|
FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
![]() |
Dec 28th, 2006 11:45 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kahljorn |
Quote:
Seriously if yo u can't tell the difference you shouldn't even be posting on this message board, you whiny little whore. I EXPECT INTELLECTUAL GOLD MINES FROM INSULTS IM GRISLYGUS I WIN ARGUMENTS WITH MY UNCANNY ABILITY TO CALL PEOPLE ANGRY AND INANE AND NONSENSICAL WHEN THEY'RE MAKING JOKES ABOUT MY MOTHER. Fuck, behold this day when "Your mother jokes" are supposed to have some deep intellectual component behind them. grislygus i really like arguing with you. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 28th, 2006 08:11 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kahljorn |
I like how you try to prove I'm angry rather than try to disprove anything I said. Isn't that a logical fallacy :O also fuck you for respoding after i thought you weren't going to. ps I think you should reread the thread because I didn't eve halfway say half the thigs you thik I said Quote:
Quote:
I never said that all journalists are lying swine, either. I don't think I ever called a journalist a lying swine. I could be wrong though. Why don't you reread the thread and shut the fuck up instead of putting words in my mouth, you moron. Quote:
Also, it's not a seperate matter because you accused me of not knowing what I was talking about. Also what I said was most journalists are idiots. Again, read the thread you moron. First argument portion of this since obviously you couldn't read it properly in the first place: Quote:
Quote:
Second argument: Quote:
ps often times what is taught in a classroom is different than how it is applied i the real world! Just some advice to help you out ![]() and like I said the fact that there are REPUBLICAN media outlets and DEMOCRAT outlets pretty much proves my point. That's not "Impartial". Okay? Fuck this entire thread has been you agreeing with me but feeling insulted because I called journalists idiots and tryig to make some point that I can't generalize people because OMG IT MIGHT GIVE ME SOME NEGATIVE PRECONCEPTION OF ALL NEWS STORIES I READ. WHAT A GREAT ARGUMENT. I realize your stupid argument, I just don't care. I read the news all the time and the only time i think, "This guy's an idiot" is when he's actually an idiot. But if you want to think people are ETHICAL and IMPARTIAL because they goto a library and look up statistics or talk to a few people and quote them you're right to an extent. That's fuckig great. You win this argument! Oh but wait my poit was that when it comes down to politics or going to war everybody goes fucking bananza and there's a complete lack of ethical intergrity. Did you know it's easy to be ethical when things are nice? People treat you nicely it's easy to treat them nicely in return. When things goto shit and you yourself turn to shit that's when you're UNETHICAL(A). Also I'd like to see YOU prove to ME that most journalists ARENT idiots because that would be fucking impossible. So grasp onto some other pubic hair you jerk off. Quote:
AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WORDS "MOST" AND "ALL" because apparantly you can't tell the damned difference. I didn't call EVERY journalist an idiot, I called "MOST" journalists/reporters idiots, and I'm sure most of them are because MOST people i meet in my day to day affairs are IDIOTS. Your problem with me was that I said all journalists are idiots and I didn't even say that. You said I scoffed at journalistic ethics but I just scoffed at their ability to lead to impartial stories and that they don't function well in a social bananza and that means ETHICS HAVE FAILED. I forget what your other problem was but it was probably something stupid. ah, it's your whole credential thing. I don't give a damn about them. You're the one who walked into the thread going, "YOURE JUST ASSUMING KAHLJORN YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOURE TALKING ABOUT BUT I DO BUT I CANT ARGUE WHAT YOU SAID BECAUSE IT"S A MATTER OF BELIEF" then you argued it ![]() you agree with every thing i say and then fail to see how it applies. You said the journalistic ethic is to provide all sides of the story, when the point I was trying to make the entire time is that in political journalism you often notice definite democrat/republican slants. Okay? Fox is typically considered a Republican news source. During the post 911 they definitley showed it, too. They were like immature children. That's unethical even according to you, okay? So please, quit acting like an idiot. I don't scoff at the journalistic ethic, I scoff at the idiots who don't follow it. Get it? GET IT? MAGIC MYSTERY ANSWERS COME FROM BEYOND THE INTERWAR. I learned all types of ethics in the classes I took. Did you know there's even a marketing ethic? And it's completely assbackwards to what you'd expect. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 28th, 2006 08:03 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Grislygus |
Quote:
You took umbrage as soon as I even mentioned some familiarity with the subject, which makes me suspect that I'm correct. Quote:
