim that listening to two biased statements (like from two campaigns) results in an objective outcome. That doesn't seem likely given that each may omit many facts which end up being most relevant--and that's before accounting for active lies.

    So, given that I think it is very unlikely that your average voter is doing research and investigating the hundreds (or thouhsands) of speeches, statements, press releases, etc that happen in a campaign, I think your claim isn't at all accurate. Given that very large segments of my life are controlled by the results of these voters decisions, I'm left with the conclusion that I need the Media to do that legwork for the millions of Citizens who don't have time to do it, because they are out earning a living for their family.

    You seem to be rejecting the entire function of the news media--which is to provide information (hopefully factual objective information) to the public in a concise way. As flawed and sometimes biased the news media is, I'd still rather trust in a shred of professionalism and journalistic ethics to the inherently biased propaganda of a campaign any day.

    One only compare the campaign promises of the President to his actions to compile a list of differences, and broken promises, and this isn't unique to President Obama (nor are my statements intended to single out the President, because this is a common problem). You can choose to wink at that if you wish, but I see it as a significant issue.

    KAM
  5. #25  
    Someone needs to go outside and get some fresh air...oh, ahh,wait.. the "Man In The White House" might take it away.
    My HTC Evo Is Great...
  6.    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by mmcnamara43 View Post
    Someone needs to go outside and get some fresh air...oh, ahh,wait.. the "Man In The White House" might take it away.
    Might?..all the signs are there yet a few continue to ignore look past as no big deal government would never pull a fast one.
    During a White House announcement on CNN ,MSNBC Fox News etc, Obama said he would appoint a cyber security coordinator for the critical infrastructure that all Americans depend on.
    Obama Quote
    “We will ensure that these networks are secure,trustworthy and resilient,
    We will deter, prevent, detect and defend against attacks, and recover quickly from any disruptions or damage.”
    End Quote

    So Government wants to control internet ,decide whats considered trust worthy news & defend agenst attack.
    The attack is taking away news choice , communication freedom of speech.
    White house beating up fox news is test the waters ,Thank goodness cnn msnbc etc aren't falling into line supporting the muzzle .


    Bottom line,
    Bush used the danger danger scare tactic to get control & Obamas finishing the job fast.


    .
    Last edited by slingbox; 10/21/2009 at 05:00 PM. Reason: going further
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions