Kennedy

[Si modo]

Yesterday was the anniversary of JFK's assassination. We've heard stories of families mourning that tragic event, irrespective of whether they preferred a [D] or [R] after their name.

They cried. They prayed for the USA. They mourned. IF anyone happened to be happy about it, I can't find any archival news story reporting that. I suspect that there were a few folks who were glad, though.

But journalists years ago were actually journalists. They knew that reporting anything other than the facts and anything that would just be an anomaly, was not news; rather it was an emotional story to inflame and divide and, most importantly, sell like grocery aisle tabloids.

Somehow I can't imagine that journalists would do the same today, if something like that were to happen. And, somehow I think that journalism has so lowered the level of political discourse that this sort of thing would not be an anomaly today.

Just my opinion, but how sad for all of us.

 

[California Girl]

Yesterday was the anniversary of JFK's assassination. We've heard stories of families mourning that tragic event, irrespective of whether they preferred a [D] or [R] after their name.

They cried. They prayed for the USA. They mourned. IF anyone happened to be happy about it, I can't find any archival news story reporting that. I suspect that there were a few folks who were glad, though.

But journalists years ago were actually journalists. They knew that reporting anything other than the facts and anything that would just be an anomaly, was not news; rather it was an emotional story to inflame and divide and, most importantly, sell like grocery aisle tabloids.

Somehow I can't imagine that journalists would do the same today, if something like that were to happen. And, somehow I think that journalism has so lowered the level of political discourse that this sort of thing would not be an anomaly today.

Just my opinion, but how sad for all of us.

Good point.

Interestingly, on a vaguely related topic, there is currently a Parliamentary Inquiry in the UK into the ethics of the British media. It's all being show live on BBC News 24. If any of it is available in the US, I suggest people try to watch it. Many high profile people are giving evidence to the Inquiry about the invasion of privacy, theft of personal information, photographs, hacking of mobile phones, etc. It's fascinating stuff.... most of it I was already aware of but for those not so closely aligned to the media, it will be an eye opener.

 

[rightwinger]

Yesterday was the anniversary of JFK's assassination. We've heard stories of families mourning that tragic event, irrespective of whether they preferred a [D] or [R] after their name.

They cried. They prayed for the USA. They mourned. IF anyone happened to be happy about it, I can't find any archival news story reporting that. I suspect that there were a few folks who were glad, though.

But journalists years ago were actually journalists. They knew that reporting anything other than the facts and anything that would just be an anomaly, was not news; rather it was an emotional story to inflame and divide and, most importantly, sell like grocery aisle tabloids.

Somehow I can't imagine that journalists would do the same today, if something like that were to happen. And, somehow I think that journalism has so lowered the level of political discourse that this sort of thing would not be an anomaly today.

Just my opinion, but how sad for all of us.

I wouldn't go too far in glorifying journalists of the 60s. They covered up for JFK and hid not only his personal dalliances but his medical conditions. Hey, journalists in the 40s even covered up the fact that FDR was a cripple.

When the assassination happened, they covered up things that the Kennedy family did not want reported.

 

[Si modo]

Journalism used to be such an honorable metier.

I would random a guess that anyone who meets a journalist today will have a natural suspicion of them and will be very aware of guarding their speech, if they even speak to them.

If I can find that stuff you mentioned, I'll look at it. All journalists who behave badly should be spanked, irrespective of their leanings. If one is interested in what is left of the integrity of the 'profession', that is.

 

[Ravi]

FOX wasn't around back then....

 

[The Rabbi]

Journalism used to be such an honorable metier.

I would random a guess that anyone who meets a journalist today will have a natural suspicion of them and will be very aware of guarding their speech, if they even speak to them.

If I can find that stuff you mentioned, I'll look at it. All journalists who behave badly should be spanked, irrespective of their leanings. If one is interested in what is left of the integrity of the 'profession', that is.

There are no journalists anymore. They are hacks and partisans with an agenda.

 

[geauxtohell]

Yesterday was the anniversary of JFK's assassination. We've heard stories of families mourning that tragic event, irrespective of whether they preferred a [D] or [R] after their name.

They cried. They prayed for the USA. They mourned. IF anyone happened to be happy about it, I can't find any archival news story reporting that. I suspect that there were a few folks who were glad, though.

