Nfm.
- Thread starter Nittany Ned2
- Start date
For most reporters it's all about writing about a big story is such a way that the reporter seems like he/she really knows what they're talking about. Having all the facts is a secondary concern. The reporter wants the accolades which will allow them to move up the "journalism" food chain - a complete account be damned. It worked for Gamin.
It apparently won't work for the Manning accusations because people are questioning the report's accuracy and defending Manning. With the Sandusky scandal everyone turned their backs and walked away while assuming what was reported was completely accurate. They did the same with Freeh.
they definitely Ganim'd it. undercover source with no corroboration. definitely NOT journalism
That is because she is nothing more than a hired gun, chosen to write this story. There was never any intent to get it right. Somebody, somewhere, is pushing this media narrative. How can there be any doubt?
journalism died quite some time ago, Rupert Murdock buried it
How easily we move off track. GOP had a lot to lose in the Sandusky affair. The more diversion and disinformation the better.
Someone who has time and access should follow the several lines of the story. Second mile, step program, local politics other sex crimes and prosecution. Y
Someone who has time and access should follow the several lines of the story. Second mile, step program, local politics other sex crimes and prosecution. Y
When are some of you going to stop painting everything R vs. D? These career politicians/judges/scoundrels that are in YOUR employ in PA - meaning they are they are there to SERVE you - actually don't serve you at all. They sadly serve no one but themselves.
This is no different than tOSU and scUM fans pretending to hate each other while the rest of the conference (in this case the state's citizens) gets screwed.
Keep flailing your arms about corbett, kane, wolf, and the rest of them and the R's and D's that follow their names and their Kabuki Theater productions. Fact is, regardless of which party you support, none of them are on your side. And I mean NONE of them.
This is no different than tOSU and scUM fans pretending to hate each other while the rest of the conference (in this case the state's citizens) gets screwed.
Keep flailing your arms about corbett, kane, wolf, and the rest of them and the R's and D's that follow their names and their Kabuki Theater productions. Fact is, regardless of which party you support, none of them are on your side. And I mean NONE of them.
Pretty stupid comment. Journalism has been dead for decades. Anyone paying any attention would know that the media has been telling the story they want instead of telling the story as it is for a very long time.
Just one example; A fellow Penn Stater was working in the oil fields of Syria in the 1980s. I asked him if he was afraid since they were having anti-American demonstrations almost daily. He laughed and said "Don't believe what the media tells you. We will be in a business meeting when all of a sudden everything stops. The locals in Damascus said 'We have a demonstration to go to' and they all walked out. Couple hrs later they came back and the meeting went on like nothing happened."
My friend explained that the government demands people attend these 'demonstrations' and ones that don't will have their businesses burned, or be harassed/arrested for trivial things. The media knew what was going on but never reported it cause it didn't fit the narrative they wanted.
The media has been corrupt for many decades. Too bad you weren't aware enough to see it.
Tweed was only (correctly) noting which of them have the most to lose in the Sandusky affair. You learn to accept that and you will be more than halfway back from the abyss.
Your frame of reference seems to be pretty short, I've watched the death of journalism since the 70s, when the Nixon administration didn't like facts being reported, they started to blame the media. Not surprisingly, they found plenty of stupid people to believe them. Like I said, Murdoch merely buried journalism, but it's death was slow, and had started much earlier.
In the same thread citing an MSNBC show, Fox News gets trashed. Shots are taken at mushroom cloud Ari Fleicher by folks who think hiring professional condom against the truth Lanny Davis is just fine. Folks cite the biased WaPo article yet cling to the poorly written piece of crap in the legal journal like it is the holy grail. They grab their red or blue pom poms and cheer away as if it's an activity where critical thinking has no place.
Ridiculous. Like the war being painted by the johnson and nixon administrations the way they wanted....like kennedy's affairs (x three) not being washed over. like the media ignoring Clinton's and Edward's affairs until internet hammered them.
What has killed the media has been a) themselves and b) the internet.
today, 99% of the MSM is in the pocket of the left or right. do you really think Mary Matalin and James Carville could be married? C'mon man, these are attorneys used to representing despicable people for hire....they'd sell anyone out to advance their power, career and money. They align to a politician by doing him or or favors, then getting "scoops" in return. Just check to see who was getting "leaked" grand jury information from which side.
People need to wake up. Our system has become a corrupt mess.
What finally did it for me was Trey Gowdy. I admit to being a fanboy of Gowdy at times, because he talked tough and seemed to piss people off. In the end, Lois Lerner isn't in jail (where any right minded U.S. Citizen would agree she belongs). No one's accepted any culpability for Benghazi. So Trey Gowdy accomplished what exactly? He put on a show for all of us to watch and follow. That's all - just a show.
LOL. You are generalizing individual thoughts into a broadly brushed smear. Not everybody does/thinks all of these things in any unified fashion.
Anybody know what the name is for this type of debating technique? I used to know the correct term.
The war certainly was not "painted like the Johnson and Nixon administrations wanted" That was the primary reason that Nixon had that sterling example of morality Spiro Agnew start the attack on the media. Politicians (regardless of their politics) don't want a strong, competent, credible press. And as a result, we don't have one. What we have to day is advocacy, not journalism.
The old, long standing practice of not reporting the personal indiscretions of leaders (remember when we actually HAD leaders?) was that those indiscretions had nothing to do with how those leaders were doing their jobs. Journalists in those days were interested in news, not entertainment.
------
So now it was the NIxon admin that started the decline of journalism??? What a smelly pile of BS. You need to wake up and smell the crap we have been dealt much longer than the Nixon admin. You are what you accuse Murdoch of being.
No, you injected your political bias into the equation. Murdoch actually help by exposing how corrupt the news biz is. Too many people swallowed the MSM jive for decades and never questioned what they were being fed. Fox isn't perfect but at least now people can two sides to the story and decide for themselves what to believe.
In my singular example, the media knew what was going on in Syria and the rest of the ME but didn't tell people because the Leftwing media loves blaming the US for the world's problems. Thats the story that fit their agenda so thats the story that was told.
The media loved Woodrow Wilson and never highlighted his terrible racism or his plans for eugenics. We are still paying for his racist policies and will for at least another 50 yrs. But he was a Progressive and the media wouldn't do anything to harm The Cause.
Journalism died a long time ago except for a few rare holdouts tat dare to tell the truth. Unfortunately, they have been buried in the avalanche of corrupted 'news.'
you know, when people (rightfully) attacked the media (especially ESPN) over what they did to Joe, I felt it was tragic but not original
google Fatty Arbuckle. William Randolph Hearst destroyed his life over an absolute lie just to sell papers.
On a good note, I saw the piece on MSNBC this morning and I did not hear Joe Paterno's name uttered once.
As have you. There aren't "two sides to the story", that's really the whole point. There are only facts, which should be reported without spin- but nobody does that anymore. Advocacy journalism isn't journalism.
Bingo.
So, so many people have grown up without this, that they do not recognize that what is important is the FACTS.
We, as a nation, have come to depend on the spin before determining the "facts."
"Fair and Balanced" is not equal to FACT.
SMH at the decisions that people make as to who is telling them facts. Hearing what one wants to hear is not equal to hearing facts.
bringing up a recent example, not being partisan about this but just making a point.
honestly, I stopped caring about what people THOUGHT about Bowe Bergdahl
there was so little actual INFORMATION out there about what happened with him and why
then I read the Stars and Stripes article about the officer who was tasked to investigate the incident and make a recommendation to the command
so . . . assuming this guy was no Louis Freeh (and he did seem to have a pretty fair and honorable service record), this is the one man who was allowed to investigate without prejudice, to interview witnesses "under oath" (or rather with UCMJ punishment over their heads if they got caught lying), read every contemporaneous report about Bergdahl's disappearance, capture, captivity, release, etc . . . and also unfiltered through a partisan lens.
Pretty amazing and thorough review. I learned a lot I didn't previously know.
and learned 99% of what was reported in the media was just complete BS.
and I also know it won't matter to people who have already decided they know "the truth" about Bergdahl (when discussing this with a neighbor, who had NOT read the report, he assured me the officer MUST HAVE been pressured by the blah blah blah . . . I want to punch people sometimes)
Mary Matalin is not and never has been an attorney. She dropped out of a fourth-rate law school.
Carville last practiced law more than thirty-five years ago after a brief stint in a small firm in Louisiana.
Neither of them "are" lawyers.
Frankly, I don't believe either is smart enough to be a successful lawyer. That's not a knock on them. They found their niches and probably make more money than 95% of all lawyers. The secret to life is finding what you're good at.
I wasn't refering to them being attorneys...poorly stated on my part....just that 95% of these talking heads on TV are attorneys....regardless, all of them (journalists) are bought and paid for one way or the other.
I didn't generalize or broad brush anything. I simply pointed out recent posts on this very board and in this very thread. I understand why it hits close to home for the hardcore political fanboys on either side. By the way the approach you took is called red herring.
Nah. You posted a laundry list of things as if everybody does/thinks the same on all of them. Anybody could see that. Again, I am not sure what the term is for that kind of argument. Some variation of "defective" though, iirc.
No, I didn't. I merely pointed out how wrong you were to say journalism died with Murdoch and gave examples of how it predated Murdoch and then on how it predated Nixon.
It was not a generalization of "everybody" at all. You can trust me on that as I wrote it. I do understand why you took it personally though.
But, I didn't. I don't see how anybody could. Because it is not an accurate description of any individual's posts, whether I agree with them or not (which is not even relevant.)
Basically, you were just taking a crap on all the posters put together.
Your technique (although not particularly well employed) is called Fallacy of Extension or sometimes more simply, Straw Man.
Or is that the definition of the technique that you used? You extended one set of various beliefs onto everybody, after all. Not I.
Here it is: "In the same thread citing an MSNBC show, Fox News gets trashed. Shots are taken at mushroom cloud Ari Fleicher by folks who think hiring professional condom against the truth Lanny Davis is just fine. Folks cite the biased WaPo article yet cling to the poorly written piece of crap in the legal journal like it is the holy grail. They grab their red or blue pom poms and cheer away as if it's an activity where critical thinking has no place."
This seems to be complicated for you but "folks" does not = "everybody". It just feels that way if you're one of those "folks".
I like you, so if I meant "everybody" I would tell you. I promise.
Yes, in fact you did. You can pretend otherwise, but you did exactly what you accused me of. I merely observed-accurately- that Murdock was the one who threw the last few shovelfuls of dirt on journalism's grave. You can certainly accuse me of being wrong , but that don't make it so.
No offense taken.This seems to be complicated for you but "folks" does not = "everybody". It just feels that way if you're one of those "folks".
I like you, so if I meant "everybody" I would tell you. I promise.
Similar threads
