Skip to comments.News Versus Propaganda (Thomas Sowell)
Posted on 07/23/2012 10:58:57 AM PDT by jazusamo
Since so many in the media cannot resist turning every tragedy into a political talking point, it was perhaps inevitable that (1) someone would try to link the shooting rampage at the Batman movie in Colorado to the Tea Party, and that (2) some would try to make it a reason to impose more gun control laws.
Too many people in the media cannot seem to tell the difference between reporting the news and creating propaganda.
NBC News apparently could not resist doctoring the transcript of the conversation between George Zimmerman and the police after the Trayvon Martin shooting. Now ABC News took the fact that the man arrested for the shooting in Colorado was named James Holmes to broadcast to the world the fact that there is a James Holmes who is a member of the Tea Party in Colorado.
The fact has since come out that these are two different men, one in his 20s and the other in his 50s. But corrections never catch up with irresponsible news broadcasts. The James Holmes who belongs to the Tea Party has been deluged with phone calls. I hope he sues ABC News for every dime they have.
This is not the first time that the mainstream media have tried to create a link between conservatives and violence. Years ago, the Oklahoma City bombing was blamed on Rush Limbaugh, despite the absence of any evidence that the bomber was inspired by Rush Limbaugh.
Similar things have happened repeatedly, going all the way back to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which was blamed on a hostile right-wing atmosphere in Dallas, even though the assassin had a long history of being on the far left fringe.
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
Agreed...He gets to the heart of an issue with few words.
He’s right on the mark again jaz, and thanks for the ping.
Sowell BTT. There are times when I really have to question my own memory, but I do think that journalism was far better when it was populated by street-pounding reporters with high-school educations instead of pampered media celebrities with Ivy League credentials.
It seems to me as the years have passed the bulk of the media have a more liberal bias in what is reported and also what they don't report that is news worthy if that item is in conflict with their bias.
The American Revolution began when the Crown tried to disarm the Colonists.
Seems fitting that the Revolution will end when the Colonists demand to be disarmed.
Let’s say it again, “A national treasure”.
“Thomas Sowell is a national treasure...”
Paging TGO: Landmark Legal should take this case.
As Rush Limbaugh brilliantly said today:
...yet nobody’s calling for the banning of violent Hollywood movies or rap music. They’re two heavily invested in the Democrat Party.
BAN HOLLYWOOD MOVIES, NOT GUNS!!!
(actually I’m for free speech totally, but this is what the liberals should be saying)
From wikipedia: Kaczynski was born in Chicago, Illinois, where, as an intellectual child prodigy, he excelled academically from an early age. Kaczynski was accepted into Harvard University at the age of 16, where he earned an undergraduate degree, and later earned a PhD in mathematics from the University of Michigan. He became an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley at age 25, but resigned two years later.
The MSM at the time did their number on me.... I only remember him as a 'survivalist' and loner... The fact that he taught at Berkeley is news to me...
"If people in the media cannot decide whether they are in the business of reporting news or manufacturing propaganda, it is all the more important that the public understand that difference, and choose their news sources accordingly."The question is not whether the media can "decide whether they are in the business of reporting news or manufacturing propaganda. They decided that the moment they decided to market themselves as being objective.
If you think you are objective, it is futile to try to give both sides of the story - simply because you do not believe that there legitimately are other sides to the story than your own.
If you think you are objective, you will inevitably pull your punches when you present the other side of the argument.
The only way to even attempt to avoid that trap is to admit you have a POV. But since admitting your own interests is the precise opposite of claiming to be objective, the objective journalist cannot even seriously try to be objective.Objective journalism is inherently fraudulent. If you want both sides of the story (and there may very well be more than two sides to it), you must read each side as its proponent portrays it.
Bump for later reading.