Fairness Doctrine Video

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Lister

Me thinks you need to look in the mirror..

Oh stop it, you don't "think".

[Lister]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by Lister

Me thinks you need to look in the mirror..

Oh stop it, you don't "think".

Such hostility from the self-proclaimed bipartisan!

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Lister

Such hostility from the self-proclaimed bipartisan!

Feel free to wet your pants, everyone else on this thread has.  And if you can't take a jab, you could think about your desire to dish them out.

[Lister]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by Lister

Such hostility from the self-proclaimed bipartisan!

Feel free to wet your pants, everyone else on this thread has.  And if you can't take a jab, you could think about your desire to dish them out.

Looks like you're the one that can't take a jab.. tsk, tsk... Such anger. Things not going well for you today, or any other day?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC
In your "us versus them" world, that would be true.  However, "conservative" media is a response to the label of "liberal" on everything mainstream.   Many people bought into this label, and looked for something else.  AM Radio, and Fox/News Corp gave it to them in the form of near-pure propaganda.  

The same people claiming "liberal media", even fictionalized the mainstream medias handling of the Iraq War in the beginning.  Even though the mainstream media failed miserably in it's duty to ask questions of the gov't.

I don't watch Fox News, listen to AM Radio, or seek out "liberal media."  If you're one of those kind of folks, you've probably got plenty to look at.  Go get you some.

So let's drop the labels then, since you somehow believe that the term liberal media "made up."  You believe that conservatives are pushing anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc, with propaganda on conservative news outlets.  Fine.

What then do you call a news outlet that is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, etc?

Why is it only "pushing an agenda" when it's conservative, but evenhanded when the POVs conveniently mirror your own?

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

What then do you call a news outlet that is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, etc?

I haven't seen one that's actually "pro" either.  I have seen events mentioned, but it's not obviously "pro" on either, unless you get to op/eds.  Op/eds aren't news, MSNBC, CNN, FOX, they all have Op/eds.  Mostly conservative-ish (because it pays).  But there's also more than one force at work, so if you're talking about abortion, most people don't like it, but most people think it has to be legal.  That would be a mainstream opinion, but it's value in mainstream news is marginal.

quote:Why is it only "pushing an agenda" when it's conservative, but evenhanded when the POVs conveniently mirror your own?

Mainstream media, what you refer to as "liberal", does not mirror my own views.  Only in your little polarized world do people think like that.  I've not been happy with mainstream media in recent years, it's coming around some.  But still, mainstream media doesn't reflect my views.  I don't fault you for flocking to propaganda material, lot's of people do.  I don't, I know it's there, and I am fine with it being there.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

No, predisposition as in predisposed to being liberal.  Paging Dan Rather.

News Corp almost isn't news at all, because of bad journalism.

No, just propoganda and eye candy, that's really about it. Shepard Smith seems like he's fit for bigger and better things, though. His work during Hurricane Katrina and last year's set-to in Israel were his signature moments.

Still, they do have their memorable moments when it all blows up in their faces, such as when Senator Carl Levin of Mchigan
sparred verbally with Brian Kilmeade and by the time the "interview" was over, Brian had this look on his face like he'd just been owned. Or when Senator Barbara Boxer lit into Jane Skinner; the Senator had Fox's number and Jane knew it by the time the "interview" was over.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC
Mainstream media, what you refer to as "liberal", does not mirror my own views.  Only in your little polarized world do people think like that.  I've not been happy with mainstream media in recent years, it's coming around some.  But still, mainstream media doesn't reflect my views.  I don't fault you for flocking to propaganda material, lot's of people do.  I don't, I know it's there, and I am fine with it being there.

It's always the guy who's completely nuts who thinks everyone else has the problem, but no, he's just fine...

You couldn't possibly be a partisan or have a clouded POV that makes it difficult for you to discern when media outlets are being heavy handed and letting personal opinion filter into their reportage...except for when they're conservative of course, then you're all over it.

