CDZ Objective Journalism?

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
70,416
Reaction score
15,800
Points
2,210
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
What evidence do you think they are avoiding?
You've gotta be kidding me.

Okay, just for the hell of it. Let's saying they're talking about "Trump's booming economy". Here are a few examples, of many:
  • When they talk about Trump's "booming economy", why don't they bring up the fact that he exploded the deficit, and that the "boom" is now down to 1.9% growth?
  • When they talk about Trump's "booming economy", why don't they bring up the fact that we've been in a manufacturing recession for quite a while now?
  • When they talk about Trump's "booming economy", why don't they bring up the fact that bond yields have crashed by more than 40%, reflecting market sentiment?
  • When they talk about Trump's great record on black unemployment, why do they forget to mention that it's just continuing the trajectory he inherited from Obama?
All of those are perfectly pertinent and significant FACTS regarding the big picture that should AT LEAST be DISCUSSED if we're going to be HONEST.

But they DON'T. And YOU KNOW WHY. It's because those FACTS run CONTRARY to their NARROW PARTISAN NARRATIVE, so they IGNORE them.

So, in the "news" and "information" world you inhabit, you're only getting one, incomplete, distorted view of reality. You are not getting the whole story. Just one side. Somewhere, at some level, you HAVE to know this.
.
 
Last edited:

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
124,009
Reaction score
11,993
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Was there ever any such thing? Today, we generally have more access to news and information as any time in human existence. Now, when I reflect back to the 'Big 3" broadcast news organizations (ABC, CBS, NBC) it becomes obvious that all the news was filtered through corporate editors who may or may not have been objective. Someone like Walter Cronkite (whose name reminds me of a bag of commie concrete ) was just parroting what was fed to him. In fact, there is no objectivity and never was. The most honest 'news' sources are the ones who declare their bias up front.

Apparently I violated Forum rules by posting this originally in all caps....My bad....
The right hates Conkrite for stating the obvious, that the Vietnam war was pointless, but it still dragged on for four more years after he turned against it.... so he hardly had the influence the right ascribes to him.

The big difference between then and now is that back then, networks were expected to operate their news operations at a loss. If Conkrite was talking about Vietnam, it was because CBS had reporters in Vietnam telling you what is going on there. The job of the News was not to sell Corn Flakes. That was the Beverly Hillbillies job. It was to keep the people informed.

Today, the purpose of the news is to get ratings. So they spend less money on correspondents and more on Overpaid News Readers.

One of my favorite movies is Network, that saw the beginning of this trend away from journalism and towards entertainment. Of course, the "Insane" Howard Beale seems sedate compared to Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson. We went from "Send a correspondent over to find out what is going on" and "Have a bunch of people at a table scream at each other about what is going on."
 

Syriusly

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Messages
54,838
Reaction score
7,116
Points
1,840
Do you think that either Hannity or Limbaugh fully and accurately present the entire story?

Is it possible that they avoid/ignore evidence, information and facts that might be contrary to the point they're making?
.
What evidence do you think they are avoiding?
Tell us about how Hannity and Limbaugh discuss Trump's deficits?

They both had no problem complaining about deficits under Obama.
 

Syriusly

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Messages
54,838
Reaction score
7,116
Points
1,840
Objective Journalism is an oxymoron.
The Trump followers would prefer everyone just accept what Trump says as truth and facts.

Which is why there has been such an assault on American journalism.
 
OP
Leo123

Leo123

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
9,518
Reaction score
2,910
Points
360
Tell us about how Hannity and Limbaugh discuss Trump's deficits?

They both had no problem complaining about deficits under Obama.
NPR and the AP are the gold standard. CNN’s news reporting is very good as well as is the WSJ.
There is no 'gold standard.' Which you would know if you take in more than NPR and AP. CNN has become a joke in it's political reporting.
 
OP
Leo123

Leo123

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
9,518
Reaction score
2,910
Points
360
Objective Journalism is an oxymoron.
The Trump followers would prefer everyone just accept what Trump says as truth and facts.

Which is why there has been such an assault on American journalism.
Why not? Obamites accepted what he said as truth and facts.
 

Syriusly

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Messages
54,838
Reaction score
7,116
Points
1,840
Objective Journalism is an oxymoron.
The Trump followers would prefer everyone just accept what Trump says as truth and facts.

Which is why there has been such an assault on American journalism.
Why not? Obamites accepted what he said as truth and facts.
Sorry- not the case.

And Obama never insisted that everyone must believe what he said and would personally attack anyone who dared criticize him.
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
45,683
Reaction score
7,558
Points
1,870
Location
PNW
Was there ever any such thing? Today, we generally have more access to news and information as any time in human existence. Now, when I reflect back to the 'Big 3" broadcast news organizations (ABC, CBS, NBC) it becomes obvious that all the news was filtered through corporate editors who may or may not have been objective. Someone like Walter Cronkite (whose name reminds me of a bag of commie concrete :abgg2q.jpg:) was just parroting what was fed to him. In fact, there is no objectivity and never was. The most honest 'news' sources are the ones who declare their bias up front.

Apparently I violated Forum rules by posting this originally in all caps....My bad....
There is no such thing and never was and never will be. My solution is to listen to a variety of sources from MSNBC to Rush Limbaugh. I then come to my own version of the reality. Anyone who listens to only one source, no matter how good, is getting someone's biased worldview and can't think for themselves.
I think there is value in hearing different points of view- but Rush Limbaugh is not 'journalism'- he is an entertainer who provides a point of view. I can see the value in knowing what Rush Limbaugh or Seth Meyers says, but that isn't journalism.

I think the real danger is in equating propaganda with journalism.

Russia publishes 'journalism' but it is done for the benefit of Putin and his cronies- not to actually inform. Even Breitbart is more journalism than RT News.
I don't disagree but I think many people get most or all of their news from Limbaugh and other conservative sources.
Less than 16 million listen to Rush, finding your comment tough to believe.
 

anynameyouwish

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
5,324
Reaction score
1,089
Points
170
Was there ever any such thing? Today, we generally have more access to news and information as any time in human existence. Now, when I reflect back to the 'Big 3" broadcast news organizations (ABC, CBS, NBC) it becomes obvious that all the news was filtered through corporate editors who may or may not have been objective. Someone like Walter Cronkite (whose name reminds me of a bag of commie concrete :abgg2q.jpg:) was just parroting what was fed to him. In fact, there is no objectivity and never was. The most honest 'news' sources are the ones who declare their bias up front.

Apparently I violated Forum rules by posting this originally in all caps....My bad....

and you actually think the con media and the coniacs who mindlessly absorb all the spin and lies are any better?

"liberals hate god" actually makes sense to you?
"liberals want to force us all to be gay" actually makes sense to you?
"all liberals are commy nazi fascist scum who hate America" is REAL to you?

pathetic
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
10,776
Reaction score
1,092
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Was there ever any such thing? Today, we generally have more access to news and information as any time in human existence. Now, when I reflect back to the 'Big 3" broadcast news organizations (ABC, CBS, NBC) it becomes obvious that all the news was filtered through corporate editors who may or may not have been objective. Someone like Walter Cronkite (whose name reminds me of a bag of commie concrete :abgg2q.jpg:) was just parroting what was fed to him. In fact, there is no objectivity and never was. The most honest 'news' sources are the ones who declare their bias up front.

Apparently I violated Forum rules by posting this originally in all caps....My bad....
There is no such thing and never was and never will be. My solution is to listen to a variety of sources from MSNBC to Rush Limbaugh. I then come to my own version of the reality. Anyone who listens to only one source, no matter how good, is getting someone's biased worldview and can't think for themselves.
I think there is value in hearing different points of view- but Rush Limbaugh is not 'journalism'- he is an entertainer who provides a point of view. I can see the value in knowing what Rush Limbaugh or Seth Meyers says, but that isn't journalism.

I think the real danger is in equating propaganda with journalism.

Russia publishes 'journalism' but it is done for the benefit of Putin and his cronies- not to actually inform. Even Breitbart is more journalism than RT News.
I don't disagree but I think many people get most or all of their news from Limbaugh and other conservative sources.
Less than 16 million listen to Rush, finding your comment tough to believe.
I used Rush as an example of a biased source of news. If you only get your news some right-wing or left-wing sources you don't get a balanced view and will suffer confirmation bias.
 
