Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
Thanks Tree17Thanks

Thread: The Media & The White House

  1. #11
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    47,098
    Thanks
    28053

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Bourne View Post
    Part of the problem was that after Watergate, too many journalists wanted to become "Wood-stein." Instead of being true to their profession to accurately and fairly report the news, too many wanted to become celebrities. It polluted reliable journalism. Then the broadcast media became a form of entertainment instead of a reliable and accurate informational vehicle. And worst of all are these so called "news shows" such as Morning Joe which editorialize, but don't instruct.

    I've always loved newspapers and I still read the Chicago Trib and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. But I've given up on network national news.

    Cheers,

    Bourne
    There are worse goals than wanting to be a great investigative journalist. I moved to Cleveland in the middle of a massive public corruption scandal that ended with most county government types in prison. The Plain Dealer was fabulous to read, back then.

    Now it's literally not fit to line a birdcage.

    And that's entirely due to the economic crisis in newspaper publishing.
    Thanks from Bourne

  2. #12
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29,085
    Thanks
    3567

    Quote Originally Posted by Bourne View Post
    Unfortunately the great journalists are few and far between nowadays. The broadcast media has become a ratings centered form of network entertainment and print journalists care more about advancing their careers than character. Gone are the days of Walther Cronkite, The Murrow boys, Peter Jennings. Woodward and Bernstein. One of my favorites, Ed Bradley. The emphasis is on getting the story to the public, and source verification is an afterthought.

    Oh for certain, there are some great journalists out there. I like Anderson Cooper and at times Rachel Maddow. Scott Pelli is excellent. But too few. The media need to stop concerning themselves with jousting with government officials, ignore popular beliefs, stop the personal editorializing (Morning Joe is a great example) and return to solid, fact based reporting of verified information. Let the public make up their own minds about the state of the nation and the world.

    I wonder what the great Andy Rooney would say about journalism today?

    Cheers,

    Bourne
    That's it. Journalism has been suppressed in the interest of shaping outcomes. The blending of opinion and reporting is the chief means of keeping an audience and whipping it up into a frenzy. Increasingly, poorly sourced information is presented as fact or as urgent, likely conclusions. For example, having visited the Washington Journal site to find news, I now get a mini-headline pop up that states theories as facts as though God told Wapo the truth and gave it permission to tell the rest of us. The mini headlines have no source, no attribution and are indistinguishable from the rantings of a cult leader. I go to the Wapo site still and once I dig through the articles and downgrade the conclusions, the facts are still there and the admission of unnamed sources and suspect conclusions are admitted. So we have spoon fed conclusions for the busy and lazy cult members. But Wapo is still a solid source for those who have time and a critical eye.
    Thanks from Madeline

  3. #13
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    71,101
    Thanks
    35581

    From
    becoming more and more
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    I honestly do not watch news on tv, at all. I don't know the hosts much, except by reputation.

    Everyone seems to think well of Maddow, but I just can't seem to sit and watch tv news anymore.
    well it's on cable so I watch. Old school. If I'm paying for it I want to get the most out of it. Guess I got hooked on the news during the "and that's the way it is" era. It was programmed into us as kids. NBC...CBS and ABC. Three networks were enough back then to cover so much. Not only the news either. That was all we had. Three channels. Now there are thousands of channels and what do we get? It's become a cliche' these days but it's true.

    There's never anything on.

    Didn't mean to hijack your thread though.

    Haven't heard the term "yellow journalism" for a while.

    The article is a bit naive though.

    It misses the point that Trump, himself, is a media mogul. He knows how to manipulate the media like no one we've ever seen.

    So, it wasn't so much that the media manipulated public opinion as it was Trump manipulating the media. He played them for fools. I've never seen anything like it. The media , itself , was in an abusive, co-dependent, relationship with Trump. They still are. While we watch it all unfolding wondering which media titan will come out ahead? The MSM or Trump. Sad to say that I'm not holding out much hope for the MSM.
    Thanks from Madeline and kmiller1610

  4. #14
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    47,098
    Thanks
    28053

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    That's it. Journalism has been suppressed in the interest of shaping outcomes. The blending of opinion and reporting is the chief means of keeping an audience and whipping it up into a frenzy. Increasingly, poorly sourced information is presented as fact or as urgent, likely conclusions. For example, having visited the Washington Journal site to find news, I now get a mini-headline pop up that states theories as facts as though God told Wapo the truth and gave it permission to tell the rest of us. The mini headlines have no source, no attribution and are indistinguishable from the rantings of a cult leader. I go to the Wapo site still and once I dig through the articles and downgrade the conclusions, the facts are still there and the admission of unnamed sources and suspect conclusions are admitted. So we have spoon fed conclusions for the busy and lazy cult members. But Wapo is still a solid source for those who have time and a critical eye.
    Is it really that bad at WashPo? I was considering subscribing.

