Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 101 to 117 of 117

Thread: Politico: Fox News releases 4-minute attack on Obama

  1. #101
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4483508]Really???? Cronkite was a total lib. He was so far from unbiased , please.

    the bias started with him.[/QUOTE]

    1. wow....So you think bias in the main stream media began in the 1950s....

    2. Walter Cronkite was as close to unbiased during his career as you will find. To say anything else is to be intellectually dishonest. Only later in life did he become politically active.

    But cheer up, you are not alone in swallowing whole the propaganda that Walter Cronkite was...a lib. A famous intellect from the far-right agrees with you....

    [I]Enjoying the cult of personality surrounding Cronkite in those years, CBS allowed some good-natured fun-poking at its star anchorman in some episodes of the network's popular situation comedy All in the Family, during which the lead character [B]Archie Bunker[/B] would sometimes complain about the newsman, calling him "Pinko Cronkite."[/I]

    [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Archie_and_Lionel_All_in_the_Family_1971.JPG[/IMG]

  2. #102
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4483561]1. wow....So you think bias in the main stream media began in the 1950s....

    2. Walter Cronkite was as close to unbiased during his career as you will find. To say anything else is to be intellectually dishonest. Only later in life did he become politically active.

    But cheer up, you are not alone in swallowing whole the propaganda that Walter Cronkite was...a lib. A famous intellect from the far-right agrees with you....

    [I]Enjoying the cult of personality surrounding Cronkite in those years, CBS allowed some good-natured fun-poking at its star anchorman in some episodes of the network's popular situation comedy All in the Family, during which the lead character [B]Archie Bunker[/B] would sometimes complain about the newsman, calling him "Pinko Cronkite."[/I]

    [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Archie_and_Lionel_All_in_the_Family_1971.JPG[/IMG][/QUOTE]


    Read this...and please read up. I recognize that majoring in education keeps you at a strict disadvantage but there is no need to stay in high school civics for your understanding of world economics and politics.:rolleyes:

    This is just one of many cites showing Cronkites bias.

    O'Conner was a huge lib BTW. 99 percent of Hollywood is, yet I never see them lowering ticket prices once a movie hits say 30 million in sales or breakeven.


    [url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/20/new-biography-of-cbs-newsman-walter-cronkite-dents-his-halo.html[/url]

  3. #103
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,049
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4483570]I recognize that majoring in education keeps you at a strict disadvantage...[/QUOTE]

    Such a doosh. :nono:

  4. #104
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4483470]there was a time when some of the journalists did hold themselves to an ethical standard[/QUOTE]

    Yes, there was a time--- when people generally had ethics, principles and standards; there was a moral absolute.

    Today? Not so much.

    Gee, I wonder what happened?

  5. #105
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4483470]:rolleyes: amazing.

    .....there was a time when some of the journalists did hold themselves to an ethical standard.....[/QUOTE]

    A very poor reading of History. "Journalists", i.e. the Media, have always been baised and always will be biased. Even a casual review of the media in America from before and after the Revolutionary War period shows this to be the case.

    It is revisionist history, PR-and-image-driven, to portray the American (or older, European) medias as anything but biased and politically/issue activist.

    I liken this to a number of other prefessions image-driven PR, like teachers-as-underpaid-martyr-servants and Cops/Firemen as inherantly underpaid yet different/better/nobler than the rest of us they serve. Each of these professions has driven these images, to the fiscal betterment of themselves and the promotion of their professions.

    Take some time and do a cursory look at Rev. Era newspapers, and see how "ethical and unbiased" they were on the politics and issues of the day.

  6. #106
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4483470]:rolleyes: amazing.

    There is no disagreement between us that the majority of so-called journalists today sell out their ethics and standards for sensationalism and profit. No one denies that. All you have to do is turn on the television or talk radio or read the new york post etc, etc.

    But what you are failing to grasp is that there was a time when some of the journalists did hold themselves to an ethical standard, people such as Edward Murrow and Walter Cronkite. [B]The debate in this thread (at least one of them) is about the actions of Cronkite during the war[/B].[/QUOTE]

    Actually, no, the debate you started is that FoxNews is crazily biased and this is somehow shocking and appalling to you. Look it up.

    I grasp the past of journalism just fine. It has almost nothing to do with the topic you brought to the table, however.

  7. #107
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4483601]A very poor reading of History. "Journalists", i.e. the Media, have always been baised and always will be biased. Even a casual review of the media in America from before and after the Revolutionary War period shows this to be the case.

    It is revisionist history, PR-and-image-driven, to portray the American (or older, European) medias as anything but biased and politically/issue activist.