OP
Leo123

Leo123

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
9,518
Reaction score
2,910
Points
360
Sorry- not the case.

And Obama never insisted that everyone must believe what he said and would personally attack anyone who dared criticize him.
The Democrat attack on Trump goes far beyond criticism they are trying to IMPEACH him on false charges. Before that they tried to say he was a Russian agent. Then it was obstruction of justice. Now it's a phone call.... Absolutely no evidence whatsoever. I don't blame Trump for punching back especially when you see the MSM aligned with the Democrat party.
 

Ringel05

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
58,760
Reaction score
14,441
Points
2,180
Location
Duke City
Was there ever any such thing? Today, we generally have more access to news and information as any time in human existence. Now, when I reflect back to the 'Big 3" broadcast news organizations (ABC, CBS, NBC) it becomes obvious that all the news was filtered through corporate editors who may or may not have been objective. Someone like Walter Cronkite (whose name reminds me of a bag of commie concrete :abgg2q.jpg:) was just parroting what was fed to him. In fact, there is no objectivity and never was. The most honest 'news' sources are the ones who declare their bias up front.

Apparently I violated Forum rules by posting this originally in all caps....My bad....
There is no such thing and never was and never will be. My solution is to listen to a variety of sources from MSNBC to Rush Limbaugh. I then come to my own version of the reality. Anyone who listens to only one source, no matter how good, is getting someone's biased worldview and can't think for themselves.
I think there is value in hearing different points of view- but Rush Limbaugh is not 'journalism'- he is an entertainer who provides a point of view. I can see the value in knowing what Rush Limbaugh or Seth Meyers says, but that isn't journalism.

I think the real danger is in equating propaganda with journalism.

Russia publishes 'journalism' but it is done for the benefit of Putin and his cronies- not to actually inform. Even Breitbart is more journalism than RT News.
I don't disagree but I think many people get most or all of their news from Limbaugh and other conservative sources.
Less than 16 million listen to Rush, finding your comment tough to believe.
I used Rush as an example of a biased source of news. If you only get your news some right-wing or left-wing sources you don't get a balanced view and will suffer confirmation bias.
Typically people seek out like minded pundits, the confirmation bias already exists. It's second nature to us in a multitude of ways, some negative, some positive and some neutral.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
10,776
Reaction score
1,092
Points
245
Location
Virginia
There is no such thing and never was and never will be. My solution is to listen to a variety of sources from MSNBC to Rush Limbaugh. I then come to my own version of the reality. Anyone who listens to only one source, no matter how good, is getting someone's biased worldview and can't think for themselves.
I think there is value in hearing different points of view- but Rush Limbaugh is not 'journalism'- he is an entertainer who provides a point of view. I can see the value in knowing what Rush Limbaugh or Seth Meyers says, but that isn't journalism.

I think the real danger is in equating propaganda with journalism.

Russia publishes 'journalism' but it is done for the benefit of Putin and his cronies- not to actually inform. Even Breitbart is more journalism than RT News.
I don't disagree but I think many people get most or all of their news from Limbaugh and other conservative sources.
Less than 16 million listen to Rush, finding your comment tough to believe.
I used Rush as an example of a biased source of news. If you only get your news some right-wing or left-wing sources you don't get a balanced view and will suffer confirmation bias.
Typically people seek out like minded pundits, the confirmation bias already exists. It's second nature to us in a multitude of ways, some negative, some positive and some neutral.
I think it is a major source of the political divisiveness in the US and has allowed us to demonize our opponents.
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
45,683
Reaction score
7,558
Points
1,870
Location
PNW
Was there ever any such thing? Today, we generally have more access to news and information as any time in human existence. Now, when I reflect back to the 'Big 3" broadcast news organizations (ABC, CBS, NBC) it becomes obvious that all the news was filtered through corporate editors who may or may not have been objective. Someone like Walter Cronkite (whose name reminds me of a bag of commie concrete :abgg2q.jpg:) was just parroting what was fed to him. In fact, there is no objectivity and never was. The most honest 'news' sources are the ones who declare their bias up front.

