Kennedy

[Vaard]

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.......

Actually, it wasn't. But please don't let the facts get in the way of your bullshit.

actually, it was, but dont let your blind loyalty stop you from regurgitating what you are fed......

 

[Si modo]

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.

Much like your "touted' education..I have one too. My major was communications, focused specifically on the media. I have several friends who are journalists..one works for the AP and another works for CNN.

I fully expect you to attack me personally now.

Go.

Good to know.

Do you agree that the American press has lost the ability (willfully or otherwise) to separate reporting from editorializing, more often than not?

And, if you do know of a news outlet who does actually know how to report when reporting, which one is that? I like to come to my own conclusions.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Journalists basically left personal matters alone until the 70's. It had nothing to do with politics, it was all about access. If you wanted access to JFK, you didn't piss him off.
Enter Woodward and Bernstein. They won a Pulitzer for collecting dirt on Nixon. Without Watergate, we would never have heard of Monica Lewinsky.

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

The weak mind is in the one that refuses to see how we got to this point.

I think it's pretty clear that we got to this point because journalists stopped being journalists by editorializing when presenting themselves as reporting.

We see that happening in ALL news outlets today.

It's so bad that many readers can't distinguish between the two.

And, this part is my strong opinion: I also can't stomach the tabloid nature of political discourse today. But, more sickening to me is the fact that IF something like what happened 38 years ago yesterday were to happen today, we would see some really sick shit reported in the news. And, it would be actual news because it wouldn't be as much of an anomaly today - more of the citizenry has no compunction about being gleeful about tragedies because the 'other team' will look bad. But, they look worse.

We can blame the media all we wish however I will point out.

Months into this admin, As a small government minded veteran local police depts were told to be on the look out for me, When I opposed some idiotic policies I was labeled a racist. When I supported government cuts I was labeled a terrorist. All these actions came from democrats not the media...................

 

[California Girl]

yeah, most of it was done by rupert murdoch owned media.......

Actually, it wasn't. But please don't let the facts get in the way of your bullshit.

actually, it was, but dont let your blind loyalty stop you from regurgitating what you are fed......

I'm sitting here watching the Inquiry. I'm reasonably certain that the British Government would not be funding an Inquiry if there was sufficient evidence to prove guilt from one particular outlet. The whole point of the Inquiry is the widespread use of illegal and unethical practices across the media in the UK.

Several British newspapers - as well as several European newspapers - are being investigated. Guess what? Many of them do not belongs to News Corp.

Twit.

 

[Si modo]

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.

i disagree.....

most of it came from the rise of the internet and cable television......

this drove a 24 hour news cycle which led to "news" having to be created or reduces to empty calorie portions........

when you got your news for only 1, maybe 2 hours a day, then only the choices cuts were given since people could be picky, but with a 24/7 news cycle, anything any everything was offered for consumption.......

You know, that is a really good point.

I recall several years ago when the 24/7 news first started out (and I had a horrible case of insomnia), I timed the frequency of repeat of the news - it was about eight minutes. Every eight minutes I got the same thing. And, I eventually did fall asleep because that repetition eventually bored me enough.

 

[Sallow]

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.

i disagree.....

most of it came from the rise of the internet and cable television......

this drove a 24 hour news cycle which led to "news" having to be created or reduces to empty calorie portions........

when you got your news for only 1, maybe 2 hours a day, then only the choices cuts were given since people could be picky, but with a 24/7 news cycle, anything any everything was offered for consumption.......

It was in place well before the rise of the internet. The internet and the 24/7 news cycle magnified the problem, however. And it was the downfall of the Cronkrite/Murrow style of objective news reporting.

 

[California Girl]

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.

Much like your "touted' education..I have one too. My major was communications, focused specifically on the media. I have several friends who are journalists..one works for the AP and another works for CNN.

I fully expect you to attack me personally now.

Go.

I'll see your friends in AP and CNN and raise you AP (2), Reuters (4), CNN (3), Bloomberg (2), BBC (x 8), MSNBC (1), Sky News (3), USAToday, WSJ, WP, HuffPuff, Telegraph, Guardian, Times, Sunday Times, Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, The Economist and The Sun. And a whole bunch more. I know lots of journalists. I work with them - a lot.

Not one of them - even the liberals (and I know some seriously left wing journalists) would say that the deterioration in standards is the 'fault' of right wing media. In fact, I'm gonna call a few and read your post out to them and see if they laugh.

And.... aren't you unemployed? Well, I'm not. I manage to maintain enough personal integrity to be highly sought after by media.

 

[Ravi]

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.

The weak mind is in the one that refuses to see how we got to this point.

I think it's pretty clear that we got to this point because journalists stopped being journalists by editorializing when presenting themselves as reporting.

We see that happening in ALL news outlets today.

It's so bad that many readers can't distinguish between the two.

And, this part is my strong opinion: I also can't stomach the tabloid nature of political discourse today. But, more sickening to me is the fact that IF something like what happened 38 years ago yesterday were to happen today, we would see some really sick shit reported in the news. And, it would be actual news because it wouldn't be as much of an anomaly today - more of the citizenry has no compunction about being gleeful about tragedies because the 'other team' will look bad. But, they look worse.

FOX is consistently labeled the number one cable news network. And yet they earn that title for their commentators, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck....yellow journalists. At one time there was a clear line between yellow journalism and journalism. That line has blurred.

But there are still plenty of good journalists out there. You are apparently looking for them in the wrong places.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Journalists basically left personal matters alone until the 70's. It had nothing to do with politics, it was all about access. If you wanted access to JFK, you didn't piss him off.
Enter Woodward and Bernstein. They won a Pulitzer for collecting dirt on Nixon. Without Watergate, we would never have heard of Monica Lewinsky.

LOL! How you can equate a crime, perhaps the biggest crime possible in America: an attempt at throwing an election, to a stupid sex scandal is amusing.

 

[Warrior102]

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.

Why don't you go fill your car with some Saudi crude.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Much like your "touted' education..I have one too. My major was communications, focused specifically on the media. I have several friends who are journalists..one works for the AP and another works for CNN.

I fully expect you to attack me personally now.

Go.

I'll see your friends in AP and CNN and raise you AP (2), Reuters (4), CNN (3), Bloomberg (2), BBC (x 8), MSNBC (1), Sky News (3), USAToday, WSJ, WP, HuffPuff, Telegraph, Guardian, Times, Sunday Times, Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, The Economist and The Sun. And a whole bunch more. I know lots of journalists. I work with them - a lot.

Not one of them - even the liberals (and I know some seriously left wing journalists) would say that the deterioration in standards is the 'fault' of right wing media. In fact, I'm gonna call a few and read your post out to them and see if they laugh.

And.... aren't you unemployed? Well, I'm not. I manage to maintain enough personal integrity to be highly sought after by media.

I don't work for the media. I work in IT.

 

[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.

Why don't you go fill your car with some Saudi crude.

Why don't you take a visit to NYC and see what your Saudi friends did to our World Trade Center?

 

[Sallow]

The weak mind is in the one that refuses to see how we got to this point.

I think it's pretty clear that we got to this point because journalists stopped being journalists by editorializing when presenting themselves as reporting.

We see that happening in ALL news outlets today.

It's so bad that many readers can't distinguish between the two.

And, this part is my strong opinion: I also can't stomach the tabloid nature of political discourse today. But, more sickening to me is the fact that IF something like what happened 38 years ago yesterday were to happen today, we would see some really sick shit reported in the news. And, it would be actual news because it wouldn't be as much of an anomaly today - more of the citizenry has no compunction about being gleeful about tragedies because the 'other team' will look bad. But, they look worse.

FOX is consistently labeled the number one cable news network. And yet they earn that title for their commentators, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck....yellow journalists. At one time there was a clear line between yellow journalism and journalism. That line has blurred.

But there are still plenty of good journalists out there. You are apparently looking for them in the wrong places.

Yes and no. Yellow dog journalism is what got us into WWI. The whole equating the Germans to "Mongol Huns bayoneting babies" meme got the US public in an uproar. WWI was really none of our business and the result of secret European treaties. In the end, however, it forced Europe to see the US alot differently.

 

[Ravi]

I think it's pretty clear that we got to this point because journalists stopped being journalists by editorializing when presenting themselves as reporting.

We see that happening in ALL news outlets today.

It's so bad that many readers can't distinguish between the two.

And, this part is my strong opinion: I also can't stomach the tabloid nature of political discourse today. But, more sickening to me is the fact that IF something like what happened 38 years ago yesterday were to happen today, we would see some really sick shit reported in the news. And, it would be actual news because it wouldn't be as much of an anomaly today - more of the citizenry has no compunction about being gleeful about tragedies because the 'other team' will look bad. But, they look worse.

FOX is consistently labeled the number one cable news network. And yet they earn that title for their commentators, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck....yellow journalists. At one time there was a clear line between yellow journalism and journalism. That line has blurred.

But there are still plenty of good journalists out there. You are apparently looking for them in the wrong places.

Yes and no. Yellow dog journalism is what got us into WWI. The whole equating the Germans to "Mongol Huns bayoneting babies" meme got the US public in an uproar. WWI was really none of our business and the result of secret European treaties. In the end, however, it forced Europe to see the US alot differently.

How is that different from the FOX commentators constant whine about evil liberals?

 

[Sallow]

FOX is consistently labeled the number one cable news network. And yet they earn that title for their commentators, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck....yellow journalists. At one time there was a clear line between yellow journalism and journalism. That line has blurred.

But there are still plenty of good journalists out there. You are apparently looking for them in the wrong places.

Yes and no. Yellow dog journalism is what got us into WWI. The whole equating the Germans to "Mongol Huns bayoneting babies" meme got the US public in an uproar. WWI was really none of our business and the result of secret European treaties. In the end, however, it forced Europe to see the US alot differently.

How is that different from the FOX commentators constant whine about evil liberals?

I was kinda agreeing and disagreeing with you.

The "line" wasn't blurred when yellow-dog journalism started. It was looked at as real news. And it was not "separated" until there was a "bad" outcome. Namely the rush to war. When journalists started publishing stories about Nazis raiding Jewish ghettoes it simply was dismissed. For multiple reasons..but mainly because of journalism prior to WWI. After the allies reached the death camps..they saw those stories were true.

 

[Ernie S.]

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

Journalists basically left personal matters alone until the 70's. It had nothing to do with politics, it was all about access. If you wanted access to JFK, you didn't piss him off.
Enter Woodward and Bernstein. They won a Pulitzer for collecting dirt on Nixon. Without Watergate, we would never have heard of Monica Lewinsky.

LOL! How you can equate a crime, perhaps the biggest crime possible in America: an attempt at throwing an election, to a stupid sex scandal is amusing.

Equate? I didn't. I simply stated where I believe the beginning of the trend was. I don't give Nixon a pass for Watergate, though I believe his problems started with loyalty to his aids rather than a direct involvement. Now, I'll equate the 2 cases.
Had RMN gone on TV after the news of the break-in broke and said that some over zealous members of his campaign staff had broken into the DNC headquarters without his knowledge and they would be prosecuted for their crimes, he would have been remembered very differently. He, instead pompously covered up the crimes as JFK covered up his dalliances, Roosevelt covered up his handicap and clinton covered up a hummer in the oval office.
He lied to the citizens as Clinton did when he pointed his finger at us and denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky.
I tend to have more respect for Nixon for trying to protect those who worked for him, than for clinton who was only covering his own ass.
I'm sure you don't see it that way, Ravi, and I'm fine with that. You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[California Girl]

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.

Why don't you go fill your car with some Saudi crude.

Why don't you take a visit to NYC and see what your Saudi friends did to our World Trade Center?

This from the guy who claims a degree in Communications, with a 'focus' on the media'. Left wing hyperbolic bullshit in place of rational thoughtful comment. We're lucky you are not a journalist. Your articles would be hyperbolic shit.

 

[Sallow]

Why don't you go fill your car with some Saudi crude.

Why don't you take a visit to NYC and see what your Saudi friends did to our World Trade Center?

This from the guy who claims a degree in Communications, with a 'focus' on the media'. Left wing hyperbolic bullshit in place of rational thoughtful comment. We're lucky you are not a journalist. Your articles would be hyperbolic shit.

Not hyperbolic at all. The Saudi government's involvement with 9/11 is well documented. As a "journalist" you should have known that.

 

[Vaard]

I think it's pretty clear that we got to this point because journalists stopped being journalists by editorializing when presenting themselves as reporting.

We see that happening in ALL news outlets today.

It's so bad that many readers can't distinguish between the two.

And, this part is my strong opinion: I also can't stomach the tabloid nature of political discourse today. But, more sickening to me is the fact that IF something like what happened 38 years ago yesterday were to happen today, we would see some really sick shit reported in the news. And, it would be actual news because it wouldn't be as much of an anomaly today - more of the citizenry has no compunction about being gleeful about tragedies because the 'other team' will look bad. But, they look worse.

FOX is consistently labeled the number one cable news network. And yet they earn that title for their commentators, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck....yellow journalists. At one time there was a clear line between yellow journalism and journalism. That line has blurred.

But there are still plenty of good journalists out there. You are apparently looking for them in the wrong places.

Yes and no. Yellow dog journalism is what got us into WWI. The whole equating the Germans to "Mongol Huns bayoneting babies" meme got the US public in an uproar. WWI was really none of our business and the result of secret European treaties. In the end, however, it forced Europe to see the US alot differently.

no, germany trying to bribe mexico into being an ally of theirs and attack the us is what turned most public opinion to support entering ww1........

that and the german subs attacking non combat ships........