Who are you comparing them too Blatham? Cronkite or Morrow?
Lash, McG and Mysteryman
Have you ever known a more stubborn, evasive guy than Blatham? Perhaps he left his "A" game at home or maybe he's thinking of leaving the Left and joining the winning team. I just posted a new topic about a guy who is turning his back on what remains of the old Left was willing to lay it out in writing. It's rather sad because it reads more like a suicide note or a confession but I suppose after being on the losing side for 30 years the guy has a right to sound sad.
thanks mm
If you have the journalist (who, what, when, where, why) as equating to the town crier, shall we follow that model and equate the 'commentator' to the town gossip? Or, as in one consequence of Rayban's logic, the commentator as The King's Loyal Propagandist.
rayban
I don't think even MM or Lash are willing to end up where your propositions take you. You've arrived at upsidedown land - the credible voices are those who have no responsibility to behave in a manner which makes them credible, and the deceitful voices are those who must (professionally and ethically) avoid deceit above all.
How you've managed to arrive at such an odd place and to actually believe something so logically backwards is itself a very interesting question.
You suggested earlier that the journalists' code of ethics ought to be more broadly known. I agree. I'll assume you would consider it a positive thing if newspapers and news magazines carried, right up front, a copy of this code so consumers might have a clear understanding of what standards they ought to demand of the product they hold in their hand. I would agree with that too. That's a matter of transparency, a version of 'truth in advertising' really, isn't it?
Equally then, of course, 'commentators' ought to precede any broadcast or column with a similarly transparent statement of obligation. In this case, something like:
"We speak to you now without obligation of any sort. We may well be lying and pretending truth. We may be on the payroll of the government or a political party or a foreign state or the Acme Mining and Drilling Corp and may be speaking not at all from even our own opinions, but only in accordance with what we have been instructed to tell you."
Would you be happy with this preamble? Truth in advertising, after all.
Good morning Blatham
I can barely believe my eyes...........you actually agree with my stance that the code of ethics should be more widely known...........I think I'll print this and frame it with time and date.
You went on with this:
<Equally then, of course, 'commentators' ought to precede any broadcast or column with a similarly transparent statement of obligation. In this case, something like:
"We speak to you now without obligation of any sort. We may well be lying and pretending truth. We may be on the payroll of the government or a political party or a foreign state or the Acme Mining and Drilling Corp and may be speaking not at all from even our own opinions, but only in accordance with what we have been instructed to tell you.">
I remind you of the old adage that ......."You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time. You need look no further than the crapola that Michael Moore spews out and you will realize that what you are proposing is reality. I go back to the term credibility..........Michael Moore has lost credibility because he lied whereas OReilly maintains his credibility. Dan Rather lost his credibility and was forced to retire.......OReilly maintains his.
Yes......the truth in advertising tag does apply and yes, I would be happy with some sort of preamble preceding commentary be it left or right. However, you will never see the code published nor a preamble preceding commentary because the MSM does not want to exercise their obligation to educate the public.......they instead want to keep the public in a state of confusion with their selective reporting, half truths, and any other deceptive form of mind control. After all they have invested Billions and Billions developing it but their house of cards is on the verge of collapse, mostly because of Bloggers and guys like OReilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh. Bloggers brought down Dan Rather with a flurry of fact checking and reporting of the truth.
Speaking of Bloggers...... if you want to see reporting that is squeaky clean and factual take a look at a blog called POWER LINE. It is written by three attorneys who take the code of ethics seriously.
rayban
Who are the mainstream media? That is, who owns them?
Actually, rayban, I withdraw that question. I don't think it will get us anywhere. You can research media ownership facts at your own leisure.
I don't think further conversation is going to prove very valuable. You've written something above which indicates where any discussion is going to head...in the sentence I quote below, you've shifted the categories, probably without even noticing you've done so,
" I would be happy with some sort of preamble preceding commentary be it left or right."
You have, likely without even noticing it, shifted the categories under discussion from 'journalism'/'commentary' over to 'left/right'.
That's really the only discussion you wish to have, I'm afraid. Left is bad, right is good. It's the same discussion you've had how many times before...300, 500, 2000? I'm sorry, but that's not interesting and it isn't valuable.
As I said, I'm sure you are a fine fellow. But reiteration and repetition doesn't lead to learning or new understandings, just to cliched argument.
I could refer you to a Columbia Journalism Review piece on the Dan Rather matter, but any fact or argument which bumped into your preferred explanations about the matter would, I'm afraid, gain no traction. Your loyalty is to your political position and that which contradicts must necessarily be in error.
A tip of the hat to you.
Blatham
Interesting that you should ask this very pertinent question because I consider it to be another inconsistency in the hypocrisy of the Left. The Left whines that conservative big money controls the Media with guys like Murdock owning Fox, but then you have the New York Times (left), the LA Times (left), CBS, ABC, and NBC all Left in their news reporting/commentary. Then you have CNN owned by TED TURNER who like George Soros, wants to destroy the economic system that allowed them to accumulate massive wealth. My point is that the Left controls more of MSM than the Right.
