Skip to comments.
How the media changed
UPI ^
| April 8, 2003
| Martin Walker
Posted on 04/08/2003 6:56:01 AM PDT by Indy Pendance
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-67 next last
To: Indy Pendance
We began to understand their quiet pride in their skills, and the plain decency of the men and women who follow the profession of arms. BTTT
21
posted on
04/08/2003 7:27:56 AM PDT
by
facedown
(Armed in the Heartland)
To: Indy Pendance
One of these days, some of those embedded reporters will be in management positions.
Let's hope they remember all this.
22
posted on
04/08/2003 7:30:27 AM PDT
by
Pete'sWife
(Dirt is for racing... asphalt is for getting there.)
To: Indy Pendance
There was no question which side I was on. Tsk tsk tsk. What ever happened to "objectivity"? Who is this man to turn his back on journalism just because he knows the names of those with whom he travels? The NY Times would not be happy with him.
23
posted on
04/08/2003 7:31:12 AM PDT
by
theDentist
(So..... This is Virginia..... where are all the virgins?)
To: Beelzebubba
"alright" is a very common "British" word, much like "Ok" here.
Remember, on a bugger day, a Brit might put on his waistcoat, alight in his motorcar after he checked under the bonnet, drive down the motorway, or even the dual carriageway to shop at the ironmonger.... instead of putting on a vest on a cold day hopping in the car after checking under the hood, then driving down the road or even espressway to the hardware store.
24
posted on
04/08/2003 7:32:00 AM PDT
by
MindBender26
(For more news as it happens, stay tuned to your local FReeper station.........)
To: Indy Pendance
NPR has been complaining loudly about the loss of "objectivity" by embedded reporters.
25
posted on
04/08/2003 7:34:21 AM PDT
by
Nebullis
To: Don W
In proper English, alright is a common and correct contraction. A nonstandard or informal usage is inappropriate for a formal news article. Moreover, the usage is incorrect, even if its informality were acceptable. Even definition number 3 below arguably does not quite apply.
adj : nonstandard usage adv
1: reinforces an assertion, as in "It's expensive all right" [syn: all right, without doubt]
2: sentence-initial expression of agreement [syn: very well, fine, all right, OK]
3: (informal) in a satisfactory or adequate manner; "she'll do okay on her own"; "held up all right under pressure"; (`alright' is a nonstandard variant of `all right') [syn: okay, O.K., all right]
If you're going to be a spelling cop, at least have a clue.
If you're going to engage in a discussion of language issues, at least show some manners.
26
posted on
04/08/2003 7:36:40 AM PDT
by
Atlas Sneezed
("Democracy, whiskey! And sexy!")
To: Indy Pendance
realizing that we in the media had better rethink the way we do our workThis is why I was in favor of embedding the media from the start. I knew once they saw us in action, they would come around.
27
posted on
04/08/2003 7:40:17 AM PDT
by
Gamecock
(As seen on Taglinus FreeRepublicus - 5th Edition)
To: big gray tabby
To: m1911
"one that has learned to distrust most of the media"
This is true. The Army Command and General Staff College has classes on how to deal with the media. We are taught to stop distrusting the media and give them access to the troops. Once they have that access they will realize what great folks we have in the military and the press, as a whole, will become our fans.
29
posted on
04/08/2003 7:44:58 AM PDT
by
Gamecock
(As seen on Taglinus FreeRepublicus - 5th Edition)
To: yankeedeerslayer
"It turns out to have been an excellent idea to have embedded reporters - to put a human face on the folks they typically loathe." Let's remember that EMBEDDING REPORTERS is NOT a new idea. We did it in World War II. If you wanted to cover the war, you enlisted, went thru Basic, and became a member of your unit. This isn't all that much different.
That doesn't mean that it isn't a GREAT idea. In fact, many months ago there were several of us, including myself, who suggested exactly what Dubya and the Pentagon ended up doing.
Michael
To: Wolverine
Sure as hell wasn't written by Helen Thomas.
To: Indy Pendance
Bumpity bump. Nice thing to read with my coffee.
32
posted on
04/08/2003 7:53:35 AM PDT
by
GWfan
To: Indy Pendance
We saw how hard they tried to avoid civilian casualties, and the risks they took by their self-restraint. We began to understand their quiet pride in their skills, and the plain decency of the men and women who follow the profession of arms. I believe it's called an "epiphany".
33
posted on
04/08/2003 7:55:17 AM PDT
by
ladtx
("...the very obsession of your public service must be Duty, Honor, Country." D. MacArthur)
To: Indy Pendance
"Well, it's about bloody time" BUMP
34
posted on
04/08/2003 8:00:01 AM PDT
by
Maigrey
(Member of the Dose's Jesus Freaks, Purple Aes Sedai , Jack Straw Fan Club, and Gonzo News Service)
To: Nebullis
NPR has been complaining loudly about the loss of "objectivity" by embedded reporters. The thing to understand that objective journalistTM is merely a label, a brand name like Kleenex--applied to journalists in general but not descriptive of the nature of the person or his role. The First Amendment guarantees that the government has no role in determining who you choose to listen to or believe. That leaves you free to declare yourself a journalist, even an objective one, without government interference.
The interference you will encounter will come from the Establishment which calls itself by that objective journalistTM name, and which will exploit its PR power to heap scorn and ridicule on you as necessary to cause you to withdraw from competing with them on their turf.
To: Beelzebubba
A nonstandard or informal usage is inappropriate for a formal news article. Moreover, the usage is incorrect, even if its informality were acceptable. Even definition number 3 below arguably does not quite apply. The common usage of a language is not fixed in amber for the ages, no matter how much the French like to pretend it is. Language evolves and changes over time. As for "official definitions", please bear in mind that dictionary definitions are often quite subjective and definitions can differ substantially from dictionary to dictionary. In Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary, for example, I find (note the underlined section):
One entry found for alright. Main Entry: alright
Pronunciation: (")ol-'rIt, 'ol-"
Function: adverb or adjective
Date: 1887
: ALL RIGHT
usage The one-word spelling alright appeared some 75 years after all right itself had reappeared from a 400-year-long absence. Since the early 20th century some critics have insisted alright is wrong, but it has its defenders and its users. It is less frequent than all right but remains in common use especially in journalistic and business publications. It is quite common in fictional dialogue, and is used occasionally in other writing <the first two years of medical school were alright -- Gertrude Stein>.
Note the absence of a definitive judgment that this is "nonstandard usage" and a recognition that this usage is common in journalistic and business publications.
If you're going to engage in a discussion of language issues, at least show some manners.
Language discussions generally get reduced down to arguments of formal grammars and dictionaries vs. the common usage. While I do see a value in standardized English, I think that the grammar and dictionary advocates can often lose sight of the fact that the grammars and dictionaries exist to describe the common usage, the common usage does not exist to comply with grammars and dictionaries. And this becomes a real problem when scholars introduce rules into English that are not native to the common usage (e.g., the "split infinitive", mathematical negation, etc.).
To: Indy Pendance
Thanks for the article. Amazing how a bit of real life exposure illuminates the understanding.
To: aimhigh; Beelzebubba; Question_Assumptions; Don W
While you guys are straining at the gnats, this CAMEL slipped past the spellchecker!
In other words, these are the first conservatives these liberal reporters have ever met. Most liberals are immersed in liberal clicks, and write their bile from bias, not experience.
Can we say clique?
I thought so............
38
posted on
04/08/2003 9:11:27 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Don't believe every prophecy you read - ESPECIALLY *** ones)
To: Nebullis
Yeah, isn't it GREAT!??!
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
39
posted on
04/08/2003 9:29:15 AM PDT
by
In The Defense of Liberty
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
To: Question_Assumptions
And besides, he was quoting the SAS guy verbatim who wasn't using a formal tone.
40
posted on
04/08/2003 9:40:02 AM PDT
by
mvpel
(Michael Pelletier)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-67 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson