Skip to comments.Why we don't believe you [excellent summary of recent mainstream press malfeasance]
Posted on 08/28/2006 10:57:00 AM PDT by John Jorsett
click here to read article
What did you hear when they were captured? Their families appealed to the barbarian gangs that they had captured the wrong people, ie the media.
You heard how they were in Gaza to "tell the Palestinian" story, that they sympathized with the "Palestinians" etc. The appeal was that the barbarians had captured their allies.
What's wrong with that? (</sarcasm>)
Obviously that is what they mean by "Fair, balanced, and unafraid." Unafraid of people who aren't dangerous to them, that is . . .
Pinch is killing his grandfather's paper.
Pinch would have helped Hitler.
He really is a POS.
The news lady (Soladad O'Brien?) in the canoe durring a northeast flood and 2 workers walked behind her on camera in barely more then ankle deep water.
Great post, thanks for the ping. Outstanding FReeper comments! BTTT!
with Time's cover treatment of people it hates:
You know, this should have its own entry on Wikipedia.
Gn 22:17 your descendants shall take possession of the gates of their enemies
. . .
[Hillary Clinton] said, "We're all going to have to rethink how we deal with the Internet. As exciting as these new developments are, there are a number of serious issues without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function."
. . .
People who work at journalism full time ought to be able to do a better job of it than people for whom it is a hobby. But that's not going to happen as long as we "professional" journalists ignore stories we don't like and try to hide our mistakes. We think of ourselves as "gatekeepers." But there is not much future in being a gatekeeper when the walls are down.
This lady ties a lot of the latest shenanigans together in a neat emailable and linkable package. For spreading the word of course ;^)
Honestly, now, who did that superb work?
You hit the nail right on the head regarding their double standard.
Could you possibly date and enlarge the ten(!) HRC covers so that we can get a chance to see some faux age "regression" with time?
Not only the cover shots are Photoshopped, but some inside pics as well, both in the current issue and previous ones. A good example is the closeup of her in this year's "100 Most Influential" issue (May 8). I'm almost certain that none of the other 99 received the same treatment from their photographers.
Not only are the "people they hate" not touched up to look better as HRC is, but their photos are doctored to make them look worse - the Ann Coulter cover shot is a good example.
As I said, it may be funny to some people but it nonetheless is another MSM scandal in and of itself.
Just two things:
Does the mainstream press ever wonder why conservatives distrust them so much?
1. The dying socialist "mainstream" newsrooms do not care what conservatives think - - conservatives are not part of their target audience. Naturally, therefore, they do not care if conservatives distrust them.
2. I would argue that conservatives have travelled beyond "trusting" or "distrusting" the dying socialist "mainstream" newsrooms anyway. These days it is simply taken for granted that these newsrooms cannot be trusted. (Um - - this is a large part of why they are dying....? Doh!)
Personally, I only check in with the dying socialist "mainstream" newsrooms out of idle curiosity, though less and less often as my disgust at their increasingly shrill collective death kick grows. (Read any NY Times editorials lately? They come off as if they were written by radical lefty, Daily Collegian crybabies. Absolutely pathetic. My, how the mighty have fallen!)
Thanks for the ping, FGS. Great piece!
What a great job nailing the media. Love it!
Actually, while the majority of big papers transitioned to "objective" journalism after the Civil War, a large number of "pennies" and other papers, well before the "Yellow Journalists," maintained a steady dose of sensationalism and crime.
The peoples cube
Of course you're right about that; memory fails me from time to time. Just out of curiousity, would you say the print war between Pulitzer and Hearst broke the objectivity "agreement" amongst the major players; maybe breaking the dam? Possibly laying the groundwork for our current crop of propagandists?
Notice that, with the exception of the 2003 photo, she seems to have gotten younger looking with the passage of time (no pun intended).
She looks like she's got pretty severe wrinkling for her age in the earliest shot. I'd bet that the Photoshop software was not yet available in '92. That would explain it.
(Shameless ripoff of pookie18 toon thread)
No, that's too simplistic. There were hundreds of "sensationalist" papers out there, the largest prior to Hearst or Pulizer being a NY paper started in the 1830s called the Sun, followed by Bennett's "Herald," which was the biggest-selling paper of its day. The "objective" papers certainly dominated in sheer subscriptions, but the sensationalist papers never went away.
In fact, that's pretty much what we're left with today isn't it; particularly "broadcast" journalism. Can you tie that in with the leftist agenda somehow? Or are they unrelated?
The partisan press took a vacation from 1865 to about 1960---but that's not to be confused with the "sensationalist" press, which never left. Now, PART of leftism is reporting the bad, namely the "progressive" notion that since the world isn't perfect, the status quo is always the enemy, so you must always report negative stuff. To from that perspective, sensationalism has always been leftist. I think the tendency toward "bad news" is progressive in nature; but when the bad news is accelerated and enhanced by partisan reporting, then it becomes the drive-by media.
So it would seem. So, my tag for them as "utopian dreamers" is not far off the mark, eh? Crusaders on a mission but I daresay most of them aren't even sure of what they're crusading for or what their mission is. A vague notion "to make the world a better place" is an illusive target they will never hit, or even get near for that matter. That may be as far as the rank and file can see; however, it's a mindset put to good use by management that may have a more jaundiced or cynical view. An agenda even...
...but when the bad news is accelerated and enhanced by partisan reporting, then it becomes the drive-by media.
To be sure; see above ;^)
In the 1800s, one school of thought was that you could separate "facts" from "values," and just report the "facts." This became the so-called "objective" school: be meticulous in research, get both sides, be fair, etc. The problem, of course, is that sometimes even just PRESENTING one side gives it a legitimacy it should not have (i.e., the Palestinians' "claims" vs. the Israelis' rights and realities). Ultimately, this school leads to the view that you must "get Hitler's side" to be fair.
The other group was the "value-laden" group that said since we cannot escape our biases, we must actively overcompensate by being "anti" whatever "we" are. So they became the anti-religion, anti-liberty, anti-American group. (William Appleman Williams and Howard Zinn).
But it's important to understand that BOTH groups deny the existence of a transcendent truth---that NEITHER accepts "God's version" of events, because He is a "value" and "values" are not tolerated, only "facts." Of course, they have never understood that their position itself is a "value-laden" position full of "values"---the wrong ones.
At this point, I pretty much just assume that anything in the MSM that (1) supports the liberal agenda and (2) isn't independently and objectively verified, is a fabrication.
SO true! As an aside, you've probably made note of the problem of rebutting fasle or distorted claims, particularly during live broadcasts. Either side can present a "fact" that is difficult if not nearly impossible to refute in the time allowed, even though it may be false on its face. The information to refute any "facts" are rarely available on such short notice. The other problem of course is that rebuttals and refutations(when presented) hardly ever get the same "face time" or have the equivalent counter-effect as the original "fact". Liars and obfuscators(that may be a new word) tend to have the upper hand don't they? Particularly when people aren't really paying attention.
The other group was the "value-laden" group that said since we cannot escape our biases, we must actively overcompensate by being "anti" whatever "we" are.
Interesting point, and I suspect contains a good deal of truth. A cynical view of any values, most notably those held most dear by a society or culture. Where do they find these people???
But it's important to understand that BOTH groups deny the existence of a transcendent truth---that NEITHER accepts "God's version" of events, because He is a "value" and "values" are not tolerated, only "facts."
Well said, and probably dead on! "The Church of Liberalism" spreading the seeds of discontent. God save us.