What is the roll of the media?

[Universe Prince]

Your parsing and you know it.

No, I'm not parsing. Your comparison simply doesn't work.

What is the fashion trend next year... it's a work in progress.... thus a secret.

Yet, strangely (or not so strangely) it isn't one that threatens anyone in any way and no fashion designer has any authority over the lives of all Americans.

But for the point....AS AMERICANS in the job of keeping this country safe... we are all co-workers.

Sure thing, comrade.

going a bit to the extreme aren't you.  I didn't say you should be kept totally in the dark.

No, not totally, just mostly. And for my own good no less.

But truthfully you are wailing and trying to project huge government conspiracies (typed in a dark room that is sound proof so they cannot hear my key strokes).

Wailing? Uh, no. Trying to protect huge government conspiracies? No. Just pointing out where I think you're wrong.

Let me give you an example of a noncohesive and powerless government.  Any were the warlords are running things.

Who said anything about wanting an non-cohesive and powerless government? I think I said I wanted journalists able to keep a watch on government. Hardly the same thing. Should I give you an example of a powerful and secretive government that demanded national unity? I bet you can already think of where that could go.

There are better ways to control this than by having some knuckleheaded pseudo entertainer reporting news.

Who are you talking about?

If we had real reporters instead of glam'd up movie wannabes... well maybe you would have something.

I'm thinking maybe you've seen too many movies. I Love Trouble is not an accurate depiction of journalists, according to the journalists I've seen give an opinion on it.

LOL... look at DR. DANGER.... what a farce

Ah, I see, apparently you believe in trusting the government without reservation. That, my friend, is the farce.

[crocat]

Sorry it has taken so long to answer this but I work all day and I have home projects to finish.  Add to that my hour long scour to find a place that you could acquire an AFDB ...well the time just got away from me.

Clearly I am wasting my time trying to debate this with you.  Do you wake up every morning terrified?

you are probably right about you not parsing.  Personally I think you must be totally brainwashed thus the intellect is just not there to 'parse.'

I have decided to clear up on point that you didn't understand.  Media of 2007 ( and probably all of the 2000's at least) are not reporters... they are not dedicated to anything other than creating a medium in which they will be catapulted to the for front of prime time . 

Did anyone notice that suddenly the media stopped showing the video of one of the pilots that hit the towers after one of the firemen gave an interview that he didn't care about it.  (In a way that pointed out how whorish our media can be)?

You can call me comrade... you can call me brainwashed... but I will watch, I will listen... and I will certainly make my own decisions and they won't be swayed by liars or fools...be them government, media or someone who sits and types on the internet that is sure that they're all bad.

Your parsing and you know it.

No, I'm not parsing. Your comparison simply doesn't work.

What is the fashion trend next year... it's a work in progress.... thus a secret.

Yet, strangely (or not so strangely) it isn't one that threatens anyone in any way and no fashion designer has any authority over the lives of all Americans.

But for the point....AS AMERICANS in the job of keeping this country safe... we are all co-workers.

Sure thing, comrade.

going a bit to the extreme aren't you.  I didn't say you should be kept totally in the dark.

No, not totally, just mostly. And for my own good no less.

But truthfully you are wailing and trying to project huge government conspiracies (typed in a dark room that is sound proof so they cannot hear my key strokes).

Wailing? Uh, no. Trying to protect huge government conspiracies? No. Just pointing out where I think you're wrong.

Let me give you an example of a noncohesive and powerless government.  Any were the warlords are running things.

Who said anything about wanting an non-cohesive and powerless government? I think I said I wanted journalists able to keep a watch on government. Hardly the same thing. Should I give you an example of a powerful and secretive government that demanded national unity? I bet you can already think of where that could go.

There are better ways to control this than by having some knuckleheaded pseudo entertainer reporting news.

Who are you talking about?

If we had real reporters instead of glam'd up movie wannabes... well maybe you would have something.

I'm thinking maybe you've seen too many movies. I Love Trouble is not an accurate depiction of journalists, according to the journalists I've seen give an opinion on it.

LOL... look at DR. DANGER.... what a farce

Ah, I see, apparently you believe in trusting the government without reservation. That, my friend, is the farce.

[Universe Prince]

Sorry it has taken so long to answer this but I work all day and I have home projects to finish.  Add to that my hour long scour to find a place that you could acquire an AFDB ...well the time just got away from me.

You don't need to apologize to me for that. I don't expect you or anyone to hang out here all day. I don't hang out here all day, it just seems that way sometimes.

Clearly I am wasting my time trying to debate this with you.  Do you wake up every morning terrified?

Not in the least. Do you wake up every morning angry at the news media?

you are probably right about you not parsing.  Personally I think you must be totally brainwashed thus the intellect is just not there to 'parse.'

Oh, you're going to be that way about it? Okay.

I have decided to clear up on point that you didn't understand.  Media of 2007 ( and probably all of the 2000's at least) are not reporters... they are not dedicated to anything other than creating a medium in which they will be catapulted to the for front of prime time .

And you're questioning my intellect? What a crock.

Did anyone notice that suddenly the media stopped showing the video of one of the pilots that hit the towers after one of the firemen gave an interview that he didn't care about it.  (In a way that pointed out how whorish our media can be)?

Did anyone notice that after assurances that there were safeguards in place to prevent abuse of NSLs not that long ago they were revealed to have been overused and misused in the order of several thousand? Anyone?

You can call me comrade... you can call me brainwashed... but I will watch, I will listen... and I will certainly make my own decisions and they won't be swayed by liars or fools...be them government, media or someone who sits and types on the internet that is sure that they're all bad.

Good for you. I tend not to be too swayed by folks who think the everyone in the news media is a "knuckleheaded pseudo entertainer" or are "glam'd up movie wannabes". I also tend to find the "shut up and trust the government" argument lacking in reason and substance. So far, you have played par for the course. And you got to insult me too. Bully for you. Have a nice day.

[Michael Tee]

<<So, as I had already alluded to, the role of the media, in Tee's world, is to screw the consequences of their reporting, just report what they know, even if it's only half the story, and damn the lives it puts at risk, or even kills, by doing so.  Especially if they're American lives. >>

I don't know of reporters publilshing half-stories.  If an ethical reporter uncovers two sides to a story, he or she will report both sides in a he-says/she-says format.  Lives are not put at risk by stories, in fact the media will go out of their way to shield names and addresses of rape victims, crime victims, victims of sexual harrassment, etc.  The fascist myth, of course, is that any reporting which exposes fascist crimes and atrocities is somehow "endangering" American lives.  Bullshit.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The American people would have been far safer had they dozed over Foggy Bottom, dismissed all the clowns that ran the4 CIA during the time of the colonialist Fascist Dulles brothers, replaced it with a mall and striped the sumbitch for parking.

The CIA has been and continues to be a disgrace to the people and the nation.

[sirs]

<<So, as I had already alluded to, the role of the media, in Tee's world, is to screw the consequences of their reporting, just report what they know, even if it's only half the story, and damn the lives it puts at risk, or even kills, by doing so.  Especially if they're American lives. >>

I don't know of reporters publilshing half-stories.  

Hayden just referenced such in his talk, not to mention the probable risk of sources, if not lives with even further "stories".  No one is advocating suppression, what's being advocated is responsible journalism vs hatchet jobs

If an ethical reporter uncovers two sides to a story, he or she will report both sides in a he-says/she-says format.  

An ethical reporter would attempt to uncover both sides.....IF they were ethical, IF they were responsible, IF they were to consider the repercussions of their "story"

Lives are not put at risk by stories, in fact the media will go out of their way to shield names and addresses of rape victims, crime victims, victims of sexual harrassment, etc.  

You're kidding right??  Hayden again gives specific examples that led to connections not being able to be made, and a much greater risk in loss of life.  We're talking war here Tee.  To you and the media, any loss of American life is just "collateral damage", right?

The fascist myth, of course, .....

Yo Js, see what I mean?  What were you saying about the insidious use of the term?

...is that any reporting which exposes fascist crimes and atrocities is somehow "endangering" American lives.  Bullshit.

Not even close, but at least you're consistent.   

[crocat]

UP


first of all.... I am never angry... hell, my pulse seldom flutters unless I am happy about something.  The truth is I do read/listen but you paint me as never believing the media and always trusting the government.  Both of those things are false.  My argument was/is that news people should report responsibly (which I still argue they don't.)

The truth is that I don't believe most reporters... I don't believe most politics... I don't believe Doctors, Lawyers nor Indian Chiefs....not at first blush anyway.  I will go and read and watch and investigate and then make an opinion.

and again, these reporters that out some covert plan to track terrorism cost people their lives and warn the terrorists. 

[Mr_Perceptive]

<<So, as I had already alluded to, the role of the media, in Tee's world, is to screw the consequences of their reporting, just report what they know, even if it's only half the story, and damn the lives it puts at risk, or even kills, by doing so.  Especially if they're American lives. >>

I don't know of reporters publilshing half-stories.  If an ethical reporter uncovers two sides to a story, he or she will report both sides in a he-says/she-says format.  Lives are not put at risk by stories, in fact the media will go out of their way to shield names and addresses of rape victims, crime victims, victims of sexual harrassment, etc.  The fascist myth, of course, is that any reporting which exposes fascist crimes and atrocities is somehow "endangering" American lives.  Bullshit.

I have unfortunately been around media types many many times. They tended to get assigned to my unit due to our effciency ratings. Most of the time they were either in the way (if I told 'em where to go to look at someting, I typcially found 'em in the way somewhere else like I was really trying to hide something in the crankcase) or just plain stupid. Not one of them had the cojones to have Served. The only ones that were worth a piece of garbage were the ones who acutally wanted to know. Those were few and far between. Most were low-lying opportunistic scum, only out for themselves and not really anxious to learn.

[Universe Prince]

first of all.... I am never angry... hell, my pulse seldom flutters unless I am happy about something.

Good. You're not angry, and I'm not terrified. So maybe we can skip that round next time.

The truth is I do read/listen but you paint me as never believing the media and always trusting the government.  Both of those things are false.

Well, you did say the "Media of 2007", no qualification, were essentially all frauds. And you pretty much argued that no one needs to know what the government is doing because we're not going to understand it anyway. I'm not sure how you expected me to take it as something other than that you never trust the media and always trust the government.

My argument was/is that news people should report responsibly (which I still argue they don't.)

That is a reasonable position, and I never said it wasn't. But of course, it raises the question of what constitutes responsible journalism. I'm pretty sure this not something on which everyone will agree.

[Mr_Perceptive]

If the media is the watchdog of overzealous Government, who is the watchdog for the media?

[_JS]

An ethical reporter would attempt to uncover both sides.....IF they were ethical, IF they were responsible, IF they were to consider the repercussions of their "story"

I find this to be a fascinating statement Sirs. I think it is because you first narrow everything down to two sides and then discussing how an ethical reporter should handle it.

Your definition quite clearly indicates that the two "sides" of a story are likely the liberal and conservative sides. These of course are not sides at all, but viewpoints from which any news can be examined.

A true news item may have dozens of aspects to it. Often a journalist is very limited by the amount of space they are allowed to dedicate to any story. I'm reading a book right now that was written by a former British journalist. She has worked in Africa for many years and the book is about Eritrea. In an interview at the end of the book she discusses her work as a journalist and that was one of the things she said is the most difficult to get used to is that she would send 1200 word stories in, only to have them reduced to 200 or 400 words.

It is not easy to summarize a key event taking place in a nation that many people aren't familiar with, in 200 words.

Moreover, journalists aren't often experts on economics, history, political science, military theory, biology, physics, etc. So very often they rely on experts for a quote.

I think people tend to be really hard on journalists, who are doing a job like the rest of us. Granted there are some (Geraldo comes to mind) who just aren't really journalists at all. But most do a good job to the best that they can.

[sirs]

An ethical reporter would attempt to uncover both sides.....IF they were ethical, IF they were responsible, IF they were to consider the repercussions of their "story"

 

I find this to be a fascinating statement Sirs. I think it is because you first narrow everything down to two sides and then discussing how an ethical reporter should handle it.  Your definition quite clearly indicates that the two "sides" of a story are likely the liberal and conservative sides.

Not at all.  You see, when you start with a false premise, it's hard to taken anything that follows seriously.  The 2 "sides" are the responsible and the wreckless sides of jouranlism.  1 side considers the repercussions of their story, and attempts to cover all their bases with the facts.  The other side just goes with what they have, even if it is just half a fact, and cares not of the consequences to their "story", just so long as the deadline is met, and maximum attention can be brought to it.

I suggest a do over on assuming points not even being considered....such as liberal & conservative sides.  The issue is far more "complex" than that.  I would have assumed a superior intellect as yourself would have understood that.

[_JS]

Not at all.  You see, when you start with a false premise, it's hard to taken anything that follows seriously.  The 2 "sides" are the responsible and the wreckless sides of jouranlism.  1 side considers the repercussions of their story, and attempts to cover all their bases with the facts.  The other side just goes with what they have, even if it is just half a fact, and cares not of the consequences to their "story", just so long as the deadline is met, and maximum attention can be brought to it.

I suggest a do over on assuming points not even being considered....such as liberal & conservative sides.  The issue is far more "complex" than that.  I would have assumed a superior intellect as yourself would have understood that.

Prickly comments aside, I stand by what I said even withdrawing the assumption of what you meant by both sides.

Your explanation of both sides of a story being "reckless and responsible" is extremely bizarre and not what the vast majority of people consider as the definition of the phrase, "both sides of the story."

But accepting such an unconventional view, I find it interesting nonetheless. Using the more conventional definition, I almost never (if ever) see you putting yourself in the shoes of the other person. So why advocate it now?

[sirs]

Not at all.  You see, when you start with a false premise, it's hard to taken anything that follows seriously.  The 2 "sides" are the responsible and the wreckless sides of jouranlism.  1 side considers the repercussions of their story, and attempts to cover all their bases with the facts.  The other side just goes with what they have, even if it is just half a fact, and cares not of the consequences to their "story", just so long as the deadline is met, and maximum attention can be brought to it.

Prickly comments aside, I stand by what I said even withdrawing the assumption of what you meant by both sides.

So do I, that there is responsible journalism & wreckless journalism.  The former is what the original piece in this thread advocates, the latter are the ones who care not for American lives, or innocent civilian lives put a greater risk, because sources either won't/can't come forward or intimate plans at terrorist intel gathering are made public, thus alerting our enemy.  They prefer hit pieces and "gotcha" headlines to responsible, and yes, ethical journalism

But accepting such an unconventional view, I find it interesting nonetheless. Using the more conventional definition, I almost never (if ever) see you putting yourself in the shoes of the other person. So why advocate it now?

I do it frequently, Js.  You're just not paying attention.  But let's play that game for a moment....why NOT advocate it?

[_JS]

Why not advocate what? Sorry, I got a bit confused.

Sirs, if you want to know the honest truth, I think journalist do a decent job at what they do, but I think journalism is in a deplorable state - just not for the same reasons as you.

When I pick up a newspaper, more often than not it reads like something someone from middle school wrote. Not only are there often grammar errors and spelling mistakes, but the word choices and sentence structure are so basic and dumbed-down that it is sickening.

When the very famous silent film Metropolis came to the United States it was edited heavily. Why? Two reasons: 1) it was considered too socialist for American audiences and 2) it was thought that Americans couldn't understand the allegory of the movie itself. It went from a very meaningful and classic film to a dumbed-down science-fiction love story.

Our news has had the same thing done to it. There is no Edward R Murrow any longer. All (most, anyway) of our journalists are limited to the lexicon of middle school. Now how can anyone really delve into complex topics with such a limitation?

That's the primary reason I get most of my news from foreign sources, who also do a far superior job of covering the world. Yet, even in the UK, the best selling paper is not The Guardian or The Telegraph but the idiotic Rupert Murdoch catbox liner known as The Sun.