This is still a seperate matter from your position that all journalists are idiots. Which you then changed to roughly "90% of journalists are dishonest and only care about getting a story in", which you then changed to "90% of [/i]political[i] journalists are dishonest" Quote:
Quote:
So, your idea of impartiality basically boils down to journalists covering subjects the way you want them to. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I love this. "The reason my response was barely comprehensible is because I didn't want to respond to your lame shit". Brilliant. I really don't need to keep trying anymore. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 27th, 2006 02:24 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kahljorn |
You know what grislygus i really dislike your position in this thread because it's the position of, "IM A JOURNALIST SO EVERYTHING I SAY MUST BE CORRECT AND EVERYTHING YOU SAY MUST BE WRONG". Now let's play another game! You said I didn't know what the journalistic ethic is(mostly because you're full of yourself, I can see these things even over the internet grislypriss) Before you even mentioned what the journalistic ethic is: "The journalist ethic is supposed to be honest, grey "truth"(just the facts, mam!). Has that ever happened? " That's what I said, maybe it's not the rhetoric definition you heard in your media and society classroom that's in every textbook everywhere but it means the same damned thing. Here's what gray means! Intermediate in character or position, as with regard to a subjective matter: the gray area between their differing opinions on the film's morality. Now there's plenty more ways I can prove you wrong in this thread, that just happens to be the only one that pertains to what you learned in a classroom and are so sure about. Otherwise we could talk about that whole senator mccain thing you know alot of journalists were kissing some ass in that time period. and hell how about the IRAQ war shouldn't there have been millions of newspapers everywhere saying, "HEY GUYS LOOK IRAQ AND OSAMA BIN LADIN HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACHOTHER" every single newspaper should've said that because it's the objective truth. Were they all? so please quit giving me this JOURNALISTS ARE PURE AND PERFECT AND THEY TRY THEIR HARDEST shit. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However, when it actually comes to the case of informing people about the truth of things that may or may not effect their future (such as in political journalism etc) suddenly their stories fall apart. My complaint isn't that they can't write objective stories at all, it's that they can't write objective stories about current, important, events. I didn't necessarily say this was the journalists fault at first either. "All non-political journalism is impractical? It doesn't inform the masses?! First of all, Kahljorn, are you retarded? " What are you going to do with sports scores, or knowing there was a fire somewhere in wyoming that killed six people? Or that there's a courtroom case going on and stuff is happening? Huh? Can you use it in your daily life? If you answer one question answer this, because if the knowledge isn't usable it's impractical, because that's what the word practical pertains to. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[quote"But you have no authority whatsoever to say if it is or isn't true."[/quote] If I've read the story and found it untrue I do have that authority. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
i wasnt even going to respond to this thread any further because i keep getting gay responses but here we go anyway I'm really bored: okay now realize you're just entertaining me. Quote:
Quote:
What I was talking about is when there's an important, current event and it's important that the masses understand the situation objectively. Such as America against Iraq. Or gay rights, or whatever other laws/movements are coming out. You can DEFINITLEY see people's opinions in that, can you not? Can you not see their opinions going, "THOSE FUCKING TERRORISTS BLEW US UP" or "THOSE GAYS ARE GAY" or whatever, sometimes they are just as inappropriate backwards. That's what I was talking about, because it's practical. It's practical because it's currently happening and there's something that can be done about it. At the time, we couldn't do anything about 911. Those people were dead. There's no reason to have concern for the dead, it's not going to bring them back to life. However, we can look forward to the future and try to live it PROPERLY and TRUTHFULLY, but for whatever reason when it's actually IMPORTANT that the american public is informed on ALL SIDES of an issue suddenly it's opinions galore or even just blanket statements that say nothing about the true situation. that's what the fuck ive been talking about, not how most journalists write objective stories about sports and fires; because it's impossible to not be objective in those circumstances. And if you're proud of your "Ability" to do so you're a moron. That's not an ethic at all, and it doesn't even require one. All in all, I guess I'll say it's