Whether you're "happy" with the mainstream media or not is of no concern to me and has no bearing on whether they are shifted in ideology or not.  The numbers don't lie, and these people aren't machines.  They are influenced by their personal beliefs just like you and I are.  At least I'm honest enough to admit that outlets like Fox are more conservative...you're happy in la-la-land pretending that fiascos like Dan Rather's are just isolated incidents.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Whether you're "happy" with the mainstream media or not is of no concern to me and has no bearing on whether they are shifted in ideology or not.  The numbers don't lie, and these people aren't machines.  They are influenced by their personal beliefs just like you and I are.  At least I'm honest enough to admit that outlets like Fox are more conservative...you're happy in la-la-land pretending that fiascos like Dan Rather's are just isolated incidents.

He made a mistake, a big one, and he paid.  

But it takes a complete moron or a revisionist to sit here and say that the mainstream media was anything but conservative for the couple years after 911.  I know why, I understand why.  I only fault them a little bit, given the quasi-fascist rhetoric coming out of the White  House.  We were close to reverting to McCarthyism or worse, and the only ones that would have survived were groups like News Corp.

Your concept of "liberal media" when attached to the mainstream news outlets is under water.  The only people that believe that, have believed it all along.  Like those that believe in UFOs or WTC Conspiracies.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Whether you're "happy" with the mainstream media or not is of no concern to me and has no bearing on whether they are shifted in ideology or not.  The numbers don't lie, and these people aren't machines.  They are influenced by their personal beliefs just like you and I are.  At least I'm honest enough to admit that outlets like Fox are more conservative...you're happy in la-la-land pretending that fiascos like Dan Rather's are just isolated incidents.

We were close to reverting to McCarthyism or worse, and the only ones that would have survived were groups like News Corp.

Close to it? Hmmm, listen to the likes of Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and the rest of the Hee Haw gang and you'd swear we already were dealing with some degree of McCarthyism.

[NellieBly]

It doesn't matter what you think of the press, but the sad reality is that, as a whole, they have failed newspaper readers. This is one of the reasons for popular blog and websites, such as Tulsa Now. How many topics of Tulsa World stories were first mentioned here? We are doing their job for them.

There is no investigative journalism today. There is no one out there looking for the proverbial deep throat anymore axcept maybe the bloggers.

I would be interested in attending journalism school today to see what has changed. It used to be that it was "just the facts." period. It was simple. Today, reporters offer analysis (read opinion) in the midst of legitimate news articles.

Ethis were an important part of journalism school. We were told not to support candidates or particular issues or we could lose credibility. Journalists were not allowed to accept gifts. Now, gifts are the only way to get an interview with a writer in some cases.

I think the demise of true journalism is a reflection of the demise of the industry itself. Reporters just don't care anymore, because people don't read newspapers anymore.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by NellieBly

It doesn't matter what you think of the press, but the sad reality is that, as a whole, they have failed newspaper readers. This is one of the reasons for popular blog and websites, such as Tulsa Now. How many topics of Tulsa World stories were first mentioned here? We are doing their job for them.

There is no investigative journalism today. There is no one out there looking for the proverbial deep throat anymore axcept maybe the bloggers.

I would be interested in attending journalism school today to see what has changed. It used to be that it was "just the facts." period. It was simple. Today, reporters offer analysis (read opinion) in the midst of legitimate news articles.

Ethis were an important part of journalism school. We were told not to support candidates or particular issues or we could lose credibility. Journalists were not allowed to accept gifts. Now, gifts are the only way to get an interview with a writer in some cases.

I think the demise of true journalism is a reflection of the demise of the industry itself. Reporters just don't care anymore, because people don't read newspapers anymore.

Nellie, are you a journalist?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by NellieBly

It doesn't matter what you think of the press, but the sad reality is that, as a whole, they have failed newspaper readers. This is one of the reasons for popular blog and websites, such as Tulsa Now. How many topics of Tulsa World stories were first mentioned here? We are doing their job for them.

There is no investigative journalism today. There is no one out there looking for the proverbial deep throat anymore axcept maybe the bloggers.

I would be interested in attending journalism school today to see what has changed. It used to be that it was "just the facts." period. It was simple. Today, reporters offer analysis (read opinion) in the midst of legitimate news articles.

Ethis were an important part of journalism school. We were told not to support candidates or particular issues or we could lose credibility. Journalists were not allowed to accept gifts. Now, gifts are the only way to get an interview with a writer in some cases.

