Freedom of press.

[*bfine32*]

I think stating "Declairing war on the American people" is a little extreme; however, he should be allowed to say it.

Tim Kaine said liberals should fight in the streets to revolt against Trump's Presidency. How hard did the media attack this call to violence?

The more poper wording would be: The media has declared war of the United States people's freely chosen choice. But that's kind of wordy.

[GMDino]

(02-21-2017, 12:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think stating "Declairing war on the American people" is a little extreme; however, he should be allowed to say it.

Tim Kaine said liberals should fight in the streets to revolt against Trump's Presidency. How hard did the media attack this call to violence?

The more poper wording would be: The media has declared war of the United States people's freely chosen choice. But that's kind of wordy.

And the true statement would be: "Everyone except the right wing sites are reporting that the Emperor has no clothes."

[hollodero]

(02-21-2017, 12:52 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I believe that there probably is a left of center bias.  

Yeah... after I sent that one out I realized that I actually believe that too.

(02-21-2017, 12:52 PM)michaelsean Wrote: (I know our left are the equivalent of raging fascists in Austria but I'll stick with the term. )

true... but not quite. We have the same alt-right-esque movement here than you have, and they will win our next election. What is definitely true is that we generally do not believe you have a distinct "left"... but we have more partys, hence our spectrum is broader.

[hollodero]

(02-21-2017, 12:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The "legitimate" press now apparently has no issue with branding people neo-nazis, fascists, anti-semites, white supremacists, xenophobes, bigots or any of many other serious allegations.  This is largely done based on tenuous or anecdotal evidence, the fact that some people find their political opinions disagreeable or just because they made an offhand remark thirty years ago.

Do they though...? I seldomly see those terms thrown around in the news segment of CNN. But sure, my insights are quite slim and there's many outlets I don't know.
When mere commentators do it in an opinion segment, I "counter" with.... Hannity. That's some serious stuff too.

(02-21-2017, 12:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Trump is way out of control with his attacks on the press but the press is largely responsible for the negative view many of the public have of them.  Hard news articles are frequently peppered with editorial comments.  If the press wants to be taking seriously again by the part of the public that no longer does then they need to start reporting facts, cease engaging in conjecture and stop throwing editorial comments in hard news items.

Yeah... I am not so fond of your press either, so I can't really argue that one. Only thing I see, If a news outlet would strictly focus on hard news and nothing else, there might be a severe drop in viewer-/readership.
Which would mean, the profit motive would have to be a non-factor. Which would mean... public funding... and that's also not the best of ideas.

(02-21-2017, 12:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Tim Kaine said liberals should fight in the streets to revolt against Trump's Presidency. How hard did the media attack this call to violence?

Although I personally didn't consider it a call to violence (but a call for rallies), that is a fair question.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

If the majority of the media is biased against a certain political party and willfully withholds information to sway public opinion against that party, that makes the media the enemy of the American people in my opinion.

The media in Nazi Germany was the enemy of the people.

We are hearing an uproar now because the majority of the American media is Liberal but where was the uproar when Reed said that Romney hadn't paid taxes in ten years and the media didn't correct that statement until after the election for example?

As for Hannity, the guy is a shill. He has a show because he has an audience.

The American people have got to get away from the Prime Time Opinion shows and only watch their local news broadcasts. The opinion shows out there are full of bias to the extreme and are destroying this country. People will gravitate towards their own ideology and these media outlets know it. They are in business to make money, not inform the people. Newspapers are the same way.

It will never change, the genie is out of the bottle, Pandora is running rampant. The genie and Pandora had a baby and his name is misinformation.

[hollodero]

(02-21-2017, 01:50 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: If the majority of the media is biased against a certain political party and willfully withholds information to sway public opinion against that party, that makes the media the enemy of the American people in my opinion.

The media in Nazi Germany was the enemy of the people.

Eeeeehm... what is it what you're saying?
You basically just said that calling the media enemy of the people is Nazi rhetorics. Even I didn't go as far as to accuse Hannity of that.
--

Is there a recent example of media willfully withholding information?

[Benton]

(02-21-2017, 12:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   Hard news articles are frequently peppered with editorial comments.  If the press wants to be taking seriously again by the part of the public that no longer does then they need to start reporting facts, cease engaging in conjecture and stop throwing editorial comments in hard news items.

Unfortunately, this has been the trend over the last 10-15 years. And to point fingers, it's mostly J schools and their lack of preparing students for the job.

