15
   

Why Expect Solid Information from Commercial Networks?

 
 
Kolyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 09:58 pm
@Lash,
Thomas wrote:

This week, my Facebook page has been lighting up with petitions to pressure Clear Channel into firing Rush Limbaugh for spreading lies and hatred.


Lash wrote:

Do you thnk those who want Limbaugh fired should have one specific quote to point to - or just a vague all-encompassing "lies" charge? What news do you think Americans should consider even-handed?

Anybody can feel free to answer, as well.


I seldom pay any attention to that idiot, but this is what a little time on Google turned up:

From http://jezebel.com/5889443/rush-limbaugh-calls-birth-control-advocate-a-whore ...
Limbaugh's comments about college student Sandra Fluke:

Quote:
What does it say about the college coed Susan [sic] Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.

She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps.

The johns, that's right. We would be the johns — no! We're not the johns. Well — yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word.


From http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/22/rush-limbaugh-s-sexist-beyonc-rant-and-gross-history-of-women-bashing.html ...

Limbaugh's cheap shot at a child:
Quote:
“Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?”
– Limbaugh, holding up a picture of a 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton, in ‘93


0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 10:06 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
Thomas, just curious: Do you think Bashir's statement was a fire-able offense?

Bashir singled out a specific person, who isn't even an active politician anymore, for a specific form of corporal punishment. I think that's a fireable offense in the sense that MSNBC could legitimately fire him. I take no position on whether MSNBC had to fire him.

Lash wrote:
Do you thnk those who want Limbaugh fired should have one specific quote to point to - or just a vague all-encompassing "lies" charge?

They should have specific quotes at hand. Fortunately for them, Limbaugh is making this rather easy.

Lash wrote:
What news do you think Americans should consider even-handed?

I can't answer that because I don't care about "even-handed". In a debate between flat-Earthers and spherical-Earthers, posting a satellite picture of Earth is a very biased thing to do. It is also the right thing to do. The even-handed thing to do, which is to make it a non-committal he-said, she-said story, misinforms readers. Screw even-handed journalism.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 10:18 pm
@Thomas,
Couldn't agree more.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 10:37 pm
First all, these for-profit News organizations are giving Americans exactly what they want. These news sources are clearly providing a valuable service or millions of us wouldn't tune in.

Second of all, it is clear that Conservatives in the news entertainment business are far more effective at swaying opinion than their Liberal counterparts are. The Megyn Kelley statement went viral in a way that no other statement on race could. And who doubts the role of Rush Limbaugh's comments on Sandra Fluke raising awareness of women's issues, or that his long stance of comments on homosexuality have helped the same-sex marriage debate in a measurable way.

Given my political persuasion, I want keep people like Megyn Kelly, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh in the public eye. It would be very sad for any one of them to be silenced.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 10:38 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
And your concept of equity implies influence.

If you insist on framing it that way, I'll say that every information provider is under the influence of someone. I prefer that this someone be the recipient of the information, rather than an influence peddler with no interest in viewers being accurately informed.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 12:03 pm
@Nom de plume,
Quote:
Unfortunately, "trash talk" attracts many, many people.


Exactly. People love gossip and negativity. It has nothing to do with truth or news. Unfortunately it has invaded our politics to a large extent. We get what we deserve. BTW, what is most prevalent in the threads here? Negativity and trash talk.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 01:08 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

No, I consider that the only reliable criticism of conservative sources if from those who actually access them on a regular basis.

I subscribe to the Sunday Times, and the Washington Post on-line. I also regularly read the New Republic, The Nation, Slate and the Huffington Post. On Sundays mornings I usually watch all of the network news shows (thanks to DVD).

I keep waiting for a liberal columnist or pundit with which I can agree. There's been some occasions, but they have been, overall, rare.

The News Hour is reasonably fair handed, and I watched it for years. After McNeil and Leherer left it became less fair handed. When David Brooks became the acceptable voice of conservatism and EJ Dionne took over from Shields, I moved on.

Do you regularly read or watch National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal and Fox News?

I think not.




That is the problem with your thinking, Finn! It often gets things wrong.

I acknowledge I wouldn't touch the Washington Times with a 10 Pole.

