Correct all misspellings of journalist and journalistic and journalism in my previous post.
Lol - I'll post your sarcasms when I get home tonight if you like Fox - old clunker computer allowing.
ehBeth wrote:Canadians want Fox News now.
That's what I was watching. And marvelling at. It's a talent, no doubt about it.
LOL. I suppose this thread digressed circa page 4, in that event.....
Foxy was trying to keep focused on the topic which has dominated the latter pages -
journalistic ethics. The connection of the discussion of Snood's opinion on that marine General to this topic seemed awfully tenuous.
dlowan wrote:Foxfyre wrote:For the record, I heartily support journlistic ethics and in no post at any time on any thread have I said or suggested otherwise.
I think modern journalism to be largely lacking in ethics required of media journlists in another age.
I don't think comments by a military officer to be pertinent to this topic except as he may have been misquote or characterized out of context.
I will go toe to toe on anybody who can actually engage in an discussion/debate/argument without resorting to personally directed characterizations and/or personal insults. I will hold in utter contempt and will generally ignore any who cannot do that which is my prerogative for my enjoyment in participating in the forum.
Lol - so asking you what your words mean is personal insult now Fox?
Gonna be hard to debate - but still....
Okay, any questions?
<searching for signs of sarcasm in Foxy's post ... not finding any .... giving up>
Thanks Tico. I thought I answered the question. Of course the obvious is missed by some. (Psssst Dlowan, that last sentence WAS sarcasm.
)
Not in that one dear - in a number of previous ones - like:
"But Joe, as some on this thread have pointed out, all journalists have codes and ETHICS to go by dontcha know? "
And - you will not I said "appear to have" "if I read your sarcasm right".
I also note that, in Fox's definition, no ethics appeared - and journalism appeared to be about persuasion.
I was puzzled by persistent sarcasm.
It is nice to know that Fox DOES, it appears, embrace the notion of ethics for journalists.
Quite why she is happy for a favoured channel to see its job as to back the administration line and support an invasion given this puzzles me - but hey...
The who issue of journalistic ethics/practice/credibility is of course pertinent to the thread because of how Fox is much maligned by most of the left and generally appreciated by many on the the right. It is suggested here by some that Fox somehow demonstrates shoddy journalism while all the alphabet networks are just fine.
One way to approach that difference of opinion is to define shoddy journalism and identify who is most guilty of it. Right now, Fox isn't looking too bad on that score.
D, go back and read Blatham's most reasoned, balanced, and rational assessment of me (pssst, this is ALSO sarcasm) and then put my comment to Joe in that framework. I was agreeing with everything Joe had said and using that means to respond to somebody else who doesn't read what is written and doesn't think in the only way I could think to do it without getting thrown out on a TOS violation. I will very definitely be sarcastic in the face of pompous arrogance and idiocy. So sue me.
I was saying I didn't believe I had been sarcastic to you.
Well - thank you for the clarificationI asked for, Fox.
Yes - I can well understand a reaction to that post.
But your reactions have been confusing me.
I wasn't thinking you were being sarcastic to ME - I thought you were being sarcastic about the notion that journalists should adhere to ethical practice.
Okay I will accept that sometimes I may be clear as mud. And thanks D. Now, if we could just straighten out your politics. . . . . (Joke. JOKE!)
dlowan wrote:Not in that one dear .....
I love it when I'm called "dear." Makes me feel so .... I dunno ... youthful!
Sarcasm?
Hmmm. That one is in a gray area don't you think? Is it? I'll have to think about it.
Ticomaya wrote:dlowan wrote:Not in that one dear .....
I love it when I'm called "dear." Makes me feel so .... I dunno ... youthful!
Damn - caught it from Bill.
But - I bet I could be your mummy.
Do you have 2005 version Timber?
Damn thing's still in Beta.....
blatham wrote:Here's a lovely little quote from Matt Labash, conservative writer at Murdoch's Weekly Standard. The source is an interview at JournalismJobs.com [..]
Quote:"Why have conservative media outlets like The Weekly Standard and Fox New Channel become more popular in recent years?"
"Because they feed the rage. We bring pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly but it's true somewhat...While these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk openly about objectivity, the conservative media like to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective...It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket."
That summarizes it neatly, doesn't it? (Emphasis added.)
