Please give in support to... (Page 1/5)
Tony Kania AUG 12, 12:41 PM
The Wounded Journalist Project. They need your support.
williegoat AUG 12, 02:58 PM
The floor of the gallows is adequate support for some of them.
Fats AUG 12, 10:30 PM
If your goal is to disrupt free elections in the United States, you should be tried for treason regardless of your stated job.

My view is, once you stop reporting, and start pushing an agenda, regardless of the side, and you try to hide behind "journalism", you are trying to disrupt the Republic, and are a criminal. Now, if you openly state you are biased (Breitbart for example) then you are safe.

This would extend to CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, and online sources. They should have the freedom to say whatever they want, but we should have the freedom to hold them accountable for the things they choose to say.

Brad
rinselberg AUG 13, 04:18 AM
I just visited the Breitbart home page (breitbart.com).

I don't see where there is any explicit statement that Breitbart is promoting any kind of agenda. A website visitor could make that inference, based on the navigation that Breitbart provides. The categories at the top of the home page. "Big Government." "Big Journalism." "Big Hollywood." But that's not explicit. There is no "About Breitbart" that announces any kind of agenda. There is no reference to Andrew Breitbart and no explanation of why this online publication uses his name.

At this front page or first encounter level, I don't see that Breitbart is being any more candid than NBC News or MSNBC in terms of laying out for its viewers or readers that it's an organization with an agenda.

I don't think that there is any perfectly objective or agenda-free way to report news. To report about the world at any level, whether it's local, state, national or international. The agenda is implicit in the reporting organization itself. How the reporting organization itself is organized. How it is funded or generates revenue. Nothing that is media can exist entirely on its own and completely outside of and unaffected by whatever context (local, state, national, or international) defines its reporting.

People may look back on the era of news broadcasts that featured Walter Cronkite or Huntley and Brinkley as "straight" reporting, but I think that is just a reflection of looking back at a time when the political and cultural ethos was clustered more tightly around a center. A "mainstream." A more centralized media and a more center-weighted society that went hand in hand.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-13-2018).]

Rickady88GT AUG 13, 07:43 AM

quote
Originally posted by Fats:

If your goal is to disrupt free elections in the United States, you should be tried for treason regardless of your stated job.

My view is, once you stop reporting, and start pushing an agenda, regardless of the side, and you try to hide behind "journalism", you are trying to disrupt the Republic, and are a criminal.


I agree with this.

quote


Now, if you openly state you are biased (Breitbart for example) then you are safe.

This would extend to CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, and online sources. They should have the freedom to say whatever they want, but we should have the freedom to hold them accountable for the things they choose to say.

Brad


This I disagree with. True journalism has no bias. Admitting to bias is fine, but twisting the story is the same as lying even if the twist is purposely omitting facts.
This is the difference between news and tabloids. Fake news is a tabloid gossip and as such is NOT protected by freedom of the press.
So, sure they can say what they want, but NOT as a journalist or a news source. If they are speaking in the name of journalism, they have to tell the facts, even if they don't like it.
rinselberg AUG 13, 11:52 AM
Picking up from the previous last sentence of this discussion, journalists don't have to tell the facts of a story if they don't report the story.

I think the most common and most effective way that media has for promoting a particular agenda is the selection of which particular news events or developments receive prominent or "first page" coverage, VS what is relegated to a lesser priority, or not reported on at all.

Is this "twisting" the news? Is this journalism? If this is not journalism, then I am doubtful that "journalism" can actually exist, in the way that some of the people of this (Pennock's) discussion want to define it.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-14-2018).]

Tony Kania AUG 13, 12:01 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BARZBGIMPkA

...





"And now, introducing with great applaud, the new I-Troll 5."

[This message has been edited by Tony Kania (edited 08-13-2018).]

rinselberg AUG 14, 05:39 AM

quote
Originally posted by Tony Kania:

"And now, introducing with great applaud, the new I-Troll 5."



What do I spy with my little eye? It's a grammatical miscue... "applaud" instead of "applause".

I greet this message from Tony Kania with great amuse.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-14-2018).]

Fats AUG 14, 07:32 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

I just visited the Breitbart home page (breitbart.com).

I don't see where there is any explicit statement that Breitbart is promoting any kind of agenda. A website visitor could make that inference, based on the navigation that Breitbart provides. The categories at the top of the home page. "Big Government." "Big Journalism." "Big Hollywood." But that's not explicit. There is no "About Breitbart" that announces any kind of agenda. There is no reference to Andrew Breitbart and no explanation of why this online publication uses his name.

At this front page or first encounter level, I don't see that Breitbart is being any more candid than NBC News or MSNBC in terms of laying out for its viewers or readers that it's an organization with an agenda.

I don't think that there is any perfectly objective or agenda-free way to report news. To report about the world at any level, whether it's local, state, national or international. The agenda is implicit in the reporting organization itself. How the reporting organization itself is organized. How it is funded or generates revenue. Nothing that is media can exist entirely on its own and completely outside of and unaffected by whatever context (local, state, national, or international) defines its reporting.

People may look back on the era of news broadcasts that featured Walter Cronkite or Huntley and Brinkley as "straight" reporting, but I think that is just a reflection of looking back at a time when the political and cultural ethos was clustered more tightly around a center. A "mainstream." A more centralized media and a more center-weighted society that went hand in hand.




They talk about it on the air. It's good enough for me. You, you aren't going to be happy with anything so.....
Fats AUG 14, 07:33 AM
To the left apparently "twisting" the news is to be accepted.