sex scandal Obama Admin

[sd'sker]

i love how when you complain about a conservative source as being misleading or inaccurate the response is: huffington post, or whatever. i guess as long as someone else is being dishonest it is ok. even though i would like to see some examples of huffington post's lack of journalistic integrity. it is like you criticize something on the right and all you get is a list of the left. i guess if that makes you feel better, but maybe instead of being an apologist you should do some research and figure out the veracity of your sources and others' sources.

You mean like whenever anyone dares mention Fox......................it is automatically relegated to the trash bin ?

that is not what i said at all.

when someone mentions fox it will be criticized, but their behavior should not be justified by another entity's lack of journalistic integrity. it comes down to this: there is truth and bias. i have no problem with journalists having a slant as long as they are still honest and have integrity. but if something is patently false, it needs to be criticized. if you are biased, but back it up with facts; that is good. if you are biased, but only back it up with conjecture; that is bad.

[BigRedBuster]

i love how when you complain about a conservative source as being misleading or inaccurate the response is: huffington post, or whatever. i guess as long as someone else is being dishonest it is ok. even though i would like to see some examples of huffington post's lack of journalistic integrity. it is like you criticize something on the right and all you get is a list of the left. i guess if that makes you feel better, but maybe instead of being an apologist you should do some research and figure out the veracity of your sources and others' sources.

You mean like whenever anyone dares mention Fox......................it is automatically relegated to the trash bin ?

that is not what i said at all.

when someone mentions fox it will be criticized, but their behavior should not be justified by another entity's lack of journalistic integrity. it comes down to this: there is truth and bias. i have no problem with journalists having a slant as long as they are still honest and have integrity. but if something is patently false, it needs to be criticized. if you are biased, but back it up with facts; that is good. if you are biased, but only back it up with conjecture; that is bad.

 

That is impossible.

 

A journalist can personally be biased. Everyone is. BUT, their job is to report facts. Facts come from both sides and to be biased to one side even though you present their side of the "facts" is completely against what a true journalist is supposed to do.

[BigRedBuster]

This gets to the meat of what is wrong with media now days.

 

Americans have become so conditioned to believing the jobs of journalists is to support one side or the other even if it is presented with facts.

 

That is NOT their job. Their job is to report facts from both sides and allow us to decide from there.

[sd'sker]

i love how when you complain about a conservative source as being misleading or inaccurate the response is: huffington post, or whatever. i guess as long as someone else is being dishonest it is ok. even though i would like to see some examples of huffington post's lack of journalistic integrity. it is like you criticize something on the right and all you get is a list of the left. i guess if that makes you feel better, but maybe instead of being an apologist you should do some research and figure out the veracity of your sources and others' sources.

You mean like whenever anyone dares mention Fox......................it is automatically relegated to the trash bin ?

that is not what i said at all.

when someone mentions fox it will be criticized, but their behavior should not be justified by another entity's lack of journalistic integrity. it comes down to this: there is truth and bias. i have no problem with journalists having a slant as long as they are still honest and have integrity. but if something is patently false, it needs to be criticized. if you are biased, but back it up with facts; that is good. if you are biased, but only back it up with conjecture; that is bad.

 

That is impossible.

 

A journalist can personally be biased. Everyone is. BUT, their job is to report facts. Facts come from both sides and to be biased to one side even though you present their side of the "facts" is completely against what a true journalist is supposed to do.

when i say biased, i mean that they report on stories that will be more interesting to one side or the other. when you write a research paper, you are making an argument with sources and facts, but it is still an argument. i guess what i am talking about is not true journalists, but pundits that report the news. as long as they are honest, provide context, and are accurate, i do not care. the bias comes in when they try to explain why it is important and what it means.

[sd'sker]

This gets to the meat of what is wrong with media now days.

 

Americans have become so conditioned to believing the jobs of journalists is to support one side or the other even if it is presented with facts.

 

That is NOT their job. Their job is to report facts from both sides and allow us to decide from there.

facts do not have 'sides', perceptions do.

[knapplc]

Agreed, BRB.

[BigRedBuster]

This gets to the meat of what is wrong with media now days.

 

Americans have become so conditioned to believing the jobs of journalists is to support one side or the other even if it is presented with facts.

 

That is NOT their job. Their job is to report facts from both sides and allow us to decide from there.

facts do not have 'sides', perceptions do.

 

 

 

OH....but they do. You can write an article about a certain event and paint it in a completely different picture than what reality is and still be reporting technically facts. BUT, the end conclusion of the story that the reporter leaves you to decide on your own is completely scewed because the reporter only told the facts that support one side.

[Undone]

The other facet of this seems to be that the news has to have an attention-getter, because at the end of day the goal is to be profitable and sell ad space.

 

News is a business, with a bottom line.

[sd'sker]

This gets to the meat of what is wrong with media now days.

 

Americans have become so conditioned to believing the jobs of journalists is to support one side or the other even if it is presented with facts.

 

That is NOT their job. Their job is to report facts from both sides and allow us to decide from there.

facts do not have 'sides', perceptions do.

 

 

 

OH....but they do. You can write an article about a certain event and paint it in a completely different picture than what reality is and still be reporting technically facts. BUT, the end conclusion of the story that the reporter leaves you to decide on your own is completely scewed because the reporter only told the facts that support one side.

whatever, but i guess i was talking more about prime time hosts on cable news networks. they are not journalists per se, but they should still be held to a standard of honesty and integrity. they are different than true news reporters.

[BigRedBuster]

It's not just..."whatever". I don't care if you are talking about Beck, Hannity, Oreilly, Maddow, Olberman or anyone else on any of the networks that claim to just be opinion shows.

 

People have been drawn to these people as their source for news. It is a sick phenomena in the US right now that is extremely dangerous. Beck or Maddow come out with some big story that their sheep eat up and all of a sudden it's all over the Internet as fact when it is farthest from the truth.

 

Then you throw in people like Micheal Moore that absolutely is sick to the core with his lies. But...technically, he is telling facts.

I have very little respect for anyone in the media anymore and they can all go burn for all I care.

[sd'sker]

It's not just..."whatever". I don't care if you are talking about Beck, Hannity, Oreilly, Maddow, Olberman or anyone else on any of the networks that claim to just be opinion shows.

 

People have been drawn to these people as their source for news. It is a sick phenomena in the US right now that is extremely dangerous. Beck or Maddow come out with some big story that their sheep eat up and all of a sudden it's all over the Internet as fact when it is farthest from the truth.

 

Then you throw in people like Micheal Moore that absolutely is sick to the core with his lies. But...technically, he is telling facts.

I have very little respect for anyone in the media anymore and they can all go burn for all I care.

ok.

 

your problem is that you want to equate everyone together. beck just makes up conjecture. maddow (have you ever actually watched her show?) provides context and primary sources. there is a difference and i would say equating all talking heads together is just as dangerous. people ultimately have to use their judgment, but the difference is that beck uses chalk boards and maddow uses quotes and legitimate news stories.

 

also, i said whatever because i do not really care that much.

[BigRedBuster]

And, here we go....the other side makes stuff up and doesn't tell the truth. The one that supports your side is honest.

 

I get it.

[sd'sker]

And, here we go....the other side makes stuff up and doesn't tell the truth. The one that supports your side is honest.

 

I get it.

show your work.

 

edit: i am only defending maddow since you singled her out.

 

seriously, if you can not see how beck is a clown and maddow actually provides thoughtful, well cited work, than i really can not go on with this conversation. i think we are capable of more than just rationalizations through equivocation and saying everything is equivalent.

[BigRedBuster]

And, yes...I have tried to watch Maddow before. I got about half way through her program and wanted to throw up over her one sided stories.

[sd'sker]

And, yes...I have tried to watch Maddow before. I got about half way through her program and wanted to throw up over her one sided stories.

examples, please.