Some media quotes

[Grislygus]

Originally Posted by 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.

What part of "partial truth", "ignorant", and "slander (and/or libel) do you not get?

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

Ahem:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

lol. I don't even know how to respond to this

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

No, actually, you didn't.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

2. You refer to all journalists as idiots"

I also said people in general are idiots so again the game grislypriss.

Let's review.

Originally Posted by grislygus

So, by that logic, all firemen, police officers, doctors, teachers are idiots. You're completely correct. No reason to argue that at all, mainly because no one would take it seriously anyway.

Let's try the game Shut Up Kahljorn rather than Shut Up Grislypriss, shall we? Oh, wait, not yet, as you bring it up again later in your post. We'll continue it then.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

3. NOW you're angry because I've called shenanigans"

I don't recall ever posting an angry emoticon.

True, but one can only assume you were somewhat irked at the time;

Originally Posted by kahljorn

BUT LOOK OUT I DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT JOURNALISM NOT LIKE GRISLYGUS CLARK CUNTFACE.

Not exactly keeping your cool, were you?

Originally Posted by kahljorn

See above."

Well thanks for making a lengthy argument about something i already said you stupid faced queer.

Totally not angry. If you recall, my actual lengthy argument was

"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.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

Completely calm and collected. Also completely insane and nonsensical.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

You have no idea what we're actually arguing about, do you? All non-political journalism is impractical? It doesn't inform the masses?! First of all, Kahljorn, are you retarded?

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.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

You blithering idiot, I thought you were one of the smart people here! Though I'm starting to see why you think that an event that killed hundreds of people is irrelevent.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

What about a riot at a ball game?"
This will effect the lives and goals of every citizen in the world.

It was an EXAMPLE, you dolt.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

True (the second part, of course). But you have no authority whatsoever to say if it is or isn't true. I called you on it,now you're pissed, and your arguments are steadily becoming more and more emotional, and less and less intelligent.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

"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.

So you agree that the assumption is exaggerated?

Originally Posted by kahljorn

"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.

I don't think that I need to point out to any rational individuals reading this that a great deal of societal behaviors have changed since 1923, not just journalistic integrity. I'd also point out the difference between local and national news, BUT, I need to "learn history".

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:

Simple fact is, if nobody thinks it's immoral than nobody is going to call it immoral.

Listen, folks, this is the reason he wants to believe 90% of journalists are lying parasites. It fits into his nihilistic world view, which we've seen glimpses of in past political threads. There's no real data to back it up, which is why his arguments are getting angrier and including more insults.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

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.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

I would say "see above", but seeing as how you lack the ability, I'll just repeat myself for your convenience.

"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. "

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Have you ever had a job with a bunch of idiots? thank you.

I have, actually.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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?

Yes, I did. I do you that courtesy, even if it is one that you do not extend to me. There's a reason I said "for the record". It denotes that I was making a clear statement for (guess what?) the record. It doesn't mean that you said it, it means that clarifying a subject that I'm concerned about.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

"1. You've scoffed at the very mention of journalistic ethics."

I scoff at your banana ripened bottom you cherry favored faggot.

YOUR MOTHER WAS A HAMSTER, AND YOUR FATHER SMELT OF ELDERBERRIES.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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 the feeling.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

I know what the journalistic ethic is, I just happen to know it's nearly impossible in any pointed matter.

Yes, it is. Any journalist will tell you this. However, the entire IDEA behind journalistic ethics is to MAKE THE EFFORT, and you have inferred that 90% of them don't care, which is something which you are completely unqualified to spout off about. Whoopee, we've gone back in time.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

Correct, it was a figure of speech. However, you're still wrong, and my entire point is that you're simply believing what you want to believe, regardless of any logical deduction. Thank you for proving my point.

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.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.