easy to be objective in a situation you don't care about. The true test of ethics comes when it's a situation that actually effects that person or when that person actually does have an opinion, thats the test. Not this monotonous everyday shit that people do with their eyes closed. Am I the only one who remembers the media coverage of/post 9/11, especially involving the iraq war? The media sensation, the media response? Whenever someone was anti-bush or anti-war there was a public reaming of them. People with bad memories shouldn't be arguing about how the world has changed and about how ethically people accord themselves. Now look: everyone is anti-bush and anti-war and anybody who says otherwise is an idiot and isn't considering the feelings of the soldiers. Again, morals/ethics in the spirit of the times. Although I'll admit it's not as bad now as it was a while ago, and there's still some support for the war. Regardless, there's still plenty of sensationalism around. ps from what i recall the editorials were the only parts of the media coverage that were actually impartial and looked carefully at the notions of the iraq war. pps remember that movie outfoxed and all the stuff about the horrible media coverage of 911/post 911? You're so retarded. It's not like im blaming them entirely for it but there should've been alot more stories going GUESS WHAT G USY IRAQ AND OSAMA BIN LADIN ARENT THE SAME PEOPLE. now this is a recent event that happened recently so don't try to tell me that the world has changed you alzheimers whore. This is why almost every person I know is an idiot. You can't even remember two-five years ago. "They tried really hard" isn't a ethic. okay actually there is some ethical consideration for that and even some kind of more called pragmatism i think ![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 27th, 2006 03:49 AM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ant10708 | I believe Geggy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 26th, 2006 10:56 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Grislygus |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Let's review. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"You see, THIS is why I'm pissed off about your assumptions, because journalistic ethics involves giving ALL SIDES to the story. That's why it's called "ethics". There are many people who are irresponsible journalists, but that DOES NOT give you free reign to simply label the entire profession as jackals, considering that you're basing these knowledgable opinions on the fact that you read a lot of local newspapers." Bravo on the "stupid faced queer" bit, by the way. Quote:
Quote:
Secondly, we're arguing the validity of journalistic ethics and your cockeyed idea that 90% of journalists don't give a shit whether their stories are truthful or not. If you had payed any fucking attention to what I was actually saying, you would have realized that my examples proved that ethics are relevent to ALL forms of journalism. It doesn't matter one bit if you personally don't care about non-political news. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In your case however, I really don't expect to convince you of anything. You have ideas that you WANT to believe, just like Geggy. Case in point: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"Yes. I call INDIVIDUAL teachers, firemen, and police officers idiots all the time, too. However, I don't refer to them as idiots as a [iwhole[/i]. Why? because it would be extremely dumb and arrogant to assume that I know everything about the profession and that they are all idiots. Or even that "all people" are idiots. Or that 90% of them aren't honest. " Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your babbling, because all I would do is repeat myself multiple times. All over again. However, I'm all for equal opportunity, so I'll still quote it and let our silent observers come to their own conclusions. Quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 26th, 2006 09:53 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kahljorn |
Of course you guys would take a personal issue and say NO THATS NOT TRUE AT ALL IT CANT BE TRUE ALL THE THINGS IVE BELIEVED IN MY ENTIRE LIFE. "1. You've scoffed at the very mention of journalistic ethics. " I didn't scoff at them I said 90% of the time they are impossible to carry out and follow, most reportors care more about getting their work done than delivering a truthful story and most newsrooms feel the same way. I knew what journalism ethics were before this conversation started and said what they were, so let's play the game of Shut the fuck up grislypriss. "2. You refer to all journalists as idiots" I also said people in general are idiots so again the game grislypriss. "3. NOW you're angry because I've called shenanigans" I don't recall ever posting an angry emoticon. "See above." Well thanks for making a lengthy argument about something i already said you stupid faced queer. "I was only making sure that you knew about it, since apparently you don't" This thread's about Political journalism not about your mother's cunting crossword puzzles and