But journalists years ago were actually journalists. They knew that reporting anything other than the facts and anything that would just be an anomaly, was not news; rather it was an emotional story to inflame and divide and, most importantly, sell like grocery aisle tabloids.

Somehow I can't imagine that journalists would do the same today, if something like that were to happen. And, somehow I think that journalism has so lowered the level of political discourse that this sort of thing would not be an anomaly today.

Just my opinion, but how sad for all of us.

This is anecdotal, so take it for what it is worth, but I am from a small town in rural Missouri that is heavily Republican and Protestant. My family has always been Democrats (even back when it probably wasn't doing us any good - i.e. when we were in Tennessee during Reconstruction.). My father was in High School when Kennedy was assassinated and he said some people cheered. So every generation has its assholes.

In that instance, I think such a pitiful response was more driven by religious (Kennedy being a Catholic) issues and not political.

All and all though, the nation mourned. It was a tragic event. Apparently my Grandfather kept it all together until they watched the funeral procession on television and John Jr. saluted the casket. He then burst into tears.

Other then that, I agree with you, to an extent, about the pitiful shape of journalism in this country.

I blame the 24 hour media machine which has turned news into tabloid shit. That's why I won't watch CNN, Fox, or MSNBC.

 

[Si modo]

Yesterday was the anniversary of JFK's assassination. We've heard stories of families mourning that tragic event, irrespective of whether they preferred a [D] or [R] after their name.

They cried. They prayed for the USA. They mourned. IF anyone happened to be happy about it, I can't find any archival news story reporting that. I suspect that there were a few folks who were glad, though.

But journalists years ago were actually journalists. They knew that reporting anything other than the facts and anything that would just be an anomaly, was not news; rather it was an emotional story to inflame and divide and, most importantly, sell like grocery aisle tabloids.

Somehow I can't imagine that journalists would do the same today, if something like that were to happen. And, somehow I think that journalism has so lowered the level of political discourse that this sort of thing would not be an anomaly today.

Just my opinion, but how sad for all of us.

I wouldn't go too far in glorifying journalists of the 60s. They covered up for JFK and hid not only his personal dalliances but his medical conditions. Hey, journalists in the 40s even covered up the fact that FDR was a cripple.

When the assassination happened, they covered up things that the Kennedy family did not want reported.

Those are good points. However, I can stomach those flaws - and they were flaws, the people did have a right to know about FDR. About Kennedy's dalliances though? To me, that's not all that important. Great leaders throughout history usually had quite the personal lives, but they were still great leaders.

Imagine the press today about Alexander the Great, just for example.

 

[geauxtohell]

Yesterday was the anniversary of JFK's assassination. We've heard stories of families mourning that tragic event, irrespective of whether they preferred a [D] or [R] after their name.

They cried. They prayed for the USA. They mourned. IF anyone happened to be happy about it, I can't find any archival news story reporting that. I suspect that there were a few folks who were glad, though.

But journalists years ago were actually journalists. They knew that reporting anything other than the facts and anything that would just be an anomaly, was not news; rather it was an emotional story to inflame and divide and, most importantly, sell like grocery aisle tabloids.

Somehow I can't imagine that journalists would do the same today, if something like that were to happen. And, somehow I think that journalism has so lowered the level of political discourse that this sort of thing would not be an anomaly today.

Just my opinion, but how sad for all of us.

I wouldn't go too far in glorifying journalists of the 60s. They covered up for JFK and hid not only his personal dalliances but his medical conditions. Hey, journalists in the 40s even covered up the fact that FDR was a cripple.

When the assassination happened, they covered up things that the Kennedy family did not want reported.

M'eh. Addison's Disease is easily manageable.

And you get a nice tan.

 

[California Girl]

Yesterday was the anniversary of JFK's assassination. We've heard stories of families mourning that tragic event, irrespective of whether they preferred a [D] or [R] after their name.

They cried. They prayed for the USA. They mourned. IF anyone happened to be happy about it, I can't find any archival news story reporting that. I suspect that there were a few folks who were glad, though.

But journalists years ago were actually journalists. They knew that reporting anything other than the facts and anything that would just be an anomaly, was not news; rather it was an emotional story to inflame and divide and, most importantly, sell like grocery aisle tabloids.

