Canadians want Fox News Now!

timberlandko wrote:

I figure its more like the elitism, snobbery, and divisiveness just come so natural to some folks they think its easy.

It was a joke, Timber. I'll fight to your death your right to say whatever it is you believe in. Smile

0 Replies

once-closeted homosexual David Brock,"

Either this "senior editor" has the shortest memory on record, or he/she is a hypocrite.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

It was a joke, Timber. I'll fight to your death your right to say whatever it is you believe in.

Absolutely - and if I ruffled your feathers there, sorry - I think it a huge joke just how seriously some folks take themselves in discussions of this nature. I often fail to consider some folks might not have been around here enough to realize that, and I can come off as pretty abrasive, I know. Just try to remember not to take me too seriously - it can get real tricky for the unfamiliar to really see whats goin' on when Lola and blatham and I start goin' at one another - believe it or not, we're really all old freinds, goin' back before this website even came into bein'. Same goes for nimh and PDiddie, and a buncha others, too - we've a long history of enjoyin' this battle, and we do this for the fun of it. We look forward to disagreein' with one another.

Oh, and it may come as a surprise to ya, but I figure Gannon/Gluckert got about what he deserved.

0 Replies

JTT writes

Quote:

Note what happened when CBS made an error, Foxfyre. They had an investigation.

They had an investigation AFTER days and days of denials and standing by their stories and defending Dan Rather until the great unwashed in blogland so exposed the deception, shoddy journalism, and flat out politics of personal destruction. . . AND. . .horrified affliliates were complaining loudly about it. Even after they finally had to admit the document was bogus, Rather was still defending his use of it because the "facts were true" even though the document was bogus and he couldn't prove any of the facts. That, my friend, is what a credible journalist isn't.

Ater finally doing (their own) investigation and token partial admission, CBS did a couple of token firings, but on election night there was Dan Rather doing the coverage. And that, my friend, is testimony of a news organization that only pretends to be a credible news organization. In another time, Rather would never again be in front of a camera anywhere. I suspect it also explains CBS's rock bottom market share too as the American public aren't all complete fools capable of being manipulated by shoddy journalism.

And no, I don't want the question changed or a different question answered. I ask again,

What is a journalist?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

JTT writes

Quote:
Note what happened when CBS made an error, Foxfyre. They had an investigation.

They had an investigation AFTER days and days of denials and standing by their stories and defending Dan Rather until the great unwashed in blogland so exposed the deception, shoddy journalism, and flat out politics of personal destruction. . . AND. . .horrified affliliates were complaining

... the American public aren't all complete fools capable of being manipulated by shoddy journalism.

And no, I don't want the question changed or a different question answered. I ask again,

What is a journalist?

Great analysis of the CBS situation, Foxfyre. Now would you care to address the other aspects of my previous posting, you know, to show that you're 'fair and balanced' and to prove that "the American public aren't all complete fools capable of being manipulated by shoddy journalism".

0 Replies

You're the one who put the CBS 'investigation' up there as proof of fair and balanced JTT. I was simply pointing out that it was not interest in being 'fair and balanced' that prompted the so-called investigation. I will leave it to you to read through all the posts already on this thread and elsewhere that support my take on that.

I'm not sure what other posts you wish comment on. So far as Jeff Gannon goes, I'll reserve judgment on that until I have better educated myself on the facts. The opinion piece you posted as 'shoddy journalism' was after all an opinion piece and I don't know yet whether or not the writer has his facts straight. If he did it should be you and not him who retracts his comments.

Now JTT: what is a journlist?

(And isn't it interesting that nobody so far seems to want to answer that one. Is it because subsequent posts could be measured against the answer? Or once the question is answered, it is harder to diss certain writers because they hold a different point of view from you?)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

what is a journlist?

(And isn't it interesting that nobody so far seems to want to answer that one. Is it because subsequent posts could be measured against the answer? Or once the question is answered, it is harder to diss certain writers because they hold a different point of view from you?)

