Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Hmmm. That's the first I've heard of that view.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.
Cronkite was pretty awesome, though. How things have changed.
Hmmm. That's the first I've heard of that view.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.
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.Hmmm. That's the first I've heard of that view.
Cronkite was pretty awesome, though. How things have changed.
Then you lack the cred to talk about the subject.
And, that is what I intend on doing.
Hmmm. That's the first I've heard of that view.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.
Cronkite was pretty awesome, though. How things have changed.
Really? I am not making this up. It's a pretty prevalent view.
The view being that, after Cronkite stated the war was hopeless (after Tet) we stood no chance of winning.
As if the decisive point of that conflict was in 1968.
Oh, I don't mean to say that it is not true. I believe you that the view exists.Hmmm. That's the first I've heard of that view.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.
Cronkite was pretty awesome, though. How things have changed.
Really? I am not making this up. It's a pretty prevalent view.
The view being that, after Cronkite stated the war was hopeless (after Tet) we stood no chance of winning.
As if the decisive point of that conflict was in 1968.
If he presented it as an editorial, then that is fine.Hmmm. That's the first I've heard of that view.
Cronkite was pretty awesome, though. How things have changed.
Really? I am not making this up. It's a pretty prevalent view.
The view being that, after Cronkite stated the war was hopeless (after Tet) we stood no chance of winning.
As if the decisive point of that conflict was in 1968.
That was basically the first time he "took a side"..and editorialized about news. But he did it because he thought it was in the best interest of the country..and did only after some serious comptemplation about the matter. He'd travelled around Vietnam a great deal, first.
Yeah, it's kind of nuts to whine about the freedom of the press when we gave it to them to begin with.Odd but maybe that fairness doctrine worked. While we expect - is that hope for - courtesy and honesty from the press we proclaim the freedom to say most anything. Seems we are caught in a infinite bind here.
The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back
"A new barbarism, illiteracy and impoverishment of language, new kinds of poverty, merciless remodeling of opinion by media, immiseration of the mind, obsolescence of the soul. Massified, standardizing modes, in every area of life, relentlessly re-enact the actual control program of modernity. Capitalism did not create our world; the machine did." Jean-François Lyotard
Odd but maybe that fairness doctrine worked. While we expect - is that hope for - courtesy and honesty from the press we proclaim the freedom to say most anything. Seems we are caught in a infinite bind here.
The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back
"A new barbarism, illiteracy and impoverishment of language, new kinds of poverty, merciless remodeling of opinion by media, immiseration of the mind, obsolescence of the soul. Massified, standardizing modes, in every area of life, relentlessly re-enact the actual control program of modernity. Capitalism did not create our world; the machine did." Jean-François Lyotard
Basic doctrine
In the mid-1980s, under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the commission began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, stating in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Fowler said in February 2009 that his work toward revoking the Fairness Doctrine under the Reagan Administration had been a matter of principle (his belief that the Doctrine impinged upon the First Amendment), not partisanship. Fowler described the White House staff raising concerns, at a time before the prominence of conservative talk radio and during the preeminence of the Big Three television networks and PBS in political discourse, that repealing the policy would be politically unwise. He described the staff's position as saying to Reagan:
The only thing that really protects you from the savageness of the three networks every day they would savage Ronald Reagan is the Fairness Doctrine, and Fowler is proposing to repeal it![13]
Instead, Reagan supported the effort and later vetoed the Democratic-controlled Congress's effort to make the doctrine law.
In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989.[14] The FCC also suggested that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional, stating that:
The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.
In June 1987, Congress attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the Fairness Doctrine,[15] but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Another attempt to revive the doctrine in 1991 was stopped when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.[16]
Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have a hell of a lot more cred to discuss something in a non-drooling partisan manner.
Then you lack the cred to talk about the subject.
And, that is what I intend on doing.
It's not a "non-partisan" issue. The majority of crap media comes from the right wing..or foreign sources. The Birchers were pretty much dismissed by most media outlets, but when Reagan and Atwater came on the scene, right wing talk radio started getting some ground. That went into overdrive with the election of Clinton. Rush really gained his bones with his "America held Hostage" meme. The animal we see today..was fostered during that time.
