Posted on 10/29/2018 10:52:50 PM PDT by Olog-hai
The hostility she’s felt from the public recently wasn’t necessarily the last straw in television news photographer Lori Bentley-Law’s decision to quit the business after 24 years, but it was one of them.
Bentley-Law’s recent blog post explaining why she was leaving Los Angeles’ KNBC-TV hit home for many colleagues. While President Donald Trump’s attacks on the media are usually centered on national outlets like CNN and The New York Times, the attitudes unleashed have filtered down to journalists on the street covering news in local communities across the country.
When a president describes the press as enemies of the people, “attitudes shift and the field crews get the brunt of the abuse,” she wrote. “And it’s not just from one side. We get it all the way around, pretty much on a daily basis.”
The Radio Television Digital News Association is spreading safety and self-defense tips to journalists, most notably advising limits on the use of one-person news crews. The RTDNA has begun compiling anti-press incidents, like last week when an intruder was shot after kicking down glass doors at Fox’s local station in Washington. The National Press Photographers Association is developing workshops to spread safety advice to its members.
“The environment has changed,” said Chris Post, a photographer for WFMZ-TV in Allentown, Pennsylvania. “I’ve witnessed the transition.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
My memory tells me that Sarah Sanders was chased OUT OF A RESTAURANT and what happened.
Well, SHE DIDN’T QUIT.
Women want to be treated as equals and this BS makes it hard to sympathize.
Here’s the Associated Press trying to make us cry.
You must have read further than I did.
The left likes to conflate things.
Trump speaks out against “fake” media, not media in general. The left must lie.
When were there ever standards & when were facts ever important?
Look at the antifederalist vs Federalist newspaper wars!
Phillip Freneau’s (Jefferson/Madison protégé) National Gazette claiming that Washington wanted to be king! The Federalist’s newspapers made equally preposterous claims! The newspapers of the Civil War era, William Randolph Hearst and his news empire stampeding us into the Spanish-American War. There are many other examples! Its all about selling newspapers, ‘if it bleeds it leads’, wildest story gets the most readers, now viewers. Facts, correct information where is that required?
Now I am not saying don’t have news, newspapers or journalists (TV or print!) just be aware of what you’re reading or hearing/seeing. The reader or viewer motivation to get correct information is not the motivation that put the story there. I applaud the newsies who actually make the effort to get it right in spite of the constraints & rewards to the contrary. (Maybe even in spite of their personal biases!) They are distinct and truly persecuted minority
Let me explain:
Let's say the press covers a BP oil spill and the press condemns some of the choices made by BP that leads to the spill...
What if BP decided to play the ‘LIBERAL VICTIM CARD’ and cried about newspapers being against energy companies and wanted Americans to go back to heating their homes with wood and riding horses to get to work and all the other BS they could come up with RATHER than taking responsibility for the problems causing the spill.
That's what's happening here. OUR criticism of the press. Our concern is valid. Well, much of it is valid... But rather than looking at it and taking some responsibility the press chooses to wallow in fake self-pity about us attacking the First Amendment. Shame on them...
One more reason Americans don't like the press...
I come at the issue as a former news consumer. I learned during the Carter Administration that the news was slanted left. It should have been obvious earlier, and I had my doubts, but . . .After subscribing to the Accuracy in Media (AIM) Report for a year, its stories of slanted reporting became a twice-told tale, and the only interesting question was why journalism was slanted left. It took me a shocking (in retrospect) length of time - decades - to even begin to really sort it out, but forty years later I have a pretty satisfactory formulation to explain it.
We all want objective reporting (or like to think we do), but ironically reporters claiming to be objective is actually the root of the problem. Why? Because all journalists know that journalism is negative, that “If it bleeds, it leads.” The consequence is that good news ends up on the cutting room floor, crowded out by bad news which will attract attention and sell newspapers. That is commercially sound practice in the business, but it is an inherently negative perspective. And only a cynic would say that “negativity is objectivity.” It follows that claiming that journalism is objective is a cynical exercise.