Before you indulge in more speculations: on of several possible answers is
a journalist is someone, who collects, sights and processes news of public interest (or e.g. in/for magazines reports of specific interest).

0 Replies

here is one canadian who doesn't need fox news to stay up-yo-date on what's going on in the world. i do catch a few minutes of fox programming sometimes, but don't need a full dose. as far as bill o'reilly is concerned, he quite often comes across as simply a bloody screamer when he doesn't get his way in an interview (he can best been described by the german word 'schreihals' - 'windbag' is about as close as i come in english). i actually did like one or two of his earlier writings, but i think he has now simply sold out for the money only - i suppose i can't blame him, but maybe he should let his listeners know. hbg

0 Replies

hamburger, I haven't watched O'Reilly enough to comment on the "screamer" part, but the one or two times I've seen him was one or two too many. Definitely an "ick" factor on The Factor LOL.

0 Replies

Walter writes

Quote:

Before you indulge in more speculations: on of several possible answers is
a journalist is someone, who collects, sights and processes news of public interest (or e.g. in/for magazines reports of specific interest).

This is a pretty good definition of a reporter or technical/specialist writer, both of which may be journalists, but does not define journalist.

And as Walter seems to assume that I am indulging in speculation here, I will admit my motive here is to address some specific issues raised on this thread. For now I will conclude that lack of response (other than Walter) indicates 1) no interest 2) ignorance or 3) unwillingness to acknowledge a definition that makes some of the posts here look pretty well.....uninformed.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

This is a pretty good definition of a reporter or technical/specialist writer, both of which may be journalists, but does not define journalist.

Actually this is a definition which was used during my days at university, is still used (similar) by the National Union of Journalists (UK) ...

(Of course a reporter is a journalist as well, but she/he works more 'along' an instruction than how I described it before - you can see this in the impressum of all [Eutopean] media, where those are differently mentioned.)

Seems now to me that journalism in the USA means something different to what it means in Europe.

0 Replies

Lol - or folk just consider the question silly, Fox.

I prefer Wikipedia's definition:

"journalist

A journalist is a person who practices journalism - that is, who creates reports as a profession for broadcast or publication in mass media such as newspapers, television, radio, magazines, documentary film, and the Internet. Journalists find the sources for their reports; the reports can be either spoken or written; is supposed to report in the most objective and unbiased way to serve the public good.
Origin and scope of the term

In the early 19th century, journalist meant simply someone who wrote for journals, such as Charles Dickens in his early career. In the past century it has come to mean a writer for newspapers and magazines as well.

Many people consider journalist interchangeable with reporter, a person who gathers information and creates a written report, or story. However, this overlooks many other types of journalists, including columnists, leader writers, photographers, editorial designers, and sub editors (British) or copy editors (American).

Regardless of medium, the term journalist carries a connotation or expectation of professionalism in reporting, with consideration for truth and ethics. It should be added that some journals, such as the downmarket, scandal-led tabloids, do not make great claims to truth or ethical reporting. "

One assumes American journalists have a code of ethics?

Here is one:

http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp

Australian Journalists' Code of Ethics:

http://www.alliance.org.au/hot/ethicscode.htm

International codes:

http://www.ijnet.org/FE_Article/CodeEthicsList.asp?UILang=1

Hmmm - an American one:

http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?id=888

Hmm - perhaps I have been expecting too much of Fox(the network - not the person) - it is after all the TV equivalent of a tabloid - in Murdoch's usual style - as developed in his British tabloids....

0 Replies

Wikipedia did a pretty good job.

Here's the simplest definition I could find.

Quote:

Main Entry: jour·nal·ist
Function: noun
Date: 1693
1 a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience

Expanding on that definition (and from my days at journalism school) a journalist would be any person who writes for a medium in the business of informing or persuading others, most especially large numbers of others. In that sense, the news story, the statistical analysis, the travel article, the book or movie or play review, the essay, the commentary, and the op-ed piece are all written by journalists. There is no requirement of any kind that the writer be experienced or trained or educated or formally accredited. It is the end product only that counts as journalism.

