[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

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 journalists are dishonest"

like that, i think I only used the 90 percent thing like once. I'll admit that I also said journalists care more about gettig stories in but lol duh that's how they get money. I know people at mcdonalds are more interested in gettig their paycheck than making a delicous hamburger.

I didn't scoff at them I said 90% of the time they are impossible to carry out and follow

That was when I said 90%, and you agreed with that statement.

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.

Right. So what else are you basing these knowledable opinions on?

If you read my last post, you would've noted that I mentioned FOX NEWS. A SOURCE OF NEWS. WELL KNOWN. FAMOUS. I also watched CNN, and I used to like the BBC because they had alot of third party debates on there. The context I mentioned them(fox) in was i the IRAQ war, which, since this thread was posted about geggy, is what this thread is about.

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:

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.

You're partly right. As a rule, all journalists are supposed to strive for the facts alone. However, that rarely happens, so there is a code of ethics which journalists follow in order to be as impartial as possible.

Thanks for repeating my argument, you penis. Again, learn to read.
Second argument:

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.(that's called sarcasm by the way not anger, unless you want to say SARCASM IS ANGERS UGLY COUSIN)
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.

Didn't you say part of the jouralistic ethic is deliverig ALL SIDES of the story? you even used those capitol letters. So more agreeing with me, after you told me I don't know anything about the journalistic ethic.

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 I think it's called "Real" and "Actual".

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.

So, your idea of impartiality basically boils down to journalists covering subjects the way you want them to.

actually, no. My idea of impartiality boils down to not going WE NEED A WAR IN IRAQ BECAUSE THOSE BASTARD TERRORISTS BOMBED US. Okay. That's all. Likewise I don't like to see the media condemning anyone for their political views unless it's somehow relevant-- usually it's not.


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 lol hilarious.

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.