her posting classifieds for bells the two legged cat that shits mercilessly in clothes drawers no it's POLITICAL JOURNALISM LEARN TO READ THREADS YOU PIECE OF SHIT. I mentioned this in one of my first posts I DONT CARE ABOUT OTHER TYPES OF JOURNALISM because they are generally IMPRACTICAL. There's a fucking fire in a nightclub? What the fuck does that mean? Political journalism is practical, and, like I said, is supposed to INFORM the masses. " They'll be limited though, apparently all other forms of journalism only cover sports and fires. " It also covers your mothers gaping vagina and the amount of centimeters that gape increases yearly, but you don't see me mentioning that because not only is it irrelevant but nobody cares. "What about a riot at a ball game?" This will effect the lives and goals of every citizen in the world. "An offensive assumption held by many people, and this one not even a partial truth." You're fucking stupid. Just because an association has an ethical code doesn't mean people care or even follow it. "The only group it could possibly apply to in "journalism" would be guerrilla papparazzis. " Yes because they are the only ones who write stories that aren't necessarily the complete truth. Every other reporter delivers the complete and whole truth. "An offensive assumption held by many people. It's also a bullshitting tactic, by the way." Whatever, writing that black people are smelly and that god hates them in 1923 wouldn't have been considered immoral because at the time it wasn't considered immoral. You need to learn history because I know there's tons of stories that were ran in papers about for example OPIUM causing black people to rape women mercilessly and that's partly why it's banned because the paper said that if black people took opium they would rape white people. Not because people were dying or because will-less but because it supposedly causes black people to rape white women. Simple fact is, if nobody thinks it's immoral than nobody is going to call it immoral. Learn to read, cunthead. Don't even bother responding to me with your IM A JOURNALST WE ALL HAVE INEGREITY bullshit. "So, by that logic, all firemen, police officers, doctors, teachers are idiots. You're completely correct." I call teachers, firemen and policeofficers idiots all the time. Being in a position of prestige or superiority doesn't necessarily make you smart or respectable. It's just a fucking position. These are people who suddenly one day decided they needed a job to make a living and survive in a world. It's not like their entire life has been dedicated to honest journalism since they were 6 months old and they were writing bipartisan stories about the color of their shit. Shut up. Have you ever had a job with a bunch of idiots? thank you. "For the record, if it has ANY OPINIONS STATED WHATSOEVER, it's editorializing, not reporting. " You can state your opinion without actually stating your opinion. Shows what you know about journalism or writing in general. did you even read what I said before? "1. You've scoffed at the very mention of journalistic ethics." I scoff at your banana ripened bottom you cherry favored faggot. "You see, THIS is why I'm pissed off about your assumptions, because journalistic ethics involves giving ALL SIDES to the story. That's why it's called "ethics". " Isn't that kind of exactly what I said at the begining of this when I said that the journalistic ethic is to report the complete, gray truth? WHOOPEE WE"VE GONE BCK IN TIME. I know what the journalistic ethic is, I just happen to know it's nearly impossible in any pointed matter. "There are many people who are irresponsible journalists, but that DOES NOT give you free reign to simply label the entire profession as jackals" I can do whatever I want. And finally to wrap this thread up: All your sht about fires and sports are irrelevant. I was talking about journalistic ethics in regards to politics. Politics. Not fucking fires. Not fucking sports. Politics. The reason why newspapers exist in a democratic nation. Politics. Now you go read a few papers on the same event from different newspapers and see if theres any "Opinions" in there. Because like I said, when I read political sections I can ALWAYS see the writers opinion. It's fucking obvious 90% of the time. Now you can sit there and argue your little face off all you want but the simple fact is, POLITICAL STORIES ARE 90% OF THE TIME UNETHICAL AND PARTIAL AND THATS ALL I WAS SAYING FROM THE BEGINING AND YOU ARGUED IT BECAUSE THERES OTHER FORMS OF JOURNALISM BUT WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT THEM, HONESTLY? I fucking don't, and I wasn't talking about them. So I'd appreciate it if you'd shut your face, learn to read and respond on topic because I don't enjoy responding to things I never said. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 22nd, 2006 11:45 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sadie |
as a journalist and journalism educator, i'll have to say, "what grislygus said." ![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 22nd, 2006 06:56 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Preechr |
Make the media more like I-mock? CONGRATUMAFREAKINLATIONS!!! You just succeeded in slapping together the one way to make the media even LESS dependable, honest and trustworthy! Sweet! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 22nd, 2006 02:48 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Courage the Cowardly Dog | I think newspapers should publish point counterpoint like this forum does but with spammers like me not allowed in. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 22nd, 2006 01:26 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Grislygus |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1. You've scoffed at the very mention of journalistic ethics. 2. You refer to all journalists as idiots, and make various other sweeping accusations. Basically, you're bullshitting. 3. NOW you're angry because I've called shenanigans, and am trying to make my meager credentials a bad thing. I'm assuming it's because you don't have any. You know, a while back, I was spouting off opinions in some political thread, when Preechr called me on the fact that I didn't have a background in or extensive knowledge on the topic. To paraphrase, he told me that if I "wanted to argue a subject that you haven't even bothered to crack a book on, that's your decision". Once again, a crude paraphrase, but the point is made. I then shut up, because he was correct, and it didn't really occur to me to take umbrage and make fun of him for knowing more than I did. Of course, I hadn't thought of calling his response "gay", or calling him "PREECHR CLARK CUNTFACE", either, so maybe that would have worked. Quote:
There are many people who are irresponsible journalists, but that DOES NOT give you free reign to simply label the entire profession as jackals, considering that you're basing these knowledgable opinions on the fact that you read a lot of local newspapers. Quote:
Quote:
What about a riot at a ball game? That's covered by sports reporters. Lets say that a fan hit a player, and the team attacked him. This particular journalist doesn't like the team, so he completely covers the attack on the fan, but he glosses over the unruly insigator himself. This is irresponsible journalism. A firestorm of angry sports fans will flood the paper with letters, and the editor, who really doesn't want to put up with any more shit than he has to, will verbally ream the reporter. And what about that fire? Look at the reporting during the nightclub fire in Southern California. Someone was obviously at fault. On one hand, the band was not licensed to handle indoor pyrotechnics. On the other, the club itself was a fucking deathtrap. So whose fault was it? Everyone obviously had opinions, as the local commentary section clearly showed. When it came to actual reporting however, the MEDIA somehow managed to report the event without villifying anyone. A fluke, I guess. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 21st, 2006 07:47 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abcdxxxx | *cough*otisspunkmeyercookie*cough* | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 21st, 2006 06:23 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ant10708 |
Quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 21st, 2006 01:40 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kahljorn |
i wasnt even going to respond to this thread any further because i keep getting gay responses but here we go anyway I'm really bored: "This is the assumption of someone who has never worked at a paper, and never actually studied journalism. It's a widely held opinion, and easy to cling to." What? Which part of that paragraph were you talking about? My analysis of their ethic being to report the grey truth? Didn't you say they are supposed to report impartially? BUT LOOK OUT I DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT JOURNALISM NOT LIKE GRISLYGUS CLARK CUNTFACE. Was it that most journalists are idiots? because most people are idiots and there's no reason to argue that. is it that reporters don't follow their moral code? I don't see how it's possible to report an objective story without realizing that your story is unobjective (possibly due to the lack of information involved) and therefore "Immoral". Stretching beyond that, when you are reporting politics and you have a political association you're more likely to side with the people who are on your side. Hence, impartial. That doesn't really need explaining beyond that. I mean, even showing more of one persons side of the debate/issue than the other is technically "Impartial". Am I right? Isn't that "Partial" to only show "Part" of the "Story"? See what you really need to consider with the ethic for journalists is what type of an effect the paper is having on the people: Does it give them all the information, or leave them hanging? Does it give them half of the story so that that particular side of the story seems more correct? Impressions are worth a bundle. I think the newspapers should report both sides to political issues (I'd even like to see third parties thrown in there) because newspapers and the news are supposed to be the masses way to understand politics and make informed, nonstupid decisions when they vote. In my opinion, that's the only purpose of News beyond weather and finding out where a car accident might be. Everything else is inconsequential and focused on making money-- which i would call immoral in light of the circumstance. And yes there are OTHER FORMS OF JOURNALISM big surprise and yes it's easier to be impartial about sports or fires because you can't lie about the score at the end of the game. but then, sports are inconsequential and gay. "That is a highly heated topic, and I'm not qualified to argue it. however, I would like to clear something up. " The government chooses it's press releases and chooses what information to release. Kind of like when the police department only releases certain information about crimes. Same thing could be said for democrat/republican press releases versus the other side ;/ Politically, information is released when it's most valuable or "Needed". Since the government controls what information they release to the press, and they actually consider what effect that information has, they are ERGO using the press. It's not like the government or practically any institution gets involved with the press without considering the publicity and such. No heated debate about it. Just fact. Whether the government uses the press to some extreme degree is a completely different matter. Never once in this thread did I state that the press is the governments mouth of propaganda and manipulation for hiding the truth. (bolded so idiots like ant can read before they run their mouths) Usually hiding the truth is done best by not talking about it :O Or behind a wall of lies I guess but walls are easily peeked over. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 21st, 2006 12:36 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CreativeOnlineSurname |
You astound me. How can someone so clueless be so condescending? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 21st, 2006 08:24 AM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Geggy |
By the way I've come to a conclusion regarding 9/11 because I have some juicy inside information. ![]() *cough*otisairforcebase*cough* |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 21st, 2006 08:21 AM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Geggy |
Sorry I have a habit of listening to someone who has been in the game ![]() I'll come back and explain what I learned from the recent protest at galladuet university in DC and the mainstream media. The media is so full of shit. The PR office at the university is partly to blame. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 20th, 2006 10:53 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Preechr |
Quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 20th, 2006 10:18 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Courage the Cowardly Dog |
Quote:
I know mainstream media colours half truths to sell more papers and endorse the politics they want. But I don't really buy the "alternative" media as people cal it cause that's just some redneck in a shack. Your best bet for news is to resource every source on it and gather as much you as you can on a story from differing networks. Here is an example: CNN: Israeli's blow up ambulance, kills civilian BBC news: Israeli artillery blew up an ambulance in Beirut during the Lebanese war, few pix etc. EVENTUAL full news sometimes as tiny retraction later or earlier at local news sites in the region: That ambulance was being used as a transport for Hamas armed gunman and the driver was a human shield. As usual Israel peppered the streets with "LEAVE town NOW" leaflets during protests days befor opening fire on militants when they had the least human shields, all pix and relevant things linked too. Ironic thing? Israel's satellite station now carries Al Jazeera and NOT BBC, the reason given? Al Jazeera was less anti-semetic in their reporting so was less offensive. Of course there is also the blatant Republican Fox News and the blatantly Democrat ABC news. But a smart person isn't told what to think by either party OR some crazy Geggy in a shack with conspiracey theories. they research all they can and think logicly. At least I assume SOMEONE does I haven't seen them on the internet yet. Republican biased media won't tell the true danger in Iraq and the state of the war. Democrat Biased media doesn't report a thing about 80s era WMDs and mustard gas being found and destroyed in Iraq. Green party biased media smokes weed, forgets to go to work, instead types on internet conveluted pothead theory about 9/11 and feeds it to Geggy. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 20th, 2006 08:11 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Preechr |
