Posted on 09/28/2016 5:19:06 AM PDT by detective
The LSM may think HILLARY is getting points for being scripted and supposedly keeping her cool(which she did not), but that’s not how the people see it.
To us, that is same ole same ole and the fact that the LSM still doesn’t get that we are DONE with that is their own problem. Self delusion.
CBoldt, being that Ciaphus Cain was describing his personal approach to the rigors of being a good journalist, I must respectfully disagree.
I’ll use my own job as the example: I am an engineer. I work in software, in the aerospace industry. In order to “do the job right”, I have to apply a significant mix of technical and sociological disciplines. Being able to write code with good syntax is a minor part of the job, although it is the only part that everyone sees and can understand.
You and he both seem to understand that presenting information to help others form opinions is a dangerously powerful role. From his side (presenting the information), he sees that it is required of him to be very careful to be as unbiased as possible. From your side, you see that assuming no bias on part of the journalist is reckless.
Remember Reagan’s “Trust, but verify” quip? Most media wants that to be only “trust”. We conservatives understand that verification is an essential element of that trust.
And good journalists understand that trust is earned through a rigorous process of verification.
Judging just from a few words on this website (an incomplete picture, to be sure), Ciaphus Cain appears to have been a good journalist, who expects to have his info verified in order to establish and maintain the requisite trust.
The dude looked like he had chocolate frosting smeared all over his face.
Too many armchair debaters around FR these days.
Did Hillary and Holt collude by using signaling during the debate?
Watch this and decide
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3XSuG5aCFGs
Watch Hillary use the same gesture repeatedly durung the debate, after which each time Holt set up a zinger moment for her rather than following the debate format - pre arranged signal
Slo mo helps
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3XSuG5aCFGs
“Did Hillary and Holt collude by using signaling during the debate?
Watch this and decide”
Hillary was signaling Holt. They were working together.
He was accused of bullying anyway. He can ask pointed questions, rather than being on defensive throughout.
American Thinker article on the Commission on Presidential Debates:
-- From your side, you see that assuming no bias on part of the journalist is reckless. --
Reckless is an okay word there, but I view it as gullible, with the gullibility being dispelled by "trust me, I'm a professional journalist, sacred trust, etc."
The first goal of journalism is to manipulate the audience. Sometimes that corresponds with accurately reporting, sometimes not.
I don't doubt that some people who are journalists are pretty darn close to objective and honest. They are the exception.
My hang up is the way the public is conditioned to view journalism. In days gone by, journalism was openly advocacy, and the people were left to sort through competing narratives. This is better, IMO, because it results in more people engaged in independent thinking. I think the myth of "sacred trust" being a journalist's guidepost is harmful to society at large.
He was wise not to fall into her trap and make her a victim.
His job that night wasn't to score points, but to show he was Presidential, which is what he did.
Well stated, FRiend, and I do not entirely disagree. Have a great day.
I can remember as a kid thinking of journalism as being a responsibility I would not feel up to.My opinion of journalists has since declined a great deal, I fear.
IMHO nearly all journalists’ behavior can be explained quite simply:
- Their job is to print bad news. Bad news reflects badly on the people, and the society, which allowed that to happen. Bad news is negativity.
- All journalists claim that all journalists are objective. That is a necessity in a business dominated by reports from distant places, written by reporters whom the editor does not even know.
- People whose job makes them negative - and who claims that everyone in that negative business is objective - are cynical. Being cynical is what journalists are, and do.
- Nobody can be cynical about everything, and journalists are no exception. Journalists are cynical about society - about America, about the people at large - but they promote abject naïveté about government.
- Cynicism about society, combined with naivete about government, is the best definition of socialism.
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.