Somehow I can't imagine that journalists would do the same today, if something like that were to happen. And, somehow I think that journalism has so lowered the level of political discourse that this sort of thing would not be an anomaly today.

Just my opinion, but how sad for all of us.

I wouldn't go too far in glorifying journalists of the 60s. They covered up for JFK and hid not only his personal dalliances but his medical conditions. Hey, journalists in the 40s even covered up the fact that FDR was a cripple.

When the assassination happened, they covered up things that the Kennedy family did not want reported.

Does the public have the 'right' to know every aspect of a person's life? I would say not necessarily. Just look at the way we treat other people's lives - particularly our politicians.

 

[Sallow]

Yesterday was the anniversary of JFK's assassination. We've heard stories of families mourning that tragic event, irrespective of whether they preferred a [D] or [R] after their name.

They cried. They prayed for the USA. They mourned. IF anyone happened to be happy about it, I can't find any archival news story reporting that. I suspect that there were a few folks who were glad, though.

But journalists years ago were actually journalists. They knew that reporting anything other than the facts and anything that would just be an anomaly, was not news; rather it was an emotional story to inflame and divide and, most importantly, sell like grocery aisle tabloids.

Somehow I can't imagine that journalists would do the same today, if something like that were to happen. And, somehow I think that journalism has so lowered the level of political discourse that this sort of thing would not be an anomaly today.

Just my opinion, but how sad for all of us.

Most Journalism, outside of Saudi/Aussie owned FOX propaganda, didn't lower political discourse.

That was squarely done by Conservatives. Starting with Lee Atwater down to the sewer tripe of Karl Rove.

 

[geauxtohell]

Journalism used to be such an honorable metier.

I would random a guess that anyone who meets a journalist today will have a natural suspicion of them and will be very aware of guarding their speech, if they even speak to them.

If I can find that stuff you mentioned, I'll look at it. All journalists who behave badly should be spanked, irrespective of their leanings. If one is interested in what is left of the integrity of the 'profession', that is.

And then again:

The stalwart of Journalism in that day and age was Walter Cronkite, who people (especially on the right) accuse of single handedly losing the war in Viet Nam.

 

[Ravi]

Yesterday was the anniversary of JFK's assassination. We've heard stories of families mourning that tragic event, irrespective of whether they preferred a [D] or [R] after their name.

They cried. They prayed for the USA. They mourned. IF anyone happened to be happy about it, I can't find any archival news story reporting that. I suspect that there were a few folks who were glad, though.

But journalists years ago were actually journalists. They knew that reporting anything other than the facts and anything that would just be an anomaly, was not news; rather it was an emotional story to inflame and divide and, most importantly, sell like grocery aisle tabloids.

Somehow I can't imagine that journalists would do the same today, if something like that were to happen. And, somehow I think that journalism has so lowered the level of political discourse that this sort of thing would not be an anomaly today.

Just my opinion, but how sad for all of us.

Most Journalism, outside of Saudi/Aussie owned FOX propaganda, didn't lower political discourse.

That was squarely done by Conservatives. Starting with Lee Atwater down to the sewer tripe of Karl Rove.

Yep. In the sixties no journalist would lower themselves to "report" on Clinton and Lewinsky.

 

[Si modo]

Yesterday was the anniversary of JFK's assassination. We've heard stories of families mourning that tragic event, irrespective of whether they preferred a [D] or [R] after their name.

They cried. They prayed for the USA. They mourned. IF anyone happened to be happy about it, I can't find any archival news story reporting that. I suspect that there were a few folks who were glad, though.

But journalists years ago were actually journalists. They knew that reporting anything other than the facts and anything that would just be an anomaly, was not news; rather it was an emotional story to inflame and divide and, most importantly, sell like grocery aisle tabloids.

Somehow I can't imagine that journalists would do the same today, if something like that were to happen. And, somehow I think that journalism has so lowered the level of political discourse that this sort of thing would not be an anomaly today.

Just my opinion, but how sad for all of us.

Most Journalism, outside of Saudi/Aussie owned FOX propaganda, didn't lower political discourse.

That was squarely done by Conservatives. Starting with Lee Atwater down to the sewer tripe of Karl Rove.

And, here we go.