Jeff Gannon is a journalist in every sense of the word as is the writer JTT so severely maligned up there. (I did check out Tyrell's facts cited in his op-ed piece by the way, and all can be supported by evidence available right here on the internet.)

And Dlowan, there was a time that American journalists had an iron clad code of ethics and any journalist presuming to breach them was very quickly out of a job and unable to get another one with any reputable media organization. I am afraid those ethics are all too frequently ignored these days.

0 Replies

Codes of Conduct - from some dozen countries.

0 Replies

Interestingly, Zedler(who wrote the first huge German encyclopedia in 18th century) deals at first with accountants, when describing journals and journalism. The he says, that in news and science a journalist is someone, who sums up and reports.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Wikipedia did a pretty good job.

Here's the simplest definition I could find.

Quote:
Main Entry: jour·nal·ist
Function: noun
Date: 1693
1 a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience

Expanding on that definition (and from my days at journalism school) a journalist would be any person who writes for a medium in the business of informing or persuading others, most especially large numbers of others. In that sense, the news story, the statistical analysis, the travel article, the book or movie or play review, the essay, the commentary, and the op-ed piece are all written by journalists. There is no requirement of any kind that the writer be experienced or trained or educated or formally accredited. It is the end product only that counts as journalism.

Jeff Gannon is a journalist in every sense of the word as is the writer JTT so severely maligned up there. (I did check out Tyrell's facts cited in his op-ed piece by the way, and all can be supported by evidence available right here on the internet.)

And Dlowan, there was a time that American journalists had an iron clad code of ethics and any journalist presuming to breach them was very quickly out of a job and unable to get another one with any reputable media organization. I am afraid those ethics are all too frequently ignored these days.

The reason you had trouble getting an answer to your question is because the rest of us have long had a pretty clear assessment of the Guinness record-setting thickness of your cranium.

You say that Wikipedia did 'a pretty good job'. You then go on to give your favored definition, a far poorer one lacking in breadth and specificity, and lacking in the traditional senses of the term as used to describe a profession, and lacking in the pertinent elements of integrity, ethics, objectivity, and balance. And to laud your definition's merits you say it is 'simple'. Yes, it is. We expect that from you.

The Codes of Journalism/Editorial Ethics and Codes of Conduct available to you in the links posted by Walter and dlowan are serious documents. They do not support your contentions above. They make your contentions utterly risible.

You evidence no ability to rise above the subjective. You evidence no ability to expand your mind past its fixed contents. You are the least of any of us here to whom the term 'journalist' might apply.

0 Replies

Quote:

Here's the simplest definition I could find.
Quote:
Main Entry: jour·nal·ist
Function: noun
Date: 1693
1 a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience

Well, Bethie.........looks like it's gonna be a road trip to Washington, D.C. We can allllll be journalists now. Can't you see the welcome banner over the White House door? "Press Corps -- Everyone Welcome."

Simple........yes, Foxfire. We know. Laughing

0 Replies

Hmm - is this gonna mean bloggers will be held to journalist ethics?

Trial by blog is an interesting new form of mob mentality, at its worst - and, one presumes, a new force for truth and accountability at its best.

I wonder which we shall see most often?

Can bloggers be held accountable by libel laws, I wonder?

0 Replies

I consider, BTW, that holding oneself bound by the relevant code of ethics is what distinguishes a journalist from a babbler.

Of course, the devil can be in the interpretation.

The journo's one is very short, I note - ours is quite a document.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Codes of Conduct - from some dozen countries.

The PressWise Trust (now MediaWise Trust), from whose site that is, does laudable work btw. Some fine people working there.

0 Replies

Canadians want Fox News Now!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know