Posted on 02/05/2015 7:31:55 AM PST by uscga77
Ok, so Brian Williams lied. So another member of the media proved to be dishonest and self-serving. Is that really news? Is that all that surprising? It seems a convenient hypocritical distraction from others that also lack integrity. I'm ready to move on.
Did you know 'attention to detail' is a sign a person's lying - not the other way around? I'm stunned you would offer up excuses like this under these circumstances. Read on DJ - I have a theory...you're 'take' is starting to make sense...
All the 'vets' on the helicopters were telling the truth - and NONE of them 'misremembered'. It was only the journalist - Williams - who came up with the lie - not any of the vets.
On the other hand John Kerry - a vet was well known for telling lies about his experiences. He lied repeatedly... It's possible your friends were liberals... and therefore - liars.
Do you remember their politics?
Brian Williams, Michael Moore, Hillary!, Dan Rather, Gruber, Obama...is there a member of the left that does not lie? Perhaps that is why they are so fond of the Muslims. They all serve the prince of lies...
Yes, we are calling it the “Chopper Whopper”.
I remember hearing something about UPI's bad choices allowing AP to become too strong - causing newspapers to be less 'diverse' - politically? Or maybe that was when AP started getting sloppy?
Anyhow, I've known ethical journalists... people in Theodore Roosevelt's arena - not everyone sells out.
“Anyhow, I’ve known ethical journalists... people in Theodore Roosevelt’s arena - not everyone sells out. “
Roosevelt marked the beginning of the ‘progressives’.
Communists came in and filled the ranks of the media.
The AP was the first wire service, but even if there were several similarly important ones, they would still be peopled by journalists - and have the bias in favor of their own importance. So IMHO competition among wire services to do the same thing that the AP does would have similar ideological effect to the fact that there is competition within the AP or any other wire service. That is to say, bupkis.Note that in the nature of any wire service, there is the planted axiom that journalists that your newspaper editor doesnt even know is to be trusted implicitly. That is, that all journalists are objective. There is a gaping hole where the logic should be for that, because claiming any virtue tends to prove that you dont have that virtue. For example, we have the word sophistry in reaction to the ancient Greek Sophists, which was a school of thought whose members claimed to be wise. The Philosophers arose in reaction to the sophistry of the Sophists - and they explicitly refused to claim to be wise but only to claim to love wisdom. If you claim to try to be objective, thats perfectly legitimate - and laudable if you actually do try. But the trouble with claiming actually to be objective is that
- it isnt possible to know that you are objective, and
- the only way to try to be objective is to start from the assumption that you actually might not be objective.
So it is naive to assume that a wire service journalist is objective.
There is also OSullivans First Law to consider . . .
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.