If he presented it as an editorial, then that is fine.Really? I am not making this up. It's a pretty prevalent view.
The view being that, after Cronkite stated the war was hopeless (after Tet) we stood no chance of winning.
As if the decisive point of that conflict was in 1968.
That was basically the first time he "took a side"..and editorialized about news. But he did it because he thought it was in the best interest of the country..and did only after some serious comptemplation about the matter. He'd travelled around Vietnam a great deal, first.
Journalists have a duty not to editorialize in news, unless it is presented as an editorial.
It would be nice if our current journalists could practice that - report when reporting and editorialize when editorializing. It would be nice to know if they actually know the difference any longer.
Too many in the public clearly don't know that difference. And, I believe that is EXACTLY why so many 'journalists' do it. Taking advantage of the stupid for personal political gain.
The weak mind is in the one that refuses to see how we got to this point.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.
It's not a "non-partisan" issue. The majority of crap media comes from the right wing..or foreign sources. The Birchers were pretty much dismissed by most media outlets, but when Reagan and Atwater came on the scene, right wing talk radio started getting some ground. That went into overdrive with the election of Clinton. Rush really gained his bones with his "America held Hostage" meme. The animal we see today..was fostered during that time.
The sad part is that you actually believe that.
You lack the ability - or perhaps the will - to really understand the issue, so you fall back on 'it's his fault'. The sign of a weak mind.
Hmmm. That's the first I've heard of that view.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.
Cronkite was pretty awesome, though. How things have changed.
Really? I am not making this up. It's a pretty prevalent view.
The view being that, after Cronkite stated the war was hopeless (after Tet) we stood no chance of winning.
As if the decisive point of that conflict was in 1968.
The weak mind is in the one that refuses to see how we got to this point.It's not a "non-partisan" issue. The majority of crap media comes from the right wing..or foreign sources. The Birchers were pretty much dismissed by most media outlets, but when Reagan and Atwater came on the scene, right wing talk radio started getting some ground. That went into overdrive with the election of Clinton. Rush really gained his bones with his "America held Hostage" meme. The animal we see today..was fostered during that time.
The sad part is that you actually believe that.
You lack the ability - or perhaps the will - to really understand the issue, so you fall back on 'it's his fault'. The sign of a weak mind.
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.
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.
yeah, most of it was done by rupert murdoch owned media.......
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.
It's not a "non-partisan" issue. The majority of crap media comes from the right wing..or foreign sources. The Birchers were pretty much dismissed by most media outlets, but when Reagan and Atwater came on the scene, right wing talk radio started getting some ground. That went into overdrive with the election of Clinton. Rush really gained his bones with his "America held Hostage" meme. The animal we see today..was fostered during that time.
The sad part is that you actually believe that.
You lack the ability - or perhaps the will - to really understand the issue, so you fall back on 'it's his fault'. The sign of a weak mind.
I think it's pretty clear that we got to this point because journalists stopped being journalists by editorializing when presenting themselves as reporting.The weak mind is in the one that refuses to see how we got to this point.It's not a "non-partisan" issue. The majority of crap media comes from the right wing..or foreign sources. The Birchers were pretty much dismissed by most media outlets, but when Reagan and Atwater came on the scene, right wing talk radio started getting some ground. That went into overdrive with the election of Clinton. Rush really gained his bones with his "America held Hostage" meme. The animal we see today..was fostered during that time.
The sad part is that you actually believe that.
You lack the ability - or perhaps the will - to really understand the issue, so you fall back on 'it's his fault'. The sign of a weak mind.
I have a hell of a lot more cred to discuss something in a non-drooling partisan manner.
Then you lack the cred to talk about the subject.
And, that is what I intend on doing.
It's not a "non-partisan" issue. The majority of crap media comes from the right wing..or foreign sources. The Birchers were pretty much dismissed by most media outlets, but when Reagan and Atwater came on the scene, right wing talk radio started getting some ground. That went into overdrive with the election of Clinton. Rush really gained his bones with his "America held Hostage" meme. The animal we see today..was fostered during that time.