 

[California Girl]

Color me shocked! The left turn it into a 'left or right' thing instead of a genuine concern for ethics in our media.

It's actually laughable. The media before Fox = good. The media after Fox = evil. And it's all because of conservatives.

And they wonder why I call them stupid?

 

[Si modo]

Yesterday was the anniversary of JFK's assassination. We've heard stories of families mourning that tragic event, irrespective of whether they preferred a [D] or [R] after their name.

They cried. They prayed for the USA. They mourned. IF anyone happened to be happy about it, I can't find any archival news story reporting that. I suspect that there were a few folks who were glad, though.

But journalists years ago were actually journalists. They knew that reporting anything other than the facts and anything that would just be an anomaly, was not news; rather it was an emotional story to inflame and divide and, most importantly, sell like grocery aisle tabloids.

Somehow I can't imagine that journalists would do the same today, if something like that were to happen. And, somehow I think that journalism has so lowered the level of political discourse that this sort of thing would not be an anomaly today.

Just my opinion, but how sad for all of us.

Most Journalism, outside of Saudi/Aussie owned FOX propaganda, didn't lower political discourse.

That was squarely done by Conservatives. Starting with Lee Atwater down to the sewer tripe of Karl Rove.

Yep. In the sixties no journalist would lower themselves to "report" on Clinton and Lewinsky.

I agree. That story did nothing constructive for the country.

 

[Si modo]

Journalism used to be such an honorable metier.

I would random a guess that anyone who meets a journalist today will have a natural suspicion of them and will be very aware of guarding their speech, if they even speak to them.

If I can find that stuff you mentioned, I'll look at it. All journalists who behave badly should be spanked, irrespective of their leanings. If one is interested in what is left of the integrity of the 'profession', that is.

And then again:

The stalwart of Journalism in that day and age was Walter Cronkite, who people (especially on the right) accuse of single handedly losing the war in Viet Nam.

Hmmm. That's the first I've heard of that view.

Cronkite was pretty awesome, though. How things have changed.

 

[Sallow]

Yesterday was the anniversary of JFK's assassination. We've heard stories of families mourning that tragic event, irrespective of whether they preferred a [D] or [R] after their name.

They cried. They prayed for the USA. They mourned. IF anyone happened to be happy about it, I can't find any archival news story reporting that. I suspect that there were a few folks who were glad, though.

But journalists years ago were actually journalists. They knew that reporting anything other than the facts and anything that would just be an anomaly, was not news; rather it was an emotional story to inflame and divide and, most importantly, sell like grocery aisle tabloids.

Somehow I can't imagine that journalists would do the same today, if something like that were to happen. And, somehow I think that journalism has so lowered the level of political discourse that this sort of thing would not be an anomaly today.

Just my opinion, but how sad for all of us.

Most Journalism, outside of Saudi/Aussie owned FOX propaganda, didn't lower political discourse.

That was squarely done by Conservatives. Starting with Lee Atwater down to the sewer tripe of Karl Rove.

And, here we go.

Here we go, what?

Wedge politics was resurrected by Ronald "Panama Canal" Reagan. Nonsense journalism followed.

It's what you guys support.

And now you complain? Sheesh.

 

[Sallow]

Journalism used to be such an honorable metier.

I would random a guess that anyone who meets a journalist today will have a natural suspicion of them and will be very aware of guarding their speech, if they even speak to them.

If I can find that stuff you mentioned, I'll look at it. All journalists who behave badly should be spanked, irrespective of their leanings. If one is interested in what is left of the integrity of the 'profession', that is.

And then again:

The stalwart of Journalism in that day and age was Walter Cronkite, who people (especially on the right) accuse of single handedly losing the war in Viet Nam.

Hmmm. That's the first I've heard of that view.
Cronkite was pretty awesome, though. How things have changed.

Seriously..

Then you lack the cred to talk about the subject.

 

[Si modo]

And then again:

The stalwart of Journalism in that day and age was Walter Cronkite, who people (especially on the right) accuse of single handedly losing the war in Viet Nam.

Hmmm. That's the first I've heard of that view.
Cronkite was pretty awesome, though. How things have changed.

Seriously..

Then you lack the cred to talk about the subject.

I have a hell of a lot more cred to discuss something in a non-drooling partisan manner.

And, that is what I intend on doing.