Apparently I violated Forum rules by posting this originally in all caps....My bad....

and you actually think the con media and the coniacs who mindlessly absorb all the spin and lies are any better?

"liberals hate god" actually makes sense to you?
"liberals want to force us all to be gay" actually makes sense to you?
"all liberals are commy nazi fascist scum who hate America" is REAL to you?

pathetic
Not much different than what liberals do with conservatives, is it?
 
OP
Leo123

Leo123

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
9,518
Reaction score
2,910
Points
360
What evidence do you think they are avoiding?
You've gotta be kidding me.

Okay, just for the hell of it. Let's saying they're talking about "Trump's booming economy". Here are a few examples, of many:
  • When they talk about Trump's "booming economy", why don't they bring up the fact that he exploded the deficit, and that the "boom" is now down to 1.9% growth?
  • When they talk about Trump's "booming economy", why don't they bring up the fact that we've been in a manufacturing recession for quite a while now?
  • When they talk about Trump's "booming economy", why don't they bring up the fact that bond yields have crashed by more than 40%, reflecting market sentiment?
  • When they talk about Trump's great record on black unemployment, why do they forget to mention that it's just continuing the trajectory he inherited from Obama?
All of those are perfectly pertinent and significant FACTS regarding the big picture that should AT LEAST be DISCUSSED if we're going to be HONEST.

But they DON'T. And YOU KNOW WHY. It's because those FACTS run CONTRARY to their NARROW PARTISAN NARRATIVE, so they IGNORE them.

So, in the "news" and "information" world you inhabit, you're only getting one, incomplete, distorted view of reality. You are not getting the whole story. Just one side. Somewhere, at some level, you HAVE to know this.
.
We are in the longest economic expansion in recent decades with Trump's lowering taxes and relaxing regulations causing a 1st quarter gain of 3.2%. The FED is not helping as it refuses to lower interest rates. Wages and economic growth is 50% higher than during Obama. The stock market also reached a record high.
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
70,416
Reaction score
15,800
Points
2,210
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
What evidence do you think they are avoiding?
You've gotta be kidding me.

Okay, just for the hell of it. Let's saying they're talking about "Trump's booming economy". Here are a few examples, of many:
  • When they talk about Trump's "booming economy", why don't they bring up the fact that he exploded the deficit, and that the "boom" is now down to 1.9% growth?
  • When they talk about Trump's "booming economy", why don't they bring up the fact that we've been in a manufacturing recession for quite a while now?
  • When they talk about Trump's "booming economy", why don't they bring up the fact that bond yields have crashed by more than 40%, reflecting market sentiment?
  • When they talk about Trump's great record on black unemployment, why do they forget to mention that it's just continuing the trajectory he inherited from Obama?
All of those are perfectly pertinent and significant FACTS regarding the big picture that should AT LEAST be DISCUSSED if we're going to be HONEST.

But they DON'T. And YOU KNOW WHY. It's because those FACTS run CONTRARY to their NARROW PARTISAN NARRATIVE, so they IGNORE them.

So, in the "news" and "information" world you inhabit, you're only getting one, incomplete, distorted view of reality. You are not getting the whole story. Just one side. Somewhere, at some level, you HAVE to know this.
.
We are in the longest economic expansion in recent decades with Trump's lowering taxes and relaxing regulations causing a 1st quarter gain of 3.2%. The FED is not helping as it refuses to lower interest rates. Wages and economic growth is 50% higher than during Obama. The stock market also reached a record high.
You didn't address my point. I provided FACTS that talk radio will not address.

They don't address facts like that, and others, because those facts weaken their one-sided narratives.

You asked for examples, and I gave them to you. You're not getting the whole story, and you don't seem to care.
.
 

Ringel05

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
58,760
Reaction score
14,441
Points
2,180
Location
Duke City
I think there is value in hearing different points of view- but Rush Limbaugh is not 'journalism'- he is an entertainer who provides a point of view. I can see the value in knowing what Rush Limbaugh or Seth Meyers says, but that isn't journalism.

I think the real danger is in equating propaganda with journalism.