I'm rapidly getting to the age where I'm old enough to know things, but young enough not to be outdated (yet). So I work with younger journalists when I can. And it amazes me how little most of them learned about writing, the actual mechanics of language and word usage. They're good at grammar, but don't understand the weight of the words they chose. Or don't care. In that same line of thinking, I'm also surprised how few know about not putting themselves into the situation. The majority of focus seems to be avoiding plagiarism, sticking to AP, and trying to get people to approach things 'out-of-the-box.'

Which, with the last one, is great, except there's not enough warm bodies in news rooms these days doing the traditional in the box style of digging up facts and putting them out there unpolished.

(02-21-2017, 12:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think stating "Declairing war on the American people" is a little extreme; however, he should be allowed to say it.

 

Agreed

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-21-2017, 02:01 PM)Benton Wrote: Unfortunately, this has been the trend over the last 10-15 years. And to point fingers, it's mostly J schools and their lack of preparing students for the job.

That makes sense and would fall in with the trend I'm noticing about higher education in general.  Point being, I don't think it's just journalism schools doing a poor job.

Quote:I'm rapidly getting to the age where I'm old enough to know things, but young enough not to be outdated (yet). So I work with younger journalists when I can. And it amazes me how little most of them learned about writing, the actual mechanics of language and word usage. They're good at grammar, but don't understand the weight of the words they chose. Or don't care. In that same line of thinking, I'm also surprised how few know about not putting themselves into the situation. The majority of focus seems to be avoiding plagiarism, sticking to AP, and trying to get people to approach things 'out-of-the-box.'

This could not be more true.  I've told people I deal with that I could write a report that would make you look like the devil or describe the exact same events and make you seem like a saint.  It's one of the key things I stress with my people and their reports, be careful how you word things because you could be perceived as prejudicing the matter or making yourself look too invested in a certain outcome.  It's very important for my job, but for journalists being a wordsmith is their job.  I've even noticed blatant errors in reports on major news sites, so editors seem to be failing at their job as well.  Not to mention it's the editors picking the inflammatory clickbait article titles.

Quote:Which, with the last one, is great, except there's not enough warm bodies in news rooms these days doing the traditional in the box style of digging up facts and putting them out there unpolished.

Agreed on this as well.  It seems to me that the journalism profession is at a crossroads with the choices being to continue down the TMZ road or return to the Woodward and Bernstein mode.  Sadly, I fear the wrong choice is going to be made.

[GMDino]

(02-21-2017, 02:01 PM)Benton Wrote: Unfortunately, this has been the trend over the last 10-15 years. And to point fingers, it's mostly J schools and their lack of preparing students for the job.

I'm rapidly getting to the age where I'm old enough to know things, but young enough not to be outdated (yet). So I work with younger journalists when I can. And it amazes me how little most of them learned about writing, the actual mechanics of language and word usage. They're good at grammar, but don't understand the weight of the words they chose. Or don't care. In that same line of thinking, I'm also surprised how few know about not putting themselves into the situation. The majority of focus seems to be avoiding plagiarism, sticking to AP, and trying to get people to approach things 'out-of-the-box.'

Which, with the last one, is great, except there's not enough warm bodies in news rooms these days doing the traditional in the box style of digging up facts and putting them out there unpolished.


Agreed

I think it has taken an administration that lies constantly about even the smallest of things but news is swinging back to actual reporting with actual facts.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-21-2017, 01:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: Eeeeehm... what is it what you're saying?
You basically just said that calling the media enemy of the people is Nazi rhetorics. Even I didn't go as far as to accuse Hannity of that.
--

Is there a recent example of media willfully withholding information?

Monica's dress.  Duh.  OK it's not that recent.  

[Benton]

(02-21-2017, 03:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Agreed on this as well.  It seems to me that the journalism profession is at a crossroads with the choices being to continue down the TMZ road or return to the Woodward and Bernstein mode.  Sadly, I fear the wrong choice is going to be made.

(02-21-2017, 04:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: I think it has taken an administration that lies constantly about even the smallest of things but news is swinging back to actual reporting with actual facts.

I will say this about the last month. It's been great for newspapers, both in terms of revenue and in getting journalists to snap out of the 15-year funk they've been in when down-sizing really hit everyone from the big companies like Gannett on down. In the last couple months I've talked to some of the folks who got out recently because the industry was down-sizing, but they're wanting to get back in because there are some powerful stories out there.

[Rotobeast]

(02-21-2017, 08:45 AM)xxlt Wrote: I think even some "hey, sure he's batshit crazy, but he's not a liberal" voters would agree on this point. People who have more credibility than Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and HANNITY! include: Captain Crunch, Count Chocula, The Lucky Charms Leprechaun, and Gary Busey. I would almost even add DT himself to this list but I think it is too close to call.

