Kennedy

[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.

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.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

So one can not enter a discussion on a subject and learn from others and then offer his view?

So I guess you see this as a board to simply Orate...and not discuss, learn and debate?

Funny, I always semed to see you differently.

 

[Sallow]

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.

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.

 

[Sallow]

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

It's not one I have or believe has any foundation, so if I heard it, I probably forgot it soon after. Crap data files in my brain are cleaned out on a regular basis.

In reality, if wars are ever lost, it's politicians who do it, not the military.

 

[midcan5]

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

 

[Si modo]

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.

If he presented it as an editorial, then that is fine.

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.

 

[Ravi]

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

Yeah, it's kind of nuts to whine about the freedom of the press when we gave it to them to begin with.

 

[Sallow]

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

Something else we can thank the right wing and Ronald Reagan for..

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

 

[California Girl]

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.

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.

 

[California Girl]

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.

If he presented it as an editorial, then that is fine.

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.

What can one expect when people call scum like Assange 'journalists'?

 

[Ravi]

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.

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

 

[RadiomanATL]

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.

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.

There is a modicum of validity to the argument, but not nearly as much as the proponents ascribe to it.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

I was in 4th grade when Kennedy was assasinated. I remember that we came back from lunch and our teacher told us. About an hour later, we got to go home.

There were those that communicated that they were happy that Kennedy was gone. Let's remember that when he was assasinated, he had an approval rating of around 45%. A lot of people did not think that he was hard line enough with the Soviets, the Cubans, and the communists in general. At the time, no body really knew how close we came to war over the missles in Cuba. That knowledge would come later. No one knew about his daliance's with Marilyn or other women either. Polite society did not discuss such things.

I just remember thinking that it was horrible that a President of the United States would be assasinated. It was the beginning of a very turbulent time in American history. There were many, many more disturbing things on the horizon...

 

[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.

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

Oh, I know how we got to this point. I'm just smart enough to know that it wasn't because of one party or another, or one ideology or another.

 

[Vaard]

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.......

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Vaard]

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.

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.......