read later
..... (marked for later read)
"The framers of our Constitution gave carte blance protection to “speech” and “the press”."
Not true. It has simply been twisted and maligned by special interest groups. All must be taken in context. The framers of our constitution were not, nut cases... Freedom of the press & speech were never designed to include infringing upon someone else's rights. I'm thinking this has happened because people have been lured into thinking it's okay to be rude, mean, nasty, slandering, and on and on and on...We have slipped, pretty far away, from freedom of speech & press. Currently, freedom of speech & press means, freedom to slander anyone, at any time, for any reason. I mean, come on...That's just lawlessness!
Actually, the function of juornalism IS objective truth-telling. But journalists have been failing to function for many, many years.
The function of journalism is objective truth-telling. The point your trying to make is that just because someone or something claims to be practicing it, doesn't mean that he/she/it is.
Further, I would not call the alphabet news program either journalism or entertainment. What they practice is propaganda. ABCNNBCBS is no different that the Pravada or TASS during the Soviet era.
They call it "synergy", I call it prostituting my trust.
conservatism_IS_compassion: The Internet is a far, far better venue for political argument because it is far less regulated.One glance at DU demonstrates that. :')
Journalism is the business of attracting attention by the use of topical nonfiction. So while most of life, for most people, is muddling through mundane problems and earning a living, in the artificial reality of journalism most of the discussion is about unusual - primarily unusually bad things.
bttt
Thirty or thirty five years ago we naively wondered when they would get around to our side of the story. But by now, few Freepers are in any doubt that "the MSM" is an identifiable, monolithic-behaving institution. And I flatter myself that I have been in the vanguard of the effort to understand "bias in the media."Not that I taught Reed Irvine anything - back in the 1970s I read his Accuracy In Media (AIM) report assiduously for a year or two - but while he and others have stayed fixated on trying to get "the media" to "do their job" I have moved on. We-the-people have to grow up and understand that "objective journalism" is the Wizard of Oz - it is all image and no substance other than "a man behind a curtain."
The job of the
manpeople behind the curtain is not to impart truth, it is to maintain the image of "The Great and Powerful Oz." Or in this case, the wise and objective media. The reason that maps to "liberalism" is quite simple - "liberalism" is simply political expression of the idea that nothing actually matters but PR. The "liberalism" of journalism is not being in the pocket of the Democrats" - it is the other way around. Liberal politicians say what journalists are thinking - naturally journalists approve of it."Liberalism" is simply contempt for society, and the arrogation of the right to speak for society. The particular part of society for which liberalism presumes to speak via the publicizing of the opinions of the six retired generals just happens to be the active military.
The Generals' Dangerous Whispers
Washington Post ^ | 4/21/06 | Charles Krauthammer
journalism is a 'finished' entertainment package. These people have a license to make or destroy whomever they choose. They made Dan Quayle out to be a imbecile. They made John Edwards out to be a saint, to a lot of dems. They evey try to repackage John 'flip flop' Kerry almost succeeded.
Some say the business is in subscriptions and some say it is in advertising. For broadcast journalism, since there are no subscriptions but patrons, it is an art.
Your comments are true. The claim of impartial, unbiased truthtelling has as much weight as we give it. Is it really anything more than a marketing claim?
What followed, was an outpouring of negative quotes about the state of Afghanistan. So far so good. Blitzer would not give much of a breathing space to President Karzai. He then quoted "NewsWeek". The old cliches of "open sewage" and "lack of electricity" were directed at the President.
President Karzai was obviously under pressure. He then reminded Mr Blitzer that "NewsWeek" people only "came for a day". The President observed, "then they leave us with the consequences". The President informed a reluctant Blitzer, that there is now democracy in his country. He mentioned the doubling of the gross annual income.
Wolf seems not to have heard of the vile, brutal Taliban. After all, what Afghanistan suffers today, must be small potatoes, compared with the reign of the Taliban.
On my way for morning coffee, it suddenly dawned on me (surprise, surprise) what Blitzer was all about. I was reminded of the attitude of an employer. The one who got up Monday morning disgruntled. He hauls in an employee. He has to observed civilize niceties though. Yet, he can scarcely restrain his ire.
Many of us have been that employee. I have it.
Blitzer talked down to the President in this fashion. The utter arrogance of the man, the absolute lack of professionalism. Now,sadly taken for "solid journalism".
Ping.
This guy's conclusions are pretty much wrong. To modern journalists, "news" has nothing to do with the timeliness of a subject, and everything to support what they feel is important.
Regarding your point - I essentially agree. I think what ticks off conservatives (and me) is when the journalists claim that they/their paper/network etc. are objective truth tellers AND people buy it.
I work with "educated" teachers who, for the most part, are convinced that NPR and the NYT are very very fair. I concede to them that FOX etc. is not 100% objective, but they are unable to see their own bias. Goldberg's book - Bias - although I thought it weakly written - presents the spot on theory that libs don't see themselves as biased - they're just right thinking! LOL
I always assumed the MSM was the government mouth piece. If true, we are witnessing a coup, so far it has failed.