Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
It seems the mainstream "journalists" (or journalistic charlatans as I like to call them) have struck again linking a Tea Party member to the shooting in Colorado - falsely of course. They do sloppy "half baked" work and pose it as really solid journalism - tell just enough of the truth to support your "worldview" but not enough to be accurate. Nobody, mostly on the left, is including that the Heritage Foundation, after first hatching the idea of a personal mandate for medical coverage, retracted the idea in favor of more market based solutions. Again, they include just enough "truth" to support my political or worldview, but not enough to
Do you think that this has to do with him being a Tea Party member? I doubt it very much. The media race to get the story, and would prefer to get it wrong than that to get it second. Remember Richard Jewell? What about Steven Hatfill? Gary Condit (a Democrat, I might point out)? Each was crucified in the media for something they had nothing to do with, but none of it had anything whatsoever to do with ideology. It had only to do with ratings.
–
Yes, I think it has everything to do with being a Tea Party Member - they can't wait to smear commonplace, working Americans who are tired of too much governement intrusion. Remember the Gabby Giffords case and the "rush" to accuse right wing talk show people for fomenting the killer? It turns out he was an ultra left-wing nut case, but that didn't stop some legislators, MSNBC commentators, and the gun control lobby from wrongly accusing the "right wing" fomentors! Shallow, hollow, incomplete and incompetent "journalistic charlatans" who pose for real journalists. Where is Edward R. Murrow when we need him? A quote, "To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful". We need more of this in all levels of media "journalism" no matter what the political label!
–
Murrow?!?! Fox News would have labelled him a communist for his treatment of McCarthy. He is one of the origins of where the phrase "liberal media" came from, that great hoax perpetrated by members of society whose worldview doesn't jibe with reality. All major media outlets except NPR are owned and operated by giant corporations. They only have one motivation: Profits. MSNBC has a liberal bias, not because there's a such thing as the liberal media, but because they see a niche market that wasn't being served by Fox or CNN. I'm sure the bosses there were just pissed that Murdoch beat them to the conservative bent, because, based on Fox's viewership, that's obviously a bigger market.
One thing we can agree upon is that there are a lot of Charlatans in the media. When a story on the day time news has to do with the latest cat video that's trending on the internet, we all lose. The news isn't there to serve you or I, they're there to make money by tricking us into believing we're being informed, and its important. I've boycotted TV news for many years, and I'm not going back anytime soon. I'll listen to NPR, but that's the only broadcast media that I can stand. Charlatans, yes, absolutely.
–
Actually, Fox News would probably NOT do that - unless you are one of the ones that either doesn't watch it, watches it very selectively, or just reads blogs from folks who don't watch is either. They have Bernie Goldberg, who wrote a great book many years ago entitled "Biased" and who was an award winning reporter, who has a lot of respect for Edward R. Murrow. He was actually right to expose the later "tyrannical tirades" of a compulsive "neurotic" (my opinion). What may have started out as a legitimate inquiry turned into the "Spanish Inquisition" so to speak. NPR is owned by its own, many times biased, corporation called the corporation for Public Broadcasting which has been caught seveal times with its own set of "biased slants" and tyrannical tirades. I do listen to NPR, and do enjoy some of the programming, but to say they have been "spotless saints of news reporting" is an overstatement - they have shown their own "bigotry" in the past. The best we can do is to be as circumspect as possible, and make our best effort to be informed by the most objective sources available to us at the time.
thenewgreen · 4506 days ago · link ·
To b_b's point, it's all about profits and having the shooter be a Tea Party member gets more viewers. They would have been just as excited if they were an Occupy Wall Street organizer. It's not partisan driven, it's profit driven. As we've discussed before, they are all in to make money. Anybody that relies on MSNBC, CNN or FOX for their news and information is going to be a poorly informed person. Even if you watch it knowing that it's skewed and biased, it will taint you. You can't watch episodes of the Three Stooges all day and not sometimes get the urge to poke somebody in the eye. -Be careful what you ingest.
–
–
thenewgreen · 4500 days ago · link ·
I don't forget them.
What I think is telling is that people on both sides "believe" in news organizations. That's been the great achievement in cable media, they have become something to "believe" in, people source identity from them. People have done this for years with political parties, religious affiliation, nationalism and sporting teams but now people do it with which cable news channel they watch. People feel the need to defend Fox or CNBC with the same type of vigor that they do their faith or their alma mater. It makes no sense. I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me
Gary Condit was accused of having an affair, and he was one of the last one's seen with the victim - not a good comparison. Richard Jewell - yep and all the media was on that one - WRONG AGAIN! Where is good, comprehensive journalism when we need it! If that is true, then where is the national media about the denial of permits for Chick Fil A' in Chicago because the founder does not believe in homosexual definitions of marriage - talk about hypocrisy!
–