Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 53 of 53

Thread: Interesting Sidebar to the Anti-War Protests in DC

  1. #41
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=parafly]I didn't figure anything out yesterday. I knew that it was impossible to reason with you way before that.[/QUOTE]

    in order to reason with someone you need facts rather than speculation....you need to comprehend the topic at hand rather then reflexively read into things...one more time....

    concentrate....concentrate....concentrate....

  2. #42
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,928
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]in order to reason with someone you need facts rather than speculation....you need to comprehend the topic at hand rather then reflexively read into things...one more time....

    concentrate....concentrate....concentrate....[/QUOTE]

    FACT: Fox Noise is biased towards the right.

  3. #43
    [QUOTE=parafly]FACT: Fox Noise is biased towards the right.[/QUOTE]


    :yes: :yes:
    Get the link please :yes:

  4. #44
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=parafly]FACT: Fox Noise is biased towards the right.[/QUOTE]


    you still don't get it....

    one more time...concentrate...concentrate...concentrate...

    I'm rooting for you!

  5. #45
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=parafly]or right wing rags like Fox Noise and NY Post.[/QUOTE]

    Parakeet,
    Many times in the past,
    NYT and lib reporters have appeared on TV, print
    etc giving their slant on things with no
    rebuke, reprimand or censorship from anyone,
    with no limits.

    For example, just this past summer,
    NYT reporter Linda Greenhouse spoke at Harvard
    and NYT reporter Neil Farquhar appeared on the
    Charlie Rose show each giving a pointed anti-Bush take
    on Iraq.

    The only "ethics" involved are whether their statements
    are in line with what would normally appear in the
    NYT under their byline.

    You probably dont watch Fox News,
    if you did youd know they have plenty of lib bleeding hearts too-
    Colmes, Rivera, Smith, and many other lib guests.
    Higher representation of libs there than conservatives appearing
    in the rest of the MSM
    Last edited by flushingjet; 02-01-2007 at 09:44 AM.

  6. #46
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,928
    [QUOTE=flushingjet]Parakeet,
    Many times in the past,
    NYT and lib reporters have appeared on TV, print
    etc giving their slant on things with no
    rebuke, reprimand or censorship from anyone,
    with no limits.

    For example, just this past summer,
    NYT reporter Linda Greenhouse spoke at Harvard
    and NYT reporter Neil Farquhar appeared on the
    Charlie Rose show each giving a pointed anti-Bush take
    on Iraq.

    The only "ethics" involved are whether their statements
    are in line with what would normally appear in the
    NYT under their byline.

    You probably dont watch Fox News,
    if you did youd know they have plenty of lib bleeding hearts too-
    Colmes, Rivera, Smith, and many other lib guests.
    Higher representation of libs there than conservatives appearing
    in the rest of the MSM[/QUOTE]

    flushingtoilet,

    I don't really understand your point here. Whenever a reporter speaks in front of a crowd or goes on TV to state their opinion, they have no choice but to share their own personal views. It happens on both sides, left and right, and no side is better or worse than the other. Jounalists are supposed to report as objectively as possible when representing a major news organization, but making personal appearances on TV, radio, or in front of a crowd open the doorway for more subjective material.

    Every news organization has its fair share of liberals and conservatives. I disagree with your statement that Fox has higher representation of liberals than the rest of the MSM's representation of conservatives.

    In regard to your statement to not watching Fox often, you are correct. Last night I was flipping through the cable news channels. MSNBC was showing a segment on the possibility of war with Iran, CNN had a piece concerning the major report on Global Warming that will be made public today, and Fox was discussing Biden's comments toward Obama and how the Democrats get away with these types of actions. Needless to say, I chose MSNBC and CNN because they are actually discussing serious topics that matter in this world, while Fox is focusing on any issue that will make liberals and democrats look as bad as possible. Obviously this is not always the case, and each network has its fair share of bad traits, but in general I find other networks having a more objective viewpoint and discussing relevant topics that mean something to me.

  7. #47
    Anyone see Colbert making fun of Sarandon and Fonda at this protest on last night's show? Man, that was hilarious.