  5. #15
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    47,098
    Thanks
    28053

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    well it's on cable so I watch. Old school. If I'm paying for it I want to get the most out of it. Guess I got hooked on the news during the "and that's the way it is" era. It was programmed into us as kids. NBC...CBS and ABC. Three networks were enough back then to cover so much. Not only the news either. That was all we had. Three channels. Now there are thousands of channels and what do we get? It's become a cliche' these days but it's true.

    There's never anything on.

    Didn't mean to hijack your thread though.

    Haven't heard the term "yellow journalism" for a while.

    The article is a bit naive though.

    It misses the point that Trump, himself, is a media mogul. He knows how to manipulate the media like no one we've ever seen.

    So, it wasn't so much that the media manipulated public opinion as it was Trump manipulating the media. He played them for fools. I've never seen anything like it. The media , itself , was in an abusive, co-dependent, relationship with Trump. They still are. While we watch it all unfolding wondering which media titan will come out ahead? The MSM or Trump. Sad to say that I'm not holding out much hope for the MSM.
    O, that is a very important point. They ALL gave him $20 million in free air time, BEFORE the nomination.

    They wanted us to watch more, so they set us up with a carnival barker as POTUS.

  6. #16
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29,085
    Thanks
    3567

    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    Is it really that bad at WashPo? I was considering subscribing.
    The in-depth articles reflect journalistic best practices. The headlines are a pack of lies. I have found many of the facts I need by reading the articles carefully.
    Thanks from Madeline

  7. #17
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29,085
    Thanks
    3567

    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    well it's on cable so I watch. Old school. If I'm paying for it I want to get the most out of it. Guess I got hooked on the news during the "and that's the way it is" era. It was programmed into us as kids. NBC...CBS and ABC. Three networks were enough back then to cover so much. Not only the news either. That was all we had. Three channels. Now there are thousands of channels and what do we get? It's become a cliche' these days but it's true.

    There's never anything on.

    Didn't mean to hijack your thread though.

    Haven't heard the term "yellow journalism" for a while.

    The article is a bit naive though.

    It misses the point that Trump, himself, is a media mogul. He knows how to manipulate the media like no one we've ever seen.

    So, it wasn't so much that the media manipulated public opinion as it was Trump manipulating the media. He played them for fools. I've never seen anything like it. The media , itself , was in an abusive, co-dependent, relationship with Trump. They still are. While we watch it all unfolding wondering which media titan will come out ahead? The MSM or Trump. Sad to say that I'm not holding out much hope for the MSM.
    Best post of yours to date.
    Thanks from Madeline and the watchman

  8. #18
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    15,213
    Thanks
    6173

    From
    10 years later
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    Is it really that bad at WashPo? I was considering subscribing.
    No, not even close. Kmiller is ranting again. WaPo relies on unnamed sources like other news outlets do. If they named them, their sources would dry up and they would go out of business like all other outlets. I'd look at the papers verification process in regards to sourcing to make your if you are really thatoncerned.

  9. #19
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29,085
    Thanks
    3567

    Quote Originally Posted by steezer View Post
    No, not even close. Kmiller is ranting again. WaPo relies on unnamed sources like other news outlets do. If they named them, their sources would dry up and they would go out of business like all other outlets. I'd look at the papers verification process in regards to sourcing to make your if you are really thatoncerned.
    And you aren't reading. Unambiguous headlines that seem absolute without any reference to a source. And articles that are detailed and if read carefully, give you the facts you need to do your own investigations. That's my summary. I use Washpo for many of my own angles on the news.
    Thanks from Madeline

  10. #20
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    47,098
    Thanks
    28053

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    The in-depth articles reflect journalistic best practices. The headlines are a pack of lies. I have found many of the facts I need by reading the articles carefully.
    I read a blog called Longform, which gathers in-depth quality journalism from all over.

    It's fabulous, if you haven't seen it.

    But it obviously has no breaking news.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 89
    Last Post: 19th April 2013, 08:26 AM
  2. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 24th May 2011, 10:53 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2nd May 2011, 08:53 AM
  4. White House Cops Prevent Media From Covering Protest
    By michaelr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 23rd April 2010, 07:50 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed