What I wish people knew about journalism

[IResist]

I wish most people knew "journalists" are generally left wing apparatchiks and not worth paying attention to.

Oh wait...

Most people do.

That is the perception. That doesn't automatically make it accurate. It is the job of the press to ask the tough questions.

 

[Pete7469]

That is the perception. That doesn't automatically make it accurate. It is the job of the press to ask the tough questions.

Bullshit.

Perception is reality, or so we're told.

In this case is glaringly obvious that "the press" willfully refused to ask tough questions, report any negative story, or even allow other journalists to question the moonbat messiah.

Yet every rumor that tarnished the cheeto messiah has been treated as gospel.

I'd say the perception is well founded.

 

[IResist]

That is the perception. That doesn't automatically make it accurate. It is the job of the press to ask the tough questions.

Bullshit.

Perception is reality, or so we're told.

In this case is glaringly obvious that "the press" willfully refused to ask tough questions, report any negative story, or even allow other journalists to question the moonbat messiah.

Yet every rumor that tarnished the cheeto messiah has been treated as gospel.

I'd say the perception is well founded.

President Obama had his frustrations with the press, too. The stereotype is they were cheerleaders for him when he was asked many difficult questions over the eight years.

 

[Lumpy 1]

So what if the so-called journalist is disreputable and the journalists around him are disreputable and they simply make sources up as is the case with most progressive bastards in the liberal media of today?

How are they making up sources? If they are anonymous? Read my original post.

We have gotten to the point where any negative story against Trump is bemoaned as fake news.

I will be the first to tell you reporters make mistakes. I know I have. The press most certainly is not perfect. However, if any negative story about Trump is fake news, the press is not the problem. Furthermore, journalists have also owned up to errors they made and apologized - like the Trump earpiece and the MLK bust.

Well, they could simply say they have a source and imbeciles like you would believe them. Grow up little man, the liberal media are an arm of the elites and the bought off politicians of both major political parties. Honest journalism on the left has died for the most part, everything they say has to be questioned and checked making them relatively worthless.

I see no reason not the believe them if they say a source. There are repercussions for stuff like this.

Unfortunately, I feel we no longer believe what is true. We believe what we want to be true.

Now-a-days without a reputable written source (the non coward type) there is no reason to trust a progressive journalist ... and liberal talking news buttheads .. forget it.

Generally, if the topic interests me I read up on it from multiple sources, listen to multiple opinions, then make a stab at the truth I can accept. Over time and with experience you learn to read tells and motivations in both written and spoken words .. Soooo sorry for my previous insult (uncalled for) and welcome to the USMB as this is the first time we've crossed swords.

.


.

 

[Lumpy 1]

 

[initforme]

The media is controlled by corporations. They are private entities out to make a buck. They do not exist to help people or even the nation.....they exist only for capital creation.. I've read this 100000 times on this forum . Are you not able to see it? Corporations can do whatever they want and the bigger they are the more they can get away with and you all support it.....we love the corporate model and now we have what we wanted. Don't whine because the corporate media isn't what you want. In the end you support this mess 110 percent.

 

[Iceweasel]

Having gone to journalism school, and seeing the animosity towards the press, it is obvious to me some people don't know how some things work.

In regards to anonymous sources, those are there for a reason. Sources sometimes either speak on the condition of anonymity, or not at all. If a journalist outs their sources without consent, people will not be inclined to come forward in the future and journalists will lose their trust and reputation.

The next time you try to undermine anonymous sources, remember that journalists can, and have, faced prison time if they don't reveal their sources. Reporters protect their sources even if it puts them behind bars. This isn't the first time anonymous sources have been used, and it won't be the last.

Someone called a transcript I quoted from Trump fake news because he didn't hear it on audio. That's how it goes with transcripts. With a transcript, it is word for word and is completely precise. The AP didn't make that up. That's just Trump being Trump.

I thought I would get that off my chest.

You have a hollow chest. There's nothing wrong with an anonomous source but it's up to a REPORTER to investigate and confirm the story otherwise it's just hearsay and hearsay is good enough for a JOURNALIST who has an ax to grind. There's a reason people don't value your shit, it's pure propaganda.

 

[Iceweasel]

We have gotten to the point where any negative story against Trump is bemoaned as fake news.

It's the boy crying wolf phenomenon. Peddle enough shit and people lose interest.

 

[Pete7469]

President Obama had his frustrations with the press, too. The stereotype is they were cheerleaders for him when he was asked many difficult questions over the eight years.

I'd bet if we hooked you up to a polygraph, you could repost that utterly ridiculous lie over and over and the machine would flatline because you actually believe that.

 

[IResist]

So what if the so-called journalist is disreputable and the journalists around him are disreputable and they simply make sources up as is the case with most progressive bastards in the liberal media of today?

How are they making up sources? If they are anonymous? Read my original post.

We have gotten to the point where any negative story against Trump is bemoaned as fake news.

I will be the first to tell you reporters make mistakes. I know I have. The press most certainly is not perfect. However, if any negative story about Trump is fake news, the press is not the problem. Furthermore, journalists have also owned up to errors they made and apologized - like the Trump earpiece and the MLK bust.

Well, they could simply say they have a source and imbeciles like you would believe them. Grow up little man, the liberal media are an arm of the elites and the bought off politicians of both major political parties. Honest journalism on the left has died for the most part, everything they say has to be questioned and checked making them relatively worthless.

I see no reason not the believe them if they say a source. There are repercussions for stuff like this.

Unfortunately, I feel we no longer believe what is true. We believe what we want to be true.

Now-a-days without a reputable written source (the non coward type) there is no reason to trust a progressive journalist ... and liberal talking news buttheads .. forget it.

Generally, if the topic interests me I read up on it from multiple sources, listen to multiple opinions, then make a stab at the truth I can accept. Over time and with experience you learn to read tells and motivations in both written and spoken words .. Soooo sorry for my previous insult (uncalled for) and welcome to the USMB as this is the first time we've crossed swords.

.
View attachment 130544

.

Apology accepted, though I am simply posting what I am coming across from people not just on this forum, but on news sites I look at as well. I still do trust them because I know what goes in to the business and the amount of dedication required to do the job.

 

[IResist]

Having gone to journalism school, and seeing the animosity towards the press, it is obvious to me some people don't know how some things work.

In regards to anonymous sources, those are there for a reason. Sources sometimes either speak on the condition of anonymity, or not at all. If a journalist outs their sources without consent, people will not be inclined to come forward in the future and journalists will lose their trust and reputation.

The next time you try to undermine anonymous sources, remember that journalists can, and have, faced prison time if they don't reveal their sources. Reporters protect their sources even if it puts them behind bars. This isn't the first time anonymous sources have been used, and it won't be the last.

Someone called a transcript I quoted from Trump fake news because he didn't hear it on audio. That's how it goes with transcripts. With a transcript, it is word for word and is completely precise. The AP didn't make that up. That's just Trump being Trump.

I thought I would get that off my chest.

You have a hollow chest. There's nothing wrong with an anonomous source but it's up to a REPORTER to investigate and confirm the story otherwise it's just hearsay and hearsay is good enough for a JOURNALIST who has an ax to grind. There's a reason people don't value your shit, it's pure propaganda.

We have gotten to the point where any negative story against Trump is bemoaned as fake news.

It's the boy crying wolf phenomenon. Peddle enough shit and people lose interest.

Trump even said himself about negative polls being fake news. Just because it is negative, doesn't mean it is false. I can't speak for other reporters. My only agenda is reporting the facts and telling the truth. Any opinions I have when I'm on assignment I keep to myself. I'm sure reporters would love to reveal their sources, but they speak on the condition of anonymity. Look at Deep Throat. Unless Deep Throat came forward himself or unless he died, he was going to be protected. There was a reason for that.

 

[IResist]

President Obama had his frustrations with the press, too. The stereotype is they were cheerleaders for him when he was asked many difficult questions over the eight years.

I'd bet if we hooked you up to a polygraph, you could repost that utterly ridiculous lie over and over and the machine would flatline because you actually believe that.

I would say the entire time that Obama's relationship with the press was not always perfect.

 

[Iceweasel]

Having gone to journalism school, and seeing the animosity towards the press, it is obvious to me some people don't know how some things work.

In regards to anonymous sources, those are there for a reason. Sources sometimes either speak on the condition of anonymity, or not at all. If a journalist outs their sources without consent, people will not be inclined to come forward in the future and journalists will lose their trust and reputation.

The next time you try to undermine anonymous sources, remember that journalists can, and have, faced prison time if they don't reveal their sources. Reporters protect their sources even if it puts them behind bars. This isn't the first time anonymous sources have been used, and it won't be the last.

Someone called a transcript I quoted from Trump fake news because he didn't hear it on audio. That's how it goes with transcripts. With a transcript, it is word for word and is completely precise. The AP didn't make that up. That's just Trump being Trump.

I thought I would get that off my chest.

You have a hollow chest. There's nothing wrong with an anonomous source but it's up to a REPORTER to investigate and confirm the story otherwise it's just hearsay and hearsay is good enough for a JOURNALIST who has an ax to grind. There's a reason people don't value your shit, it's pure propaganda.

We have gotten to the point where any negative story against Trump is bemoaned as fake news.

It's the boy crying wolf phenomenon. Peddle enough shit and people lose interest.

Trump even said himself about negative polls being fake news. Just because it is negative, doesn't mean it is false. I can't speak for other reporters. My only agenda is reporting the facts and telling the truth. Any opinions I have when I'm on assignment I keep to myself. I'm sure reporters would love to reveal their sources, but they speak on the condition of anonymity. Look at Deep Throat. Unless Deep Throat came forward himself or unless he died, he was going to be protected. There was a reason for that.

The polls were fake. That isn't even debatable. It's easy to make allegations and when allegations become news then news is nothing but gossip.

 

[MarathonMike]

There seems to be a bit of tap dancing around the real issue with the Media going on in this thread. What I see is an unprecedented all out assault on a brand new Presidency that is completely based in partisan politics. The assault began weeks BEFORE Donald Trump even took the oath of office.

Until 2017 one could make a case, albeit a weak one, that the press still had a shred of independence. That is gone and what we have now is a Media that operates as an attack wing for the Democrats completely dedicated to removing Trump from office as quickly as possible. The Media is dredging up and make public any and every negative news story it can on a daily or even hourly basis to take down Trump. It is a disgusting spectacle and the Democrats should be ashamed.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So what if the so-called journalist is disreputable and the journalists around him are disreputable and they simply make sources up as is the case with most progressive bastards in the liberal media of today?

Let's consider the New York Times, caught hundreds of times in lies and totally disreputable as a news organization. Why should such cowards, American traitors and proven liars receive special rights and protections under the Constitution?

NYTwit Twits

Follow the money. The sacred cow Constitution was written by lawyers for the colonial 1%, who owned all the major newspapers. The more dishonest and sensationalistic the press was allowed to get, the more newspapers the 1% media moguls would make.

 

[Moonglow]

The way it works is Pepsi says jump, and the mainstream media asks, "How high?"

Only if Pepsi-Co.. owned the company they were ordering.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

[QUOTE="IResist, post: 17418158, member: 61962]

So, asking if somebody thinks something is real or not is a matter of bias?[/QUOTE]




Ambitious Imbeciles

Jurinalists ask loaded questions. People who have to live in the real world instead of inside that echo-chamber clique realize that the trigger-happy media are shooting blanks. You're trying to push the idea that those who get influential jobs must deserve those jobs. Others see bias, but I see no-talent brownnoses mindlessly parroting whatever conformist fad idea is chanted in their isolated clubhouse.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

"We have gotten to the point where any negative story against Trump is bemoaned as fake news."
No we haven't. In some cases, sure. There are some people who will never believe anything bad about Trump and others who will never believe anything bad about Obama either. But I'd like to think that most people are in the middle somewhere and would like to see supporting evidence before making any judgments.

I will be the first to tell you reporters make mistakes. I know I have. The press most certainly is not perfect. However, if any negative story about Trump is fake news, the press is not the problem. Furthermore, journalists have also owned up to errors they made and apologized - like the Trump earpiece and the MLK bust.
What if a negative story comes out that is unsubstantiated? What if a journalist or a media outlet always or almost always runs negative stories day in and day out, and never anything good? Should I trust that person or organization?

My response to that is from what I have learned, people are naturally drawn to negative news stories. That's why we tend to see more negative stories in the news than positive news. Negative stories draw more people in. That's just the way it is.

People like to hear downers? Typically you're just repeating unrealistic nonsense because that's what you're told happens in the real world fictionalized by jurinalists.