Russia publishes 'journalism' but it is done for the benefit of Putin and his cronies- not to actually inform. Even Breitbart is more journalism than RT News.
I don't disagree but I think many people get most or all of their news from Limbaugh and other conservative sources.
Less than 16 million listen to Rush, finding your comment tough to believe.
I used Rush as an example of a biased source of news. If you only get your news some right-wing or left-wing sources you don't get a balanced view and will suffer confirmation bias.
Typically people seek out like minded pundits, the confirmation bias already exists. It's second nature to us in a multitude of ways, some negative, some positive and some neutral.
I think it is a major source of the political divisiveness in the US and has allowed us to demonize our opponents.
It's just one aspect. We have built in biases on many levels some stronger than others and that's human nature, it will never change. Mostly it comes down to the Us vs Them mechanism also called "othering", the vast majority don't even know they're doing it as it works on the sub conscious level which is one of the many reasons the emotive appeal works so well. There's extensive research and documentation on it.
As for objective journalism, it's pretty much never existed, there's always been a level of media bias thru-out history, in this country alone in the 18th and 19th centuries newspapers were most often simply propaganda arms of the different political parties as well as some corporate newspaper outlets.
 
OP
Leo123

Leo123

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
9,518
Reaction score
2,910
Points
360
What evidence do you think they are avoiding?
You've gotta be kidding me.

Okay, just for the hell of it. Let's saying they're talking about "Trump's booming economy". Here are a few examples, of many:
  • When they talk about Trump's "booming economy", why don't they bring up the fact that he exploded the deficit, and that the "boom" is now down to 1.9% growth?
  • When they talk about Trump's "booming economy", why don't they bring up the fact that we've been in a manufacturing recession for quite a while now?
  • When they talk about Trump's "booming economy", why don't they bring up the fact that bond yields have crashed by more than 40%, reflecting market sentiment?
  • When they talk about Trump's great record on black unemployment, why do they forget to mention that it's just continuing the trajectory he inherited from Obama?
All of those are perfectly pertinent and significant FACTS regarding the big picture that should AT LEAST be DISCUSSED if we're going to be HONEST.

But they DON'T. And YOU KNOW WHY. It's because those FACTS run CONTRARY to their NARROW PARTISAN NARRATIVE, so they IGNORE them.

So, in the "news" and "information" world you inhabit, you're only getting one, incomplete, distorted view of reality. You are not getting the whole story. Just one side. Somewhere, at some level, you HAVE to know this.
.
We are in the longest economic expansion in recent decades with Trump's lowering taxes and relaxing regulations causing a 1st quarter gain of 3.2%. The FED is not helping as it refuses to lower interest rates. Wages and economic growth is 50% higher than during Obama. The stock market also reached a record high.
You didn't address my point. I provided FACTS that talk radio will not address.

They don't address facts like that, and others, because those facts weaken their one-sided narratives.

You asked for examples, and I gave them to you. You're not getting the whole story, and you don't seem to care.
.
Example: Markets go up and down and that includes the bond market. If one stays the course in their bond investments those bonds provide stability to a portfolio. Your description of a 'crash' in the bond market shows a lack of understanding of market forces and a desire to blame Trump. The bond market suffered during Obama because of the artificially low FED interest rates. Unfortunately, at that time, the economy was also suffering. Trump's policies pulled us out of a predicted recession but the bond market has yet to recover.

This does not mean the bonds are a bad investment over the long run. Anyone thinking they are going to make a bundle short-term in Treasuries needs their head examined. Moreover using the bond market to somehow delegitimize a President is just plain propaganda.
 
Last edited:

jwoodie

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
14,334
Reaction score
2,978
Points
280
Objective Journalism is an oxymoron.
The Trump followers would prefer everyone just accept what Trump says as truth and facts.

Which is why there has been such an assault on American journalism.
Modern American journalism is little more than advocacy for a particular point of view.

Impartial news reporting has become nearly nonexistent.

:bigboy:
 
OP
Leo123

Leo123

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
9,518
Reaction score
2,910
Points
360
Objective Journalism is an oxymoron.
The Trump followers would prefer everyone just accept what Trump says as truth and facts.

Which is why there has been such an assault on American journalism.
Modern American journalism is little more than advocacy for a particular point of view.

Impartial news reporting has become nearly nonexistent.

:bigboy:
Impartial news reporting never was existent going all the way back to the first printing press.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top