I read from the WSJ and National Review occasionally (more than occasionally at times), although mostly about as often as you probably watch CNN or MSNBC. The Weekly Standard is not something I read.

I work for the county government of what could be the most conservative county in the nation...and certainly among the top ten richest counties. I watch Fox News (which I consider laughable) very often because of that situation; it seems always to be on the televisions around the country shops.

Hey, it is a price I pay for a job I absolutely love.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 01:09 pm
@Frank Apisa,
By the way, Finn...if I didn't make my point earlier...

...in my opinion, American conservatism sucks.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 02:35 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Nom de plume wrote:
There is no clear distinction between news and entertainment anymore. [...]

I doubt that's the relevant distinction. Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert mix entertainment with news all the time, and yet their integrity is on par with Walter Cronkite's and John Lehrer's. (Which, as an aside, surprises me, considering my anti-network views.)


No, their integrity is on par with Bert and Ernie when they used to do news on Sesame St. They are comedians that use news as their foil. Whenever they are faced with their bias, they turn to the fact that they are on Comedy Central. The only integrity they have is that they hope to continue getting a paycheck and have some fun in the process.

I really hate when these 2 are used as "news" sources. They aren't. They are comedians.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 02:39 pm
@McGentrix,
You are just jealous because there are no great comedians on your side.

Of course they are comedians, but comedy has always had a important place in our public discourse. To minimize the importance of the commentary of Jon Stewart is folly.


McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 02:46 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

You are just jealous because there are no great comedians on your side.

Of course they are comedians, but comedy has always had a important place in our public discourse. To minimize the importance of the commentary of Jon Stewart is folly.





Jealous? I watch them daily and laugh, that doesn't mean their integrity is on par with Cronkite. It means they were funny.

As far as comedians with a conservative bent? Have you ever listened to Glen Beck? That guy cracks me up with his sillyness.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 02:52 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

You are just jealous because there are no great comedians on your side.




You mean Rush Limbaugh is not a comedian???

C'mon. That would mean he is serious.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 03:03 pm
@McGentrix,
I am not sure you are right about Cronkite. Cronkite understood what it meant to be a journalist, but at times he could express his opinions (including his disdain for Christian conservatism) with wit.

Cronkite wrote:
"Even as with the American rejection of the League of Nations, our failure to live up to our obligations to the United Nations is led by a handful of willful senators who choose to pursue their narrow, selfish political objectives at the cost of our nation’s conscience.They pander to and are supported by the Christian Coalition and the rest of the religious right wing. Their leader, Pat Robertson, has written that we should have a world government but only when the messiah arrives. Any attempt to achieve world order before that time must be the work of the Devil! Well join me… I'm glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan."
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 11:47 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

I can't answer that because I don't care about "even-handed". In a debate between flat-Earthers and spherical-Earthers, posting a satellite picture of Earth is a very biased thing to do. It is also the right thing to do. The even-handed thing to do, which is to make it a non-committal he-said, she-said story, misinforms readers. Screw even-handed journalism.


Whether the earth is flat or round is pretty well settled, and I can't imagine anyone aruging that in the case of such a debate, reasonable minds can disagree.

Whether or not Americans have and should have the right own guns is not a comparable debate. Neither is what are the most effective economic policies for this country, virtually every serious foreign policy discussion, and whether or not the Tea Party is a racist group bent on destroying the country (to name but a few of the topics covered by journalists).

Apparently, however, you (and some of your confreres) see them as well settled as the argument of whether or not the earth is round, and therefore it makes perfect sense that journalists with a bias that agree with yours are considered by you not as attempting to impose their personal opinions on the public, but simply right.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 11:51 pm
@Thomas,
I insist on framing it that way because it is true.

The ideal information provider would not be under the influence of either the recipients or advertisers. Six of one; half a dozen of the other.

Your original argument however suggests that you are not selecting the lesser of two influential evils, but that the provider should be influence by the recipient.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 11:52 pm
@McGentrix,
And what about Greg Guttfield and Dennis Miller?
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Dec, 2013 09:35 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
I really hate when these 2 are used as "news" sources. They aren't. They are comedians.


And much funnier than Fox News. Unintentional comedians.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/16/2019 at 03:17:56