In the final analysis, the Left does not need to dictate what the reporters write......all they need to do is hire reporters educated at the universities controlled by the academic left where as I said before they consider a career in the military absolutely bizarre and any use of the military in defense of national interests evil. The real question is......where do you find reporters with a right leaning bias? The answer is, it could be that most of them are converts from the left because they have been mugged by reality. :wink:
With the following statement you have just permanently earned the title of the "Teflon Mountie". You have evaded every valid point that I've made or shifted focus by asking a "leading" question.
<As I said, I'm sure you are a fine fellow. But reiteration and repetition doesn't lead to learning or new understandings, just to cliched argument.>
I must admit........you are just too "slippery" for me pin down in any debate.
Thanks for your time though, it is always interesting.
Just to correct a factual error, cnn is not owned by Ted Turner.
rayban1 wrote:Blatham
Interesting that you should ask this very pertinent question because I consider it to be another inconsistency in the hypocrisy of the Left. The Left whines that conservative big money controls the Media with guys like Murdock owning Fox, but then you have the New York Times (left), the LA Times (left), CBS, ABC, and NBC all Left in their news reporting/commentary. Then you have CNN owned by TED TURNER who like George Soros, wants to destroy the economic system that allowed them to accumulate massive wealth. My point is that the Left controls more of MSM than the Right.
In the final analysis, the Left does not need to dictate what the reporters write......all they need to do is hire reporters educated at the universities controlled by the academic left where as I said before they consider a career in the military absolutely bizarre and any use of the military in defense of national interests evil. The real question is......where do you find reporters with a right leaning bias? The answer is, it could be that most of them are converts from the left because they have been mugged by reality. :wink:
As usual, talking points up the ying yang, Rayban but no proof. Please provide documentation, that means scientific studies, not comments gleaned off of Bill O'Reilly, that prove your contentions.
blatham wrote:Just to correct a factual error, cnn is not owned by Ted Turner.
Thanks for the correction.........It WAS owned by Ted Turner.....in fact he created it. Just another example of your evasive tactics. You evaded my main point by pointing out a "gigantic" factual error on my part.
Maybe it would be helpful if you identified the liberal owners of the other networks you named as being leftist. Then your point might be better substantiated and harder to evade.
FreeDuck wrote:Maybe it would be helpful if you identified the liberal owners of the other networks you named as being leftist. Then your point might be better substantiated and harder to evade.
The answer to your question is self evident .......... why would a "conservative" owner allow the editor/news chief to promote leftist ideals?
Actually, I didn't ask a question. But you did, and it was a good one. So maybe you could identify the liberal owners of the other networks you named...
I'll help you out by doing ABC -- owned by Disney.
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/disney.asp#broadcast
rayban1 wrote:FreeDuck wrote:Maybe it would be helpful if you identified the liberal owners of the other networks you named as being leftist. Then your point might be better substantiated and harder to evade.
The answer to your question is self evident .......... why would a "conservative" owner allow the editor/news chief to promote leftist ideals?
rayban
This is a pretty perfect example of how your resistance to careful research and thought isn't helping you. Your last statement suggests a principle - the owners of a media outlet will fashion that media outlet's political commentary/reporting to support their own political beliefs.
That may or may not be true, you'd have to research it and see.
But now that you've stated the principle as being true, you have a problem. Because your assumptions about ownership are wrong. I didn't point out the cnn flub to embarrass you, but to correct you. If you read up on media ownership in 2005, you'll find that all the networks, almost every tv or radio station, and almost every daily newspaper (and many weeklies) are held by about 20 large corporations, but mostly by a mere five or six corporations. These corporations, and the people who sit on their boards, are not liberals.
Let's discuss left wing politics while we cook, shall we?
Below you have made a statement that the reader is supposed to accept as true and factual.....but .......you have not provided any source documents for me verify your veracity:
<If you read up on media ownership in 2005, you'll find that all the networks, almost every tv or radio station, and almost every daily newspaper (and many weeklies) are held by about 20 large corporations, but mostly by a mere five or six corporations. These corporations, and the people who sit on their boards, are not liberals.>
How can you criticize me for something you violate yourself?
You are confirming my use of your new title.........you seem to have an endless supply of "Teflon"
rayban1 wrote: Below you have made a statement that the reader is supposed to accept as true and factual.....but .......you have not provided any source documents for me verify your veracity:
<If you read up on media ownership in 2005, you'll find that all the networks, almost every tv or radio station, and almost every daily newspaper (and many weeklies) are held by about 20 large corporations, but mostly by a mere five or six corporations. These corporations, and the people who sit on their boards, are not liberals.>
How can you criticize me for something you violate yourself?
You are confirming my use of your new title.........you seem to have an endless supply of "Teflon"
Rayban
This information is really easy to find. If, for example, you had been reading Safire's columns (republican) before he retired a year or so ago, you'd have seen much on the issue just there.
Simply type "media ownership" or "media consolidation" or "media monopoly" or some such into google and you'll find more information than you could deal with in weeks.
Mr. Teflon Mountie
When you state a fact, as you did, all college graduates know it is the author's responsibility to provide a link to the sourse document or to provide the name of the recognized expert providing the fact. It is not the readers responsibility to go digging.
In an academic setting, that is exactly correct. In other settings (say the Bill O'Reilly show) it is almost never done and is certainly not required. Which applies to us here?
