|
Post by dradtke on Mar 3, 2015 22:36:14 GMT -5
So by O'Reilly's logic, I remember when I became the first person to set foot on the moon after I saw a photograph of Neil Armstrong becoming the first person to set foot on the moon. You, too? I don't remember seeing you there, but I'll take your word for it.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 4, 2015 5:55:00 GMT -5
Thanks for that, Bruce. So by O'Reilly's logic, I remember when I became the first person to set foot on the moon after I saw a photograph of Neil Armstrong becoming the first person to set foot on the moon. Now I'm remembering a lot of other stuff. Remind me to tell you sometime about when I played on stage with Dylan. Not quite but now I wonder, if you watched the video of ISIS beheading Christians in Syria can you then say that you saw ISIS beheading Christians in Syria?
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 4, 2015 6:10:35 GMT -5
We expect too much from guys like Williams; they're not journalists, even if some of them once were. They are handsome actors playing journalists on TV. The networks would all be better off if they never spoke on the record without a script and a teleprompter. O'Reilly? The world would be a better place if guys like O'Reilly never spoke at all. They are not, as has already been pointed out -- actors, news men, journalists, reporters -- or, really anything remotely respectable. From the left or the right, intentional or otherwise, their role is nothing less than blunting the intelligence of the American people, lowering the quality of our political discourse and seeding the division that keeps the country from accomplishing anything. As a result of this thread I tuned into FOX, then MSNBC, for a few minutes each, for the first time in a few years. It has, if anything, gotten worse. That crap makes The View look like hard news. Turn it off. Read a newspaper. The elimination, in 1987, of the FCC's Fairness Doctrine, made all this opinion journalism possible. I'd love to see it come back snd wash out the damned spot. Tim I'm not stupid enough to require the press to determine truth for me. Particularly these days with wide open competitive news. I've read before that the idea of a fair and balanced press is historically a recent idea. The rough and tumble of Internet journalism is the very definition of the importance of freedom of the press. The FCC's Fairness Doctrine has no purpose in our world any more. I couldn't care less about the fate of either Brian Williams or Bill O'Rielly. That's up to their employers. And it seems to me that the folks who eternally whine about Fox News just appear to have a serious case of sour grapes because their ideas don't seem to hold up in the light of day. You may be right about the Fairness Doctrine, though if it only served the purpose of eliminating the all-opinion broadcast news it would be worth the trouble to me. I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with the rest. How do you "determine the truth" then? If you don't believe in journalistic ethics and the drive for something approaching objectivity, then all you can do with the "wide open competitive news" is choose the truth you like; it's all relative to your ability to find "news" that tells you what you want to hear. With only opinion journalism and no news, which is where we're going, where the right seems to believe we have long been with a "liberal press" twisting the truth to the left, there is no light of day to hold up against ideas. And one wingnut's truth is as valid as the next's. And maybe that's where we are. But I think we got there through the rise of opinion media and rough and tumble internet "journalism," and their complete domination over actual news and analysis. We had a much better shot at finding some sliver of truth when journalism, ethics, and standards of objectivity ruled the news, and opinions were on the opinion pages. Was it perfect? Of course not. Did a POV get into the hard news pages sometimes? Sure. But it was better than this. Now our opinion media and internet "journalists" just create the news that suits them, and what little daylight is left to shine is ignored as we go to our dark, familiar corners where our ideas are never challenged. Tim
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 4, 2015 7:54:33 GMT -5
You may be right about the Fairness Doctrine, though if it only served the purpose of eliminating the all-opinion broadcast news it would be worth the trouble to me. I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with the rest. How do you "determine the truth" then? If you don't believe in journalistic ethics and the drive for something approaching objectivity, then all you can do with the "wide open competitive news" is choose the truth you like; it's all relative to your ability to find "news" that tells you what you want to hear. With only opinion journalism and no news, which is where we're going, where the right seems to believe we have long been with a "liberal press" twisting the truth to the left, there is no light of day to hold up against ideas. And one wingnut's truth is as valid as the next's. And maybe that's where we are. But I think we got there through the rise of opinion media and rough and tumble internet "journalism," and their complete domination over actual news and analysis. We had a much better shot at finding some sliver