Journalism is cynical towards society. But as Thomas Paine pointed out in Common Sense, society and government are actually two very different things - in a very real sense, opposites. Government exists because society isn’t perfect - but government isn’t perfect, either. In fact, it’s a necessary evil, at best an unfortunately necessary expense. Criticism directed at society inevitably suggests the desirability of more government. More limitation on freedom, more expense - and also added opportunity for corruption as well. In the limiting case, socialism undertakes to subsume all of society into the government, making suppression of freedom the goal (well, that and the self-aggrandizement of the perpetrators).
The thing that has made this process so powerful and dangerous is - the Associated Press. The AP wire is a virtual meeting of all major US news organizations - ongoing since before the Civil War.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)That is, you have to be excruciatingly naive to assume that, in over a century and a half, the membership of AP has not come up with a way of practicing on the gullibility of the public. And IMHO the “journalists are objective” swindle is it.People who are trying to be objective start from the assumption that something which they have not considered might be biasing their perspective. People who take their own objectivity for granted aren’t even trying to be objective. The AP stylebook has much to recommend it, I’m sure - but when it does things like rule out the publication of the expression “illegal alien,” that homogenizes journalism ideologically - and heterogeneity of journalism is the premise upon which the First Amendment (and the NY Times v. Sullivan decision) are based.
The Sherman AntiTrust Act dates back only to 1890; the AP was aggressively monopolistic pretty much from its inception several decades before that. The AP made a lot of sense, economically, when telegraphy bandwidth was very expensive. But as the Internet illustrates, telegraphy bandwidth is now dirt cheap, and it is not necessary to consider it or any wire service “too big to fail." It follows that the time is ripe to aggressively scrutinize the homogenizing influence of wire services in general and the AP in particular from an antitrust perspective.
All experience shows that the NY Times v. Sullivan decision, which makes it very hard for a Democrat or Republican politician to sue for libel, is exactly as evenhanded as the proverbial law ("equally applicable to rich and poor") against sleeping under bridges. Democrat politicians don’t get libeled; if an article announces that a Democrat has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar his party affiliation might eventually appear two-thirds of the way through the story. Reporters are vigilant for stories of Republican malfeasance, real or imaginary - and if a Republican is embarrassed by a story, his party affiliation will be in the lede.
It is fruitless to blame the reporters, when it is the owners, top editors and op-ed writers in glass offices who set the tone. It’s almost impossible to be hired as a conservative in today’s msm industry. Editorial policies are made at the top, so that even if a reporter wants to investigate, say, wrongdoing within a Democrat sociopolitical stronghold, he or she will be prevented, or the story will not be published. This is one of the ways a man like Kermit Gosnell continued to murder not just born infants, but also several mothers, for so many years.
Many bingos, jyo19. Tuth vs. narrative.
We're regressing back to the late middle ages! When I was a kid, the only way reading Chaucer in English class was tolerable was because of all the fart jokes. Same on the weekends with the barnyard references in some of Luther's writings.
And let's never forget the disgraceful 2005 "fake news" Quran desecration story by Newsweek that led to riots and deaths all over Europe and the Middle East, and spurred one of the perpetrators of the "7/7" London bombings of 2005 that killed 52 and maimed many others.
Menopause.
And they run their outrage tripe in no-subscription free newspapers that are thrown on your lawn, mainly to advertise local businesses, alongside the church and synagogue events, yard sales, golden anniversary and obituary notices, lost pets and graduations.
Yep that one ran through my mind briefly as I compiled that list but failed to include it.
Shoulder injury she took 4 months off for.
That tendency became critical after the Civil War, when the elites decided they couldn’t have the state militias of one half of the country fight the state militias of the other half.
Yes, they should ban those - they advertise when people are away on vacation, and kill trees needlessly (nobody reads them). They aren’t just political puke - they are blatant littering.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.