Back in the earlier part of the last century, your average metropolitan area would generally be served by 15-20 or more newspapers, each one with it's own slant on the news of the day. It was much more like the internet is now, only on paper, and gay. The problem is not that the media is biased... there's no way to assure that we could EVER have a media that's not biased in some way or another... The problem is that the people of today are morbidly retarded. If your mind is an empty well, anything anyone wants to drop in it has exaggerated value. We think by comparing new information to knowledge we already possess. Let's use Geggy as an example: He woke up intellectually one day to read an allcaps blurb on how 9/11 was an inside job manufactured by the Bush Crime Family. He had no personal knowledge with which to compare that shocking new information, and he liked the sound of it, so he categorized it as fact. Deep down inside, he knows the websites he is reading are a bunch of crap drizzled out by lifeless blobs of parasitic goo with fantastic imaginations and no real connection to how the world really works because they've spent most of their adult lives so far in grandma's basement chewing hotpockets and pecking away at their keyboards in search of the e-female of their dreams they know is out there somewhere frantically searching for their love... but the truth probably hits a bit too close to home and the fantasy is just so much more appealing... That's basically about 50% of America. It's sad, but entirely in line with the history of other great civilizations, though the internet part is a recent addition. The luxury of a truly free and economically vibrant society (which go hand and hand) has a pretty bad effect on it's citizens over time. When we are free, we are, unfortunately, free to live as self-destructively and nihilistically as we wish. Journalists are, of course, just as fucked up as the rest of their society, but they are not the problem. We are. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 20th, 2006 08:07 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ant10708 |
Quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 20th, 2006 06:38 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Grislygus |
Re: Some media quotes Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
HOWEVER, pretty much every journalist will forcefully disagree with the extent to which it's applied. Unfortunately, people like Geggy take quotes like this and portray it as ironclad government control over the media. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 20th, 2006 05:10 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Miss Modular |
Re: Some media quotes Quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 20th, 2006 04:40 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ItalianStereotype |
Re: Some media quotes Quote:
Quote:
I, for one, would think that the business of selling one's country and race on a daily basis would net a little more than $7,800 a year. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dec 20th, 2006 03:19 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kahljorn |
"However, that's why there's a rigid ethical code for journalists, and that's why any legitimate and highly though of journalist adheres to that code." lol. I don't know what to say about this. First off, most journalists are idiots. Secondly, most journalists don't give a damn about morals. It may seem like they have some ethical code, but they usually don't. Maybe it's just because I usually read local papers (but it's not limited to local papers) but I can always see the journalists perspective in the matter. The journalist ethic is supposed to be honest, grey "truth"(just the facts, mam!). Has that ever happened? They adhere to "it" (the moral code) because if they don't they can get fired-- but only if they are perceived as doing something immoral, which would naturally reflect the spirit of the times. "journalists are NOT all giving the government blowjobs" I agree, they aren't all doing that, but I feel that the ones writing for the more prestigous magazines usually do-- possibly by necessity. You know, public opinion, contributor opinion etc. Also, a point I'd like to bring up here about why geggy's an idiot: there's more than one "Government"! I mean, some people(journalists) will blow democrats and make a huge deal out of how NINE ELEVEN IS A HUGE CATASTROPHE CONSPIRACY THEORY CAUSED BY THE DEVIL GOVERNMENT (and geggy'll quote them) and others will blow republicans about how gays are gay and the war in Iraq is going beautifully. Again, though: Journalistic Ethic? Please. A year or three later all of that will be opposite(except maybe the gay thing). "However, I still find the assumption blatant, greatly offensive, and woefully ignorant" What about the quotes he posted? Weren't some of those people journalists? They weren't making assumptions, so is their opinion, which was gathered by experience, valid and worth considering? Whether the government seriously completely controls the news paper is one thing, but it's ignorant to imagine a government or political body that doesn't use the media for their own benefit and for the management of the populus. el blanco: i don't know. I don't know geggy's point really but i know it's something about how the government is evil. But I italized the "A bit" part because I figured somebody would respond to me asking about it and I didn't want to have to answer. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. |