Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Feminists in a clown suit (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=642931)

  • Mar 12, 2012, 11:46 AM
    speechlesstx
    Feminists in a clown suit
    Three icons of feminism have penned an op-ed saying the FCC should get rid of Limbaugh. Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan, and Gloria Steinem have united - like freedom-loving tolerant liberals everywhere - to silence Rush. I'm sure it escapes them that they're exercising their first amendments to deny Limbaugh his, but what else is new?

    What's sadder than their ignorance of our first amendment is willful their ignorance of their own repugnant smears of women who choose to be different from them.

    Steinem once said of housewives, they are "dependent creatures who are still children…parasites."

    Nothing insulting or demeaning about that.

    More on liberal 'choice':

    Quote:

    Another “feminist”, Simone de Beauvoir said: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.”
    So instead of women choosing to stay home and raise a family they should be subjugated to whatever the feminist crowd deems a "real woman" should be. Are you following yet? No?

    Well this should tell you how feminists are beclowning themselves. From Liberal Ladies Who Lunch, who plan on withholding sex:

    Quote:

    “American men enjoy the benefits of women making their own choices about when to get pregnant. Men get the advantage of free, easy access sex with young women of child-bearing age. It wasn’t like that sixty years ago. If women can’t get reliable birth control, they will just have to keep their legs crossed to prevent pregnancy–even married women. I don’t think anyone wants that.”
    So, the purpose of birth control is so men can take a free ride on some easy woman. Yeah, don't you feminists feel empowered by that? No talking, no dinner, no date, no respect, just get on board. At least they acknowledge that by keeping their legs crossed there is no need to force us to buy their contraceptives.

    Sorry, conservatives respect women far too much to treat them as slaves to a bunch of men who promise them free contraceptives and abortion on demand so we can have "free, easy access sex with young women of child-bearing age".
  • Mar 13, 2012, 02:49 AM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Three icons of feminism have penned an op-ed saying the FCC should get rid of Limbaugh. Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan, and Gloria Steinem have united - like freedom-loving tolerant liberals everywhere - to silence Rush. I'm sure it escapes them that they're exercising their first amendments to deny Limbaugh his, but what else is new?

    What's sadder than their ignorance of our first amendment is willful their ignorance of their own repugnant smears of women who choose to be different from them.

    Hi Steve,

    Perhaps you can explain to me the point of posting this feministic nonsense. It's too easy to find written nonsense everywhere. For example, I just read and commented on the an article dealing with Australian Eugenics.

    I thought this feministic nonsense topped everything so far until I had a careful read of someone's interpretation of Australian law.

    It wouldn't be a journalistic problem would it?

    Tut
  • Mar 13, 2012, 06:16 AM
    speechlesstx
    This is the current events board, this is a current event. The point of posting it is to demonstrate the absurdity and hypocrisy of feminists. You're free to comment or not.
  • Mar 13, 2012, 07:03 AM
    excon
    Hello Steve:

    I hear the limp one lost 148 advertisers. Even the FREE one from the Heart Association has been removed. He's toast. Joe McCarthy was taken down by a simple question, "Sir, have you no decency?". I WAS only a matter of time.

    In terms of ladies WANTING him to be removed from our airways, I think they were exercising their CONSTITUTIONAL rights. By the way, broadcasters DON'T have Constitutional rights to say what they wish on the public airways.. You HAVE heard of the 7 dirty words you can't say on TV. But, you CAN say those words on a soapbox in front of your local courthouse.

    excon
  • Mar 13, 2012, 07:22 AM
    speechlesstx
    Ex, the only reason they want to shut Limbaugh up is they can't compete with him. He'll be just fine.

    But the main issue I want to address is the last part. Why are feminists insulting other women for making a different choice, and reducing themselves to sex toys for men? Isn't that all a little bit hypocritical and counterproductive?
  • Mar 13, 2012, 07:48 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Why are feminists insulting other women for making a different choice,

    Hello again, Steve:

    You'll have to ask them. I'd never do it.

    Me? I'm a TRUE feminist.. I LOVE Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter too. I'm THRILLED that I live in a country where women can speak their mind and run for the highest office in the land.

    excon
  • Mar 13, 2012, 08:05 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    You'll have to ask them. I'd never do it.

    Me?? I'm a TRUE feminist.. I LOVE Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter too. I'm THRILLED that I live in a country where women can speak their mind and run for the highest office in the land.

    I love it, too, but what about the rest of my question?
  • Mar 14, 2012, 02:12 PM
    speechlesstx
    Twas hard to decide where to post this one, but this Democrat fundraising letter I believe qualifies as feminists beclowning themselves...

    Quote:

    BREAKING NEWS
    Mitt Romney: "Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that."

    [Name redacted] --

    Republicans have a clear agenda for women: Defund Planned Parenthood, deny women access to health care and birth control, and even prohibit women the right to participate in the debate about women’s health care.

    Grassroots Democrats around the country have united against the Republican War on Women to launch a Women's Health Accountability Fund. Our goal is to expose the truth about Republicans' