|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 4, 2018 12:28:40 GMT -5
Good point, Chu. In the same way poor journalism looks left-leaning to those who have already seen it in the DNC talking points (or CNN, which often seems to be the same thing).
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Jan 4, 2018 12:54:59 GMT -5
OK, I'll bite. 1. Yes, for several New Jersey newpapers (and as an occasional photographer). Why does that matter?2. The NYT is clearly "real journalism"...but I do not believe some of the reporters/editors are currently doing their jobs in a fair and balanced manner for the "Old Gray Lady." The Washington Post has a long history of editorial bias but has still seen some outstanding work from members of its staff. Why does that matter? Really? Well, because there's a big difference between saying that someone is a biased journalist and that they're a fake journalist. Maybe it's the ex-journalist in me, but when someone makes outlandish statements like that, I want to know how much weight their opinion actually carries. So if one says that a reporter or publication don't practice "real journalism," I'm interested to see if that person has any experience being a "real journalist." So when 92 admits that he has no experience in that field, it tells me that his statement that none of the publications he can think of practice real journalism isn't a very informed one. Put it this way. If I were to declare that a person with an MD doesn't practice real medicine, wouldn't you want to know what qualifies me to make that statement? But if Dr. Chu made the same statement, it would carry a lot more weight. Make sense? Decaf, CL! My point is that these “real journalists” are all biased and their “news” stories should be read with the understanding that their journalism is heavily influenced by their own personal feelings re: the issues they are covering. I hope you are okay with me having this view despite never having written for The Crusader or a sports blog.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Jan 4, 2018 17:31:02 GMT -5
Thanks for the Favreau warning. More left leaning than CM. Ouch. (And 50% of my time is listening to MSNBC for the other side.) Just left MSNBC where they were saying the 25th Amendment should be invoked because Trump repeats himself. You can't make this stuff up. (And I did not vote for Trump) Listening to MSNBC one wouldn't know the Dow crashed through 25,000. Thank you Mr Trump.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 4, 2018 18:01:30 GMT -5
Great discussion, everyone. This is the source of the media bias chart: www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.comI do not ask my sources of news to be unbiased. Rather, I expect a point of view as inherent, and i try to understand it. Broad based, real journalism will tend to look left leaning to those on the right, simply because they do not adhere to the right wing agenda of what stories to harp on or the right wing talking points. Just tune into Hannity or Brietbart or Daily Caller to see what I mean. Right now, paying for your news is a radical and revolutionary act, in keeping with the constitution and the finest traditions of our country. I support the news I consume, and urge all of you to do the same, and not rely on the free Internet sources. When it is free to you, the agenda is from someone else. You are the product they deliver to the real boss. If you want to actually be exposed to an actual, activist Democratic, left leaning point of view that has become insanely popular over the last year with young people especially, I recommend the Podcast "Pod Save America", hosted by 2003 Holy Cross Alum, and former Obama speechwriter, John Favreau. Also on the program are other Obama alumni: Dan Pfeiffer, Jon Lovett, and Tommy Vietor. They host and interview journalists and politicians with an advocacy bent, and the results are often very entertaining and informative. You can subscribe on the Apple or Google store, or at: crooked.com/podcast-series/pod-save-america/And if you have a hard time listening to it (I struggle with Lovett and Favreau's levels of arrogance sometimes), definitely give Pod Save the World a try. It's a foreign policy-focused pod hosted solely by Vietor (who used to work for the National Security Council) with a lot of great guests from both sides of the spectrum.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 4, 2018 18:13:02 GMT -5
Why does that matter? Really? Well, because there's a big difference between saying that someone is a biased journalist and that they're a fake journalist. Maybe it's the ex-journalist in me, but when someone makes outlandish statements like that, I want to know how much weight their opinion actually carries. So if one says that a reporter or publication don't practice "real journalism," I'm interested to see if that person has any experience being a "real journalist." So when 92 admits that he has no experience in that field, it tells me that his statement that none of the publications he can think of practice real journalism isn't a very informed one. Put it this way. If I were to declare that a person with an MD doesn't practice real medicine, wouldn't you want to know what qualifies me to make that statement? But if Dr. Chu made the same statement, it would carry a lot more weight. Make sense? Decaf, CL! My point is that these “real journalists” are all biased and their “news” stories should be read with the understanding that their journalism is heavily influenced by their own personal feelings re: the issues they are covering. I hope you are okay with me having this view despite never having written for The Crusader or a sports blog. The point is that by essentially claiming that there's no such thing as real journalism because human beings have opinions, you're taking a radically nihilistic position that discredits every piece of news that every single person consumes, and doing so based on exactly zero first-hand knowledge. It essentially supports anyone who dismisses facts that they don't like as "fake news." After all, if they're all fake journalists, then it's all fake news.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 13, 2018 6:46:40 GMT -5
Unfortunately, this reinforces prior bad news about off color comments:
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jan 13, 2018 7:54:17 GMT -5
One suspects Chris will depart from MSNBC in fairly short order following this latest episode.
I know he became the irascible darling of the lib DC establishment many years ago but he’s lost his luster as of late. Beyond what seems to be a peculiar speech impediment, I never found his reportage worthy of note.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 13, 2018 8:18:31 GMT -5
In our high tech world where almost nothing escapes public scrutiny, we don’t need Daniel from the Old Testament to warn that our heroes, left or right, actors, politicians, athletes have feet of clay.
We all have flaws and the greater the visibility one has, the more they become a target for others to seek out those flaws.
Oprah Winfrey would be wise to not take the bait and run for president. Besides being as woefully unprepared as those with similar backgrounds, she was described by one commentator as “angelic.” She would lose that hyperbolic adjective in a New York minute if she ran.
Chris Matthews is a man from another era and while I am sure he is no worse than many of us from that generation, it is probably time to pass the baton to someone else.
|
|