I think the demise of true journalism is a reflection of the demise of the industry itself. Reporters just don't care anymore, because people don't read newspapers anymore.

I see several problems which have evolved since the advent of cable news and the internet.

Used to be when I was a kid, you got your news in the morning paper, evening paper (I was a Trib carrier for a couple of years), and on the local evening news or the national news immediately before or following.  There wasn't a 5pm and 6pm local newscast, just one.  

If there was a major disaster, you could expect them to cut in on regular programming.  The Tulsa World was more or less a re-cap of what you saw on the 10pm news unless something happened between 10pm and deadline for the final home edition, which I think was 12 or 1am.

Now that there are so many news outlets, there is heavy competition to scoop each other on stories.  In the haste to be the first to inform, details are frequently left out.

The other issue is that CNN turned news into entertainment.  Two watershed events I see that addicted a nation to news as entertainment were Operation Desert Storm and the O.J. trial.

Things which weren't considered acceptible in journalism school are now SOP.  Networks and tabloids pay big $$$ to get the "inside story".  Inflecting a journalist's personal views into skewing his or her report is apparent.  It's easy to see in reportage.  If the news isn't distilled in some manner, then what is the purpose in having 10 channels on Cox all reporting the same story?  Every reporter has to put their personal angle on a story or add pathos to pull you in.  Otherwise, we'd only need one news station.

For example, on ABC Nightline and Olbermann last night, the Libby sentence commutation (incorrectly referred to by multiple parties as a parden- just stating facts not my "conservative" opinion) weighed in heavily with Joe Wilson, who has a horse in this race and leading Democratic candidates for President as to why this points to corruption in the White House.  Hillary chiming in on this was ludicrous, considering the volume of pardons to some serious scum-bags issued on her husband's last day in office- which is a President's prerogative.

You wouldn't expect Olbermann to be kind to Bush on this.  However, you would think a "mainstream" news outlet like ABC would have had more balance, rather than giving a GOP-head a 15 second sound bite to a 1 minute sound-bite to a Dem-head.  

There's obvious bias on this.  I didn't watch anything on Fox last night, but it didn't raise too much of a stink even on Beck.

Long story short, Nellie:  We get crappy news these days because the news industry is so competitive, they have to fill lots of time, and they have to keep people interested long enough to keep viewership or readership.  Things like facts seldom get in the way of a good story these days.

Two men I will say represent the last bastion of honorable journalism are Woodward & Bernstein.  I don't have a clue which political party either of them belongs to, but they have investigated and reported tough stories on politicians without bias as to which political party that person was from.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

However, you would think a "mainstream" news outlet like ABC would have had more balance, rather than giving a GOP-head a 15 second sound bite to a 1 minute sound-bite to a Dem-head.  

There's obvious bias on this.

Maybe your expectations are at fault.  That doesn't show bias, it's shows economics.  People don't want to sit through some guy saying how "everything is alright".  They want b*tching and moaning and blood and "the sky is falling."

If roles were reversed, and the GOP was given 4 times the amount of time given to a Dem, you wouldn't even have noticed it.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

However, you would think a "mainstream" news outlet like ABC would have had more balance, rather than giving a GOP-head a 15 second sound bite to a 1 minute sound-bite to a Dem-head.  

There's obvious bias on this.

Maybe your expectations are at fault.  That doesn't show bias, it's shows economics.  People don't want to sit through some guy saying how "everything is alright".  They want b*tching and moaning and blood and "the sky is falling."

If roles were reversed, and the GOP was given 4 times the amount of time given to a Dem, you wouldn't even have noticed it.

Actually, I would have noticed.  Is it time for us to start calling each other liars again, MC? []

When I watch Olbermann or O'Reilly, I know who their horse is, they are commentators- not journalists.  When I watch a nightly newscast or news journal like Nightline, I expect all sides to be represented equally.  

Had ABC devoted more time talking to Rudy or McCain, I would assume the producers at ABC thought the commutation was a good thing.  I can only assume that the producers felt it was a bad thing since they devoted more time to the critics of it.

Why anyone cares what Joe Wilson thinks is beyond me, other than to ratchet up partisan hatred.  He's a putz.