of truth when journalism, ethics, and standards of objectivity ruled the news, and opinions were on the opinion pages. Was it perfect? Of course not. Did a POV get into the hard news pages sometimes? Sure. But it was better than this. Now our opinion media and internet "journalists" just create the news that suits them, and what little daylight is left to shine is ignored as we go to our dark, familiar corners where our ideas are never challenged. Tim I determine truth in the same way that I believe any non-mentally handicapped sentient being determines truth, I bounce facts off what I know. Facts are everywhere these days. Netanyahu gave a speech to Congress yesterday. I can find the entire speech on the internet in literally 8/100s of a second longer than it takes me to type "Netanyahu's speech". Now, do I believe him or the boob that occupies the Oval Office? Do I really need someone else to answer that question for me? Heck, I worked for the boob in the Oval Office. I know better. Nothing Bill O'Reilly has said impacts me at all. Nor Williams. Nor do I care if Frazier is still living on the moon . No impact whatsoever. I think the reliance on journalistic integrity is just intellectual laziness. It's one of those logical fallacies- the appeal to expertise. "I can't really make a solid case, but Madcow agreed with me last night". And it's a soothing balm particularly for liberals. "The reason people don't believe my idiotic Facebook memes is that they're being lied to by Fox News". When your entire political philosophy centers around getting others to do what you want them to, even if they really don't want to or shouldn't, it's handy to have a scapegoat (I guess sheep-goat really) rather than have to seriously examine the flaws in your perfect reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by factorychef on Mar 4, 2015 8:04:05 GMT -5
I see a lot of the Drudge report where he'll put up a headline and you go to check it out and it won't open and people see it and think it's gospel and haven't even read it.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 4, 2015 8:11:34 GMT -5
You may be right about the Fairness Doctrine, though if it only served the purpose of eliminating the all-opinion broadcast news it would be worth the trouble to me. I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with the rest. How do you "determine the truth" then? If you don't believe in journalistic ethics and the drive for something approaching objectivity, then all you can do with the "wide open competitive news" is choose the truth you like; it's all relative to your ability to find "news" that tells you what you want to hear. With only opinion journalism and no news, which is where we're going, where the right seems to believe we have long been with a "liberal press" twisting the truth to the left, there is no light of day to hold up against ideas. And one wingnut's truth is as valid as the next's. And maybe that's where we are. But I think we got there through the rise of opinion media and rough and tumble internet "journalism," and their complete domination over actual news and analysis. We had a much better shot at finding some sliver of truth when journalism, ethics, and standards of objectivity ruled the news, and opinions were on the opinion pages. Was it perfect? Of course not. Did a POV get into the hard news pages sometimes? Sure. But it was better than this. Now our opinion media and internet "journalists" just create the news that suits them, and what little daylight is left to shine is ignored as we go to our dark, familiar corners where our ideas are never challenged. Tim I determine truth in the same way that I believe any non-mentally handicapped sentient being determines truth, I bounce facts off what I know. Facts are everywhere these days. Netanyahu gave a speech to Congress yesterday. I can find the entire speech on the internet in literally 8/100s of a second longer than it takes me to type "Netanyahu's speech". Now, do I believe him or the boob that occupies the Oval Office? Do I really need someone else to answer that question for me? Heck, I worked for the boob in the Oval Office. I know better. Nothing Bill O'Reilly has said impacts me at all. Nor Williams. Nor do I care if Frazier is still living on the moon . No impact whatsoever. I think the reliance on journalistic integrity is just intellectual laziness. It's one of those logical fallacies- the appeal to expertise. "I can't really make a solid case, but Madcow agreed with me last night". And it's a soothing balm particularly for liberals. "The reason people don't believe my idiotic Facebook memes is that they're being lied to by Fox News". When your entire political philosophy centers around getting others to do what you want them to, even if they really don't want to or shouldn't, it's handy to have a scapegoat (I guess sheep-goat really) rather than have to seriously examine the flaws in your perfect reasoning. I think you just found a very aggressive and insulting to, well, pretty much everyone, way of saying you believe what you want to believe. Enjoy that. Tim
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 4, 2015 8:19:58 GMT -5
I think you just found a very aggressive and insulting to, well, pretty much everyone, way of saying you believe what you want to believe. Enjoy that. Tim So who do you hold to be the ultimate arbiter of truth?
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Mar 4, 2015 11:26:12 GMT -5
Heck, I worked for the boob in the Oval Office. I know better. You sure that you didn't just work for a picture of the boob in the Oval Office?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 4, 2015 11:45:10 GMT -5
Heck, I worked for the boob in the Oval Office. I know better. You sure that you didn't just work for a picture of the boob in the Oval Office? May as well have for as useful as he's actually been.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 4, 2015 11:54:05 GMT -5
I think you just found a very aggressive and insulting to, well, pretty much everyone, way of saying you believe what you want to believe. Enjoy that. Tim So who do you hold to be the ultimate arbiter of truth? The ultimate arbiter of truth is me, right or wrong. Nothing else makes any sense.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 4, 2015 12:06:31 GMT -5
So who do you hold to be the ultimate arbiter of truth? The ultimate arbiter of truth is me, right or wrong. Nothing else makes any sense. Apparently you're supposed to check that with MSNBC or another approved party apparatus just to make sure you're toeing the politburo line.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 4, 2015 12:06:59 GMT -5
Truth vs. Lie...
Brian Williams said he was on a helicopter that was shot down by an RPG in Iraq. Actually, he could have boarded that helocopter while he was reporting on it after the fact and his statement would have been misleading but true. I don't know if he boarded the chopper.
Bill O'Reilly said he saw nuns being murdered somewhere; I don't remember where. He saw pictures but he did see pictures so his statement is true.
It's all just nit-picking at that level.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Mar 4, 2015 12:18:25 GMT -5
Welcome to the world of the ten-year-old sea-lawyer. "I didn't say I saw it in person. I saw a picture. With my eyes. That's 'seeing," right?"
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 4, 2015 13:28:15 GMT -5
Welcome to the world of the ten-year-old sea-lawyer. "I didn't say I saw it in person. I saw a picture. With my eyes. That's 'seeing," right?" I see things on TV news all the time that I'm supposed to believe are real. So, yeah that could be seeing. Being on the downed chopper doesn't mean on it when it went down necessarily either. Still, it's not exactly a lie, just a misleading statement. You of all people, Russell, know that.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 4, 2015 18:39:53 GMT -5
Isn't this a question of "higher standard"?
Lie by entertainer - not good Lie by reporter - loose job Lie by politician - hang them
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 18:49:31 GMT -5
I've got this one Bill. <lose>
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 4, 2015 19:10:06 GMT -5
I've got this one Bill. <lose> Hey it's a loose noose vs a tight noose for politicians.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 21:18:45 GMT -5
Wishing death by hanging on thousands merits a huge grin face. Okay.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,877
|
Post by Dub on Mar 4, 2015 23:58:46 GMT -5
…I think the reliance on journalistic integrity is just intellectual laziness. I think Peter makes a valid point here. I don't remember taking any news piece at face value since my teens. I've always known that a number of sources, even untrusted ones, need to be consulted and often the history books need to be consulted too.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 5, 2015 7:15:46 GMT -5
I think you just found a very aggressive and insulting to, well, pretty much everyone, way of saying you believe what you want to believe. Enjoy that. Tim So who do you hold to be the ultimate arbiter of truth? Me, of course. Just like you I take "facts," Netanyahu's speech, and bounce them off of what I know -- his history, historical and current events in the Middle East, his politics, his motives and the motives of the Congresscritters who invited him here...all gathered through "news," whether that was raw data or analysis, with consideration of the source, of course. I don't, however, think that's what all sentient beings do. I think most people go to one or two sources of "news" at best, give it 30 minutes a day and move on. And those are the ones who are paying attention to politics and current events. Many are not. So yes, I believe "journalistic integrity" and something like the Fairness Doctrine beats the snot out of opinion presented as truth. I think the big difference in our approaches is I assume most people are not very politically-minded, and have busy lives and priorities that keep them from caring much about Netanyahu's speech or what he and the Republican Congress hoped to gain from it. I don't assume that believing journalistic integrity is a good thing is lazy, I believe it is believing that news, with a modicum of objectivity, is better for the discourse, the nation and the world than a 24-hour cycle of partisan BS. I don't believe everyone who has different priorities or beliefs from my own is mentally handicapped, or a boob. And I can manage to make my small point without demeaning anyone who might disagree. In other words, I didn't wake up this morning pissed off at everyone for being so much stupider than me. Tim
|
|