  8. #48
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=parafly]flushingtoilet,

    I don't really understand your point here. Whenever a reporter speaks in front of a crowd or goes on TV to state their opinion, they have no choice but to share their own personal views. It happens on both sides, left and right, and no side is better or worse than the other. Jounalists are supposed to report as objectively as possible when representing a major news organization, but making personal appearances on TV, radio, or in front of a crowd open the doorway for more subjective material.

    Every news organization has its fair share of liberals and conservatives. I disagree with your statement that Fox has higher representation of liberals than the rest of the MSM's representation of conservatives.

    In regard to your statement to not watching Fox often, you are correct. Last night I was flipping through the cable news channels. MSNBC was showing a segment on the possibility of war with Iran, CNN had a piece concerning the major report on Global Warming that will be made public today, and Fox was discussing Biden's comments toward Obama and how the Democrats get away with these types of actions. [B]Needless to say, I chose MSNBC and CNN because they are actually discussing serious topics that matter in this world, while Fox is focusing on any issue that will make liberals and democrats look as bad as possible.[/B] Obviously this is not always the case, and each network has its fair share of bad traits, but in general I find other networks having a more objective viewpoint and discussing relevant topics that mean something to me.[/QUOTE]

    classic....the double standard of the media is not a serious topic....

  9. #49
    [QUOTE=flushingjet]Parakeet,
    Many times in the past,
    NYT and lib reporters have appeared on TV, print
    etc giving their slant on things with no
    rebuke, reprimand or censorship from anyone,
    with no limits.

    For example, just this past summer,
    NYT reporter Linda Greenhouse spoke at Harvard
    and NYT reporter Neil Farquhar appeared on the
    Charlie Rose show each giving a pointed anti-Bush take
    on Iraq.

    The only "ethics" involved are whether their statements
    are in line with what would normally appear in the
    NYT under their byline.

    You probably dont watch Fox News,
    if you did youd know they have plenty of lib bleeding hearts too-
    Colmes, Rivera, Smith, and many other lib guests.
    Higher representation of libs there than conservatives appearing
    in the rest of the MSM[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6146693[/url]

    [QUOTE]Critics Question Reporter's Airing of Personal Views
    by David Folkenflik


    Stephanie Mitchell
    Greenhouse says of her comments criticizing the U.S. government, "Let the chips fall where they may." Harvard News Office


    Greenhouse's Speech
    Hear Remarks at Radcliffe
    Prepared Text for Radcliffe Speech

    All Things Considered, September 26, 2006 In June, Linda Greenhouse returned to Cambridge, Mass., to be honored at Harvard. Greenhouse, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times, reminisced a bit about the 1960s idealism that defined her college years, and told an audience of 800 she had wept at a Simon and Garfunkel concert when she was struck by the unfulfilled promise of her own generation.

    Greenhouse went on to charge that since then, the U.S. government had "turned its energy and attention away from upholding the rule of law and toward creating law-free zones at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Haditha and other places around the world -- [such as] the U.S. Congress."

    She also observed a "sustained assault on women's reproductive freedom and the hijacking of public policy by religious fundamentalism. To say that these last few years have been dispiriting is an understatement."

    A few weeks after that speech, the Supreme Court knocked down some of the government's assertion of executive powers involving detainees at Guantanamo. And the court will soon hear arguments in an abortion case.

    Greenhouse was taking a stand on some of the most contentious issues faced by the court this year. Such charged commentary can be found almost anywhere you turn these days -- except from hard news reporters.

    Daniel Okrent was the Times' first public editor -- or in-house journalism critic. He says he is amazed by Greenhouse's remarks.

    "It's been a basic tenet of journalism ... that the reporter's ideology [has] to be suppressed and submerged, so the reader has absolute confidence that what he or she is reading is not colored by previous views," Okrent says.

    Charges of media bias are routinely thrown at the Times and other media outlets, from both the left and the right. Okrent says he never received a single complaint about bias in Greenhouse's coverage. He wonders whether journalists really need to smother their private beliefs to be fair in their articles.

    [B]Back in 1989, Times editors rebuked Greenhouse for marching in an abortion-rights rally in Washington. Greenhouse wrote two dozen stories involving abortion that year -- including one that was published the same day as a Times article about her participation in the march.

    Sandy Rowe, editor of the Oregonian and a past chairwoman of the executive committee of the Pulitzer Prize board. Rowe praises Greenhouse's work -- but questions her judgment.

    "If she or any other reporter stakes out a strong position on an issue that is still evolving both in society and before the courts, yes, I think that is problematic," Rowe says.[/B]
    Greenhouse tells NPR, "I said what I said in a public place. Let the chips fall where they may."

    Jack Nelson, former Washington bureau chief for The Los Angeles Times, blanches at hearing of Greenhouse's remarks, but agrees with her tough critique of the White House.

    "If I was the Washington bureau chief and she was my Supreme Court reporter, I might have to answer to the editors in L.A. for that," Nelson says. "But I would do my best to support her."

    Asked if he would defend Greenhouse had she said something he disagreed with, however, Nelson laughed -- and said he would take issue if she had backed Bush policy.

    The New York Times ethics policy bans political activism by its journalists and advises them not to say things on television they could not publish in the paper. But it doesn't appear to address this precise situation.

    Rowe says the reputation of Greenhouse's newspaper is at stake when the reporter expresses her strong beliefs publicly.

    [B]Greenhouse "was asked to speak, as wonderful as she is, because she works for The New York Times. In that situation, any of us has to be careful between our own personal views -- which we no doubt have -- and whether it casts doubt on our own work or on the credibility of the institution we represent."[/B]

    Top New York Times editors Bill Keller and Jill Abramson declined to be interviewed for this story.[/QUOTE]


    From my point of view reporters who are true to their professional ethics should keep their comments toward what they see and not editorialize. It's one thing for an Op Ed writer or an Editor to give opinion, it's another thing for a journalist in the field reporting on events as the unfold to editorialize like this. The Times seems to have way to much Grey in this area and I agree that it cheapens their reporting to not enforce the highest standards for their reporters.

  10. #50
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,928
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]classic....the double standard of the media is not a serious topic....[/QUOTE]

    Show me how there is a double standard. Biden just singlehandedly ended a possible run for President or Vice President. This would have been the result regardless of party.

    And yes, possibility of war with Iran and Global Warming are way more serious and important issues than your so-called double standard in the media.

  11. #51
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=parafly]Show me how there is a double standard. Biden just singlehandedly ended a possible run for President or Vice President. This would have been the result regardless of party.

    And yes, possibility of war with Iran and Global Warming are way more serious and important issues than your so-called double standard in the media.[/QUOTE]


    Biden's continual gaffe's have been laid out and he never had a chance to win the nomination, never mind a single primary except for his home state...

    several years ago Trent Lott many a joke in poor taste at a birthday party....how'd the media treat that???

  12. #52
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,928
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]Biden's continual gaffe's have been laid out and he never had a chance to win the nomination, never mind a single primary except for his home state...

    several years ago Trent Lott many a joke in poor taste at a birthday party....how'd the media treat that???[/QUOTE]

    Almost all politicians regardless of party make stupid statements at times. I'm still not seeing how there is a double standard in the media. In both cases, the guilty politician appoligized and the media moved on.

  13. #53
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=parafly]Almost all politicians regardless of party make stupid statements at times. I'm still not seeing how there is a double standard in the media. In both cases, the guilty politician appoligized and the media moved on.[/QUOTE]


    you don't see it because you refuse to see it....and your point is moot...Lott was forced to step down from several key positions he held in the senate, because of several things, including the media coverage of his comment- nothing of the sort will happen to biden...

    If Rudy Guiliani said, "yeh- Mohattma Ghandi works down the road at the local 7-11" the way hillary did about five years ago he would've been crucified...

    not only did she get away with it but she is now the leading candidate for the dim ticket in '08....
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 02-01-2007 at 11:11 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us