    I liken this to a number of other prefessions image-driven PR, like teachers-as-underpaid-martyr-servants and Cops/Firemen as inherantly underpaid yet different/better/nobler than the rest of us they serve. Each of these professions has driven these images, to the fiscal betterment of themselves and the promotion of their professions.

    Take some time and do a cursory look at Rev. Era newspapers, and see how "ethical and unbiased" they were on the politics and issues of the day.[/QUOTE]

    A very poor reading of my post, tbh. I never made the claim that there was no bias in the media throughout history, quite the contrary. In fact if you read my post to southpark I intimidated as much when I called him out for thinking that media bias began in the 1950s.

    As a student of history I understand all to well how the government and media (newspaper, hollywood etc,) worked in tandem. One only needs to view the "news" reels that would be produced for movie theaters where a captive audience would sit and watch war propaganda, as one example.

    My point is simply this; there were more main stream media journalists that held themselves to a higher standard in the past, a fact that was bemoaned by Walter Cronkite. There has always been bias.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 06-04-2012 at 11:47 AM.

  8. #108
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4483640]My point is simply this; there were more main stream media journalists that held themselves to a higher standard in the past[/quote]

    No, there wasn't, they simply convinced you via network news proaganda, a lack of competiting viewpoints, and your own shallow understanding of the history of media in America that they were.

    I'm very sorry IJF, but for a self-professed "student of history", your understanding of history is often exceedingly limited and shallow on the reality of things you claim knowledge. The kind of shallow understadning I'd expect from someone who gets their history primarily from the very media you bemoan, tbqh.

    I would suggest you may want to spend some of your time off this summer reading up on the History you claim to be so interested in. The history of media is a fascinating subject, worth persuing in greater depth.

  9. #109
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,332
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4483570]Read this...and please read up. I recognize that majoring in education keeps you at a strict disadvantage but there is no need to stay in high school civics for your understanding of world economics and politics.:rolleyes:

    This is just one of many cites showing Cronkites bias.

    O'Conner was a huge lib BTW. 99 percent of Hollywood is, yet I never see them lowering ticket prices once a movie hits say 30 million in sales or breakeven.


    [URL]http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/20/new-biography-of-cbs-newsman-walter-cronkite-dents-his-halo.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

    The use of Archie Bunker who was a character that was a parody of a conservative in his time being used to show, through reverse-psychology, what a good guy Cronkite was is just silly! Shows that you bought CBS' line. Don't you see that is exactly why CBS had the character say that? So that good budding progressives would stand by Cronkite because they didn't want to be that parody themselves.

    This is similar to the tactic today where they tell us that Obama is SOOOO smart and Bush is SOOO dumb and inteligent non-racist people vote for Obama. It is a self fulfilling prophecy since people want to see themselves as intelligent and open thinkers while all they are really doing is buying a sales pitch.

  10. #110
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4483640]My point is simply this; there were more main stream media journalists that held themselves to a higher standard in the past.[/QUOTE]

    This "higher standard" you keep talking about---

    Do you hold yourself to it? Because quite frankly, and I'm sure everybody here would agree, your posts reflect a myopic world view.

  11. #111
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    31,100
    [QUOTE=Trades;4483746]The use of Archie Bunker who was a character that was a parody of a conservative in his time being used to show, through reverse-psychology, what a good guy Cronkite was is just silly! Shows that you bought CBS' line. Don't you see that is exactly why CBS had the character say that? So that good budding progressives would stand by Cronkite because they didn't want to be that parody themselves.

    This is similar to the tactic today where they tell us that Obama is SOOOO smart and Bush is SOOO dumb and inteligent non-racist people vote for Obama. It is a self fulfilling prophecy since people want to see themselves as intelligent and open thinkers while all they are really doing is buying a sales pitch.[/QUOTE]

    I am thinking that this is a reach; CBS was just taking advantage of the "youth movement" (another label) that was picking up steam; I doubt the "criminal liberal media" would have the brains to accomplish this.

    AITF was based on this show:

    [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Till_Death_Us_Do_Part_%28British_TV_series%29"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Till_Death_Us_Do_Part_%28British_TV_series%29[/URL]

    Now, I agree with your use of the term "sales pitches", but that story line of the "out of touch patriarch" has been working for centuries. :D

    EDIT: OTOH, you may be onto something. :O
    Last edited by WestCoastOffensive; 06-04-2012 at 02:01 PM.

  12. #112
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4483649]No, there wasn't, they simply convinced you via network news proaganda, a lack of competiting viewpoints, and your own shallow understanding of the history of media in America that they were.

    I'm very sorry IJF, but for a self-professed "student of history", your understanding of history is often exceedingly limited and shallow on the reality of things you claim knowledge. The kind of shallow understadning I'd expect from someone who gets their history primarily from the very media you bemoan, tbqh.

    I would suggest you may want to spend some of your time off this summer reading up on the History you claim to be so interested in. The history of media is a fascinating subject, worth persuing in greater depth.[/QUOTE]

    Not to get into semantics but your suggestion that I need to spend the summer reading books (no doubt the ones that you feel are correct) about the lack of objectivity in the media throughout history misses the essence of my prior posts. [B]To be clear; I don't disagree with your point.[/B]

    On a side note; inherent in your argument is the assumption that the books you have a read are correct and true and unbiased and mine are biased. Why? Because you believe your opinion to be right and true and unbiased.

    Now I can spend the next few minutes linking articles or quoting from some books about how the state of the media has devolved from bad to worse but I think we will hit the proverbial agree to disagree wall. And the catch all will be to attack the sources as being far-left and biased etc, etc.

  13. #113
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4483576]Such a doosh. :nono:[/QUOTE]

    BLOW ME....;) I was just breaking IJF's balls, he seems a good sport and I really admire his passion even though he is dead wrong.

  14. #114
    [QUOTE=Trades;4483746]The use of Archie Bunker who was a character that was a parody of a conservative in his time being used to show, through reverse-psychology, what a good guy Cronkite was is just silly! Shows that you bought CBS' line. Don't you see that is exactly why CBS had the character say that? So that good budding progressives would stand by Cronkite because they didn't want to be that parody themselves.

    This is similar to the tactic today where they tell us that Obama is SOOOO smart and Bush is SOOO dumb and inteligent non-racist people vote for Obama. It is a self fulfilling prophecy since people want to see themselves as intelligent and open thinkers while all they are really doing is buying a sales pitch.[/QUOTE]

    I personally met Rob Reiner and Norman Lear back in 1989 at a function in Manhattan..... I'm an expert.:D

    I didnt buy any line.... trust me. IJF was simply making a joke/point.

  15. #115
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4483903]he seems a good sport and I really admire his passion even though he is dead wrong.[/QUOTE]

    +1 Agreed. IJF is a good egg IMO, and an enjoyable debate.

    And no IJF, I'm not ignoring your reply, just agreeing with you to disagree. No, my sources/books are no less baised than your own per se, but I'd guess mine are more history by hisorians, and your more politics by pundit. Generally if you look at the news reported in the media of the time in 1700's U.S. vs. that of today, you're not going to see less bias, less activism or less of what you'd call "bad" media then than now. You'd see much more of it, with much more variety of coverage, given every place had it's own papers, usually in multiples, and very little mass ownership involved as today. As you say, you agree, so.

    The current era's insistence that "it's ALL DIFFERENT/WORSE NOW" is pretty standard issue human psychology at work tbh. Every generation thinks that, and it's very very rarely the truth.

    By all means, read whatever sources you like. Hopefully they're history books, not political books. I have to assume you know the difference.;)
    Last edited by Warfish; 06-04-2012 at 03:25 PM.

  16. #116
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4483905]+1 Agreed. IJF is a good egg IMO, and an enjoyable debate.

    And no IJF, I'm not ignoring your reply, just agreeing with you to disagree. No, my sources/books are no less baised than your own per se, but I'd guess mine are more history by hisorians, and your more politics by pundit. Generally if you look at the news reported in the media of the time in 1700's U.S. vs. that of today, you're not going to see less bias, less activism or less of what you'd call "bad" media then than now. You'd see much more of it, with much more variety of coverage, given every place had it's own papers, usually in multiples, and very little mass ownership involved as today. As you say, you agree, so.

    The current era's insistence that "it's ALL DIFFERENT/WORSE NOW" is pretty standard issue human psychology at work tbh. Every generation thinks that, and it's very very rarely the truth.

    By all means, read whatever sources you like. Hopefully they're history books, not political books. I have to assume you know the difference.;)[/QUOTE]

    fair points, and thank you for the kind words. I agree that there has always been a tremendous amount of political activism and bias throughout history. Hell we had yellow journalism and muckraking and Remember the Maine!

    So we can disagree like a good gentlemen as to whether it is worse now. However, here a few interesting links from a Harvard University site titled [I]Changes in Journalism[/I]. It was conducted by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Jack Harrison and it obviously supports my point of view (or else I would not have posted it ;) ). If you have the time it does offer a different perspective;

    [url]http://athome.harvard.edu/programs/fym/fym_video/fym_6.html[/url]

    [url]http://athome.harvard.edu/programs/fym/fym_video/fym_5.html[/url]

    [url]http://athome.harvard.edu/programs/fym/fym_video/fym_4.html[/url]
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 06-04-2012 at 09:21 PM.

  17. #117
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4483576]Such a doosh. :nono:[/QUOTE]



    As a plumber, I am disappointed in you. You should know that the proper spelling is douche.

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