LEAVE GARY BUSEY ALONE !!

On topic: Damn Project Mockingbird, being used to divide us !

Side note: I really want to see a movie where Gary Busey and Christopher Walken are on the road together. Maybe bumbling bank robbers ?

[Benton]

(02-22-2017, 02:07 AM)Rotobeast Wrote:  

Side note: I really want to see a movie where Gary Busey and Christopher Walken are on the road together. Maybe bumbling bank robbers ?

I've always thought a movie with those two as retired CIA hitmen looking for Nazi gold would be awesome.

Starts with an opening vignette flashback in Florida. A young Busey is penetrating a house while a Young Walken is set up sniping. Whitty radio banter ensues. They take down this compound full of enemy agents only to discover it's really just a bunch of hired thugs guarding Nazi gold. They realize their handler set them up and was after the gold all along, so they hide it after a car chase, then the police arrive and arrest them. The CIA disavows them, so they end up doing 25 years in jail.

The rest of the movie is set in modern times with the two getting out of jail and trying to remember where they hid the gold because Florida has changed a lot in 25 years. Maybe have some of it in a theme park.

[Rotobeast]

(02-22-2017, 11:31 AM)Benton Wrote: I've always thought a movie with those two as retired CIA hitmen looking for Nazi gold would be awesome.

Starts with an opening vignette flashback in Florida. A young Busey is penetrating a house while a Young Walken is set up sniping. Whitty radio banter ensues. They take down this compound full of enemy agents only to discover it's really just a bunch of hired thugs guarding Nazi gold. They realize their handler set them up and was after the gold all along, so they hide it after a car chase, then the police arrive and arrest them. The CIA disavows them, so they end up doing 25 years in jail.

The rest of the movie is set in modern times with the two getting out of jail and trying to remember where they hid the gold because Florida has changed a lot in 25 years. Maybe have some of it in a theme park.

I already thought as much, but we really need to hang out....lol

[Benton]

(02-22-2017, 11:33 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I already thought as much, but we really need to hang out....lol

Oh, and I forgot my favorite part.

Busey's character is named "Jones" but nobody gets it right. Walken calls him "Jonsey." their handler (Brian Cox) calls him Johnson (you find out at the end he knew his name the whole time, he just thought Busey was a real ****). When he gets out of jail, his probation officer calls him Mr. Janes, and when Busey goes off about the typo the probation officer assures him Probation and Parole doesn't make mistakes, his name must be Mr. Janes. Etc, etc.

[Rotobeast]

(02-22-2017, 02:57 PM)Benton Wrote: Oh, and I forgot my favorite part.

Busey's character is named "Jones" but nobody gets it right. Walken calls him "Jonsey." their handler (Brian Cox) calls him Johnson (you find out at the end he knew his name the whole time, he just thought Busey was a real ****). When he gets out of jail, his probation officer calls him Mr. Janes, and when Busey goes off about the typo the probation officer assures him Probation and Parole doesn't make mistakes, his name must be Mr. Janes. Etc, etc.

Oh, my....
Seriously... send this to somebody.
Hell, send it to Busey.
He'll respond, at least...lol

[SunsetBengal]

Let's not forget that Obama forbade press that didn't show him in a positive light..

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6156794&page=1

[GMDino]

FLASHBACK: @seanspicer in Dec. says Trump WH won't ban specific media outlets. "That's what makes a democracy a democracy vs a dictatorship" pic.twitter.com/qYd6xE4IwN

— Kenneth P. Vogel (@kenvogel) February 24, 2017

[Benton]

(02-26-2017, 09:28 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Let's not forget that Obama forbade press that didn't show him in a positive light..

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6156794&page=1

nowhere near the same.

that was a candidate (before he was POTUS) limiting seating on his stumping plane to papers that had already endorsed another candidate.

apples and oranges with a sitting president discrediting or denying access to anyone who doesn't speak favorably of him.

[GMDino]

(02-27-2017, 02:04 AM)Benton Wrote: nowhere near the same.

that was a candidate (before he was POTUS) limiting seating on his stumping plane to papers that had already endorsed another candidate.

apples and oranges with a sitting president discrediting or denying access to anyone who doesn't speak favorably of him.

"But Obama said he didn't like FOX news a couple times so Trump can ban whoever he wants because ti is exactly the same!

Just like the travel ban was EXACTLY the same as what Obama did.

And it's all Obama's fault because he always blamed Bush." © 2017 GOP