A return to Kennedy Era journalism?

[AmyNation]

Back in the day, the media worked hand and hand with our government to keep things from Americans. Everyone knew of Kennedy's affairs, but no one really talked about it. The media went out of their way to never show the 1st lady as anything but flawless, and if the government didnt want you to run a story, you didn't run it.


BBC News - Viewpoint: US media lax on drones

"Too often, however, American journalists have relied on government sources to explain the story and presented an overly optimistic view of the programme. Or journalists have not reported stories that they could have.

For instance, the Washington Post held a story about a drone base in Saudi Arabia for some time - because, they explained, administration officials had asked them to."


Are we returning to Kennedy era journalism?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Back in the day, the media worked hand and hand with our government to keep things from Americans.

Like the personal lives of politicians and our elected leaders?

I think it was better

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Back in the day...if the government didnt want you to run a story, you didn't run it.


BBC News - Viewpoint: US media lax on drones

Maybe the BBC is confusing the USA with our cousins across the pond? While the US press bent more to believing appeals to national security and such, I think the BBC as everything Britain Media does, is grossly exaggerating..after all these are the people that kept the worst of pamphleteering and tabloid journalism as alive as America tried a new way.

and the British Media is NO role model. The BBC like another incestuous know-what-is-best Institution (RCC) had the protection of image as a value over that of protecting innocent children from pederasts

 

[Ravi]

There's a big difference between exposing sex scandals and national security matters. The press throughout history has concealed some knowledge simply because they were asked to do so for the good of the country.

 

[AmyNation]

Hmm.

I do feel like the media doesn't talk enough about are drone program, Id love for it to be covered as much as Justin Beibers love life. However you make a great point about the BBC, I think it's easier to address others problems, than your own.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There's a big difference between exposing sex scandals and national security matters. The press throughout history has concealed some knowledge simply because they were asked to do so for the good of the country.

And were they always wrong? D-Day? Should it have been exposed?

 

[Ravi]

There's a big difference between exposing sex scandals and national security matters. The press throughout history has concealed some knowledge simply because they were asked to do so for the good of the country.

And were they always wrong? D-Day? Should it have been exposed?

Of course not. You've got no argument here with me.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Hmm.

I do feel like the media doesn't talk enough about are drone program, Id love for it to be covered as much as Justin Beibers love life. However you make a great point about the BBC, I think it's easier to address others problems, than your own.

The Drone program is a national security matter. If we stopped electing partisan nitwits with Tea Party slogans and others, maybe we'd get a Congress that would do it's oversight job better instead of wasting years with the #1 priority of keeping an incumbent from being reelected?

 

[blastoff]

Back in the day, the media worked hand and hand with our government to keep things from Americans. Everyone knew of Kennedy's affairs, but no one really talked about it. The media went out of their way to never show the 1st lady as anything but flawless, and if the government didnt want you to run a story, you didn't run it.


BBC News - Viewpoint: US media lax on drones

"Too often, however, American journalists have relied on government sources to explain the story and presented an overly optimistic view of the programme. Or journalists have not reported stories that they could have.

For instance, the Washington Post held a story about a drone base in Saudi Arabia for some time - because, they explained, administration officials had asked them to."

Are we returning to Kennedy era journalism?

And how nice of the Post to help out Barry's Dimocrat administration.

Now, let's see. Can't recall if it was the Post or the NY Times that Bush spoke to personally to kill a story that would tell the pesky terrorists we were on to tracking international movements of their money through various institutions and whatnot, money used to finance a myriad of nasty operations, including killing innocent Americans and other folks. National security?...naaah, they ran with it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There's a big difference between exposing sex scandals and national security matters. The press throughout history has concealed some knowledge simply because they were asked to do so for the good of the country.

And were they always wrong? D-Day? Should it have been exposed?

Of course not. You've got no argument here with me.

and the personal lives of the pols interests me not unless it is some moralist being a hypocrite and all.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And how nice of...

If you're new here, this is what is known as a USMB troll...with a scream name like blastoff...

it happens

 

[Pogo]

Hmm.

I do feel like the media doesn't talk enough about are drone program, Id love for it to be covered as much as Justin Beibers love life. However you make a great point about the BBC, I think it's easier to address others problems, than your own.

Amy, I do think you've overstated your premise, because the stories we didn't see about Kennedy's affairs are the same stories we now do see about Justin Beaver's. There's a big difference between covering what the military is doing and covering salacious gotcha-gossip. Kennedy's affairs were not explored because they were not legitimate news.

We've swung too far the other way; the media is too busy purveying gossip (because it sells) to deal with actually relevant news. And sadly the people are too busy enabling it by paying attention to it.

I'm sure mass media would be all over a story about drones, provided it involved speculation as to whether General Petraeus sent one out at the same time he was schtupping whats-his-biographer. Sadly, mass media is no longer in the business of information. It's in the business of business.

We used to laugh at the silly National Enquirer on the shelf as we bought our groceries. Now we're surrounded by it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

 

[jwoodie]

Hmm.

I do feel like the media doesn't talk enough about are drone program, Id love for it to be covered as much as Justin Beibers love life. However you make a great point about the BBC, I think it's easier to address others problems, than your own.

The Drone program is a national security matter. If we stopped electing partisan nitwits with Tea Party slogans and others, maybe we'd get a Congress that would do it's oversight job better instead of wasting years with the #1 priority of keeping an incumbent from being reelected?

LOL, you really had me going for a minute with your semi-sane posts prior to this one: The Tea Party is responsible for preventing Congress from doing its oversight job? Would you care to explain your brilliant analysis to the rest of us who are not on heavy medication?

 

[bripat9643]

And were they always wrong? D-Day? Should it have been exposed?

Of course not. You've got no argument here with me.

and the personal lives of the pols interests me not unless it is some moralist being a hypocrite and all.

You mean unless they happen to be Republicans

What a douche nozzle.

 

[asterism]

Back in the day, the media worked hand and hand with our government to keep things from Americans. Everyone knew of Kennedy's affairs, but no one really talked about it. The media went out of their way to never show the 1st lady as anything but flawless, and if the government didnt want you to run a story, you didn't run it.


BBC News - Viewpoint: US media lax on drones

"Too often, however, American journalists have relied on government sources to explain the story and presented an overly optimistic view of the programme. Or journalists have not reported stories that they could have.

For instance, the Washington Post held a story about a drone base in Saudi Arabia for some time - because, they explained, administration officials had asked them to."


Are we returning to Kennedy era journalism?

Yes, but only until another Republican is in the White House. Then it'll be right back to baseless speculation posing as "news."

 

[Two Thumbs]

Back in the day, the media worked hand and hand with our government to keep things from Americans. Everyone knew of Kennedy's affairs, but no one really talked about it. The media went out of their way to never show the 1st lady as anything but flawless, and if the government didnt want you to run a story, you didn't run it.


BBC News - Viewpoint: US media lax on drones

"Too often, however, American journalists have relied on government sources to explain the story and presented an overly optimistic view of the programme. Or journalists have not reported stories that they could have.

For instance, the Washington Post held a story about a drone base in Saudi Arabia for some time - because, they explained, administration officials had asked them to."


Are we returning to Kennedy era journalism?

The 8 years between Bush Pres. and since Bush left Ofc.

Are you just now noticing?

don't get me wrong, I'm glad a non-conservative finally took note

 

[ThirdTerm]

The U.S. media did its job to inform the public on the drone strikes and the leaked white paper states that three conditions must be met for the U.S. government to use lethal force in a foreign country against a U.S. citizen: (1) an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible and (3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principle. Anwar al-Awlaki met the criteria as a key figure behind the Fort Hood shootings and the 9/11 attacks and the Obama administration is quite transparent about the use of drone strikes.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

 

[Dreamy]

Back in the day, the media worked hand and hand with our government to keep things from Americans. Everyone knew of Kennedy's affairs, but no one really talked about it. The media went out of their way to never show the 1st lady as anything but flawless, and if the government didnt want you to run a story, you didn't run it.


BBC News - Viewpoint: US media lax on drones

"Too often, however, American journalists have relied on government sources to explain the story and presented an overly optimistic view of the programme. Or journalists have not reported stories that they could have.

For instance, the Washington Post held a story about a drone base in Saudi Arabia for some time - because, they explained, administration officials had asked them to."


Are we returning to Kennedy era journalism?

Yes, but only until another Republican is in the White House. Then it'll be right back to baseless speculation posing as "news."

Indeed. The fact that most mainstream media is biased left is a given even though partisan lefties will not admit it. Obama is definitely getting a soft glove treatment from the media. Bush did not.

 

[AmyNation]

I do agree that the media likes Obama more than Bush. But, I honestly think that most of that is based on shallowness not partisanship.