Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why we don't believe you [excellent summary of recent mainstream press malfeasance]
Townhall ^ | August 28, 2006 | Mary Katharine Ham

Posted on 08/28/2006 10:57:00 AM PDT by John Jorsett

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-86 last
To: Grampa Dave

51 posted on 08/28/2006 2:51:34 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sabramerican
For me the most outrageous truth about the media came with the abduction and release of the FOX journalists.
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 . . .


52 posted on 08/28/2006 3:02:26 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: george76
Makes the hair on my arms and the back of my neck rise up:


53 posted on 08/28/2006 4:49:48 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (There's a dwindling market for Marxist Homosexual Lunatic lies/wet dreams posing as news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Pinch is killing his grandfather's paper.

Pinch would have helped Hitler.

He really is a POS.


54 posted on 08/28/2006 6:20:09 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: saganite
I'm sure there are tons more examples.

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.

55 posted on 08/28/2006 6:28:25 PM PDT by beckysueb (KOmmies are really nothing but DUmmies with better PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett; abb

Great post, thanks for the ping. Outstanding FReeper comments! BTTT!


56 posted on 08/28/2006 8:13:40 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
It's always fun to contrast Time's cover treatment of its pet Hitlery:

with Time's cover treatment of people it hates:


57 posted on 08/28/2006 9:00:13 PM PDT by Milhous (Twixt truth and madness lies but a sliver of a stream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
"fauxtography"

You know, this should have its own entry on Wikipedia.

58 posted on 08/28/2006 9:05:09 PM PDT by Tench_Coxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb; Grampa Dave; jiggyboy; All
Props to jiggyboy for bring the wiki article on journalism sacndals to my attention.

59 posted on 08/28/2006 9:08:34 PM PDT by Milhous (Twixt truth and madness lies but a sliver of a stream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
The bloggers from the Northern Alliance Radio Network show do a feature called, "The Week in Gate-keeping," which mocks the argument that the mainstream press is superior because it has editors and fact-checkers to keep the mistakes out. It's my favorite part of their show.

Gn 22:17 your descendants shall take possession of the gates of their enemies

Anyone With A Modem Can Report On The World

. . .

[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."


Newspaper sale$ decline should be blamed on the Journos

. . .

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.


Study: Web is the No. 1 media - 06/06/2006
60 posted on 08/28/2006 9:29:14 PM PDT by Milhous (Twixt truth and madness lies but a sliver of a stream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett

BTTT


61 posted on 08/28/2006 9:31:02 PM PDT by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
Hmm, reminds me a bit of Rachael Rae.
62 posted on 08/28/2006 9:37:12 PM PDT by decal (The Key To Flexibility is Indecision)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: abb; Timesink; martin_fierro; reformed_democrat; Loyalist; =Intervention=; PianoMan; GOPJ; ...

This lady ties a lot of the latest shenanigans together in a neat emailable and linkable package. For spreading the word of course ;^)


63 posted on 08/28/2006 10:01:17 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Milhous; LS
Neat list, but conspicuosly missing is what may have started it all, or at the very least changed a trickle to a flood: YELLOW JOURNALISM.
64 posted on 08/28/2006 10:06:59 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: george76
Great satirical front page!

Honestly, now, who did that superb work?

65 posted on 08/28/2006 10:13:25 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Milhous
It's always fun to contrast Time's cover treatment of its pet Hillary...with Time's cover treatment of people that it hates.

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.

66 posted on 08/28/2006 10:40:06 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Terrific column by Mary Katharine Ham.

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!)

67 posted on 08/28/2006 10:45:14 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

Thanks for the ping, FGS. Great piece!


68 posted on 08/29/2006 3:53:56 AM PDT by an amused spectator (Hezbollah: Habitat for Humanity with an attitude)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

What a great job nailing the media. Love it!


69 posted on 08/29/2006 4:32:47 AM PDT by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

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.


70 posted on 08/29/2006 5:56:13 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Sabramerican

71 posted on 08/29/2006 5:59:12 AM PDT by Convert from ECUSA (Mid East Ceasefire = Israel ceases but her enemies fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

The peoples cube

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/NYT_Warsaw_uprising_editors.gif


72 posted on 08/29/2006 6:48:03 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: LS
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.

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?

73 posted on 08/29/2006 8:31:39 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
Aug. 28, 2006
Jun. 16, 2003
Mar. 1, 1999
Feb. 22, 1999
Aug. 31, 1998
Oct. 20, 1997
Jul. 1, 1996
Mar. 18, 1996
Mar. 21, 1994
May. 10, 1993
Sep. 14, 1992

74 posted on 08/29/2006 8:34:26 PM PDT by Milhous (Twixt truth and madness lies but a sliver of a stream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett

bttt


75 posted on 08/29/2006 8:40:57 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Milhous
Thanks again, Milhous.

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.

76 posted on 08/29/2006 9:17:03 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
Too much Hitlery - my own post makes me OD. :(

Gag and bag this Nazi muffin.

(Shameless ripoff of pookie18 toon thread)

LMAO

77 posted on 08/29/2006 9:55:11 PM PDT by Milhous (Twixt truth and madness lies but a sliver of a stream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

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.


78 posted on 08/30/2006 5:47:08 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: LS
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?

79 posted on 08/30/2006 5:58:54 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

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.


80 posted on 08/30/2006 7:38:43 PM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: LS
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.

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 ;^)

FGS

81 posted on 08/30/2006 10:29:20 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: LS
Oops; forgot something. I meant to point you to a printable version of an article that while it takes pot shots at all things remotely conservative on "cable" teevee, may have some interesting points for the historian:

The Great Press War of 1897

82 posted on 08/30/2006 10:36:09 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett

bump


83 posted on 08/30/2006 10:38:48 PM PDT by bannie (HILLARY: Not all perversions are sexual.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake
The press suffers from a similar problem of progressivism that has defined the history profession, namely, the notion that there is no such thing as absolute absence of bias. The mere selection of one fact over another is itself bias, and no one can include all facts in any story---news, or history.

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.

84 posted on 08/31/2006 6:10:53 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Zechariah_8_13

tnx zech.

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.


85 posted on 08/31/2006 1:06:52 PM PDT by VoiceOfBruck (Why doesn't anyone ever pander to me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: LS
The problem, of course, is that sometimes even just PRESENTING one side gives it a legitimacy it should not have...

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.

FGS

86 posted on 08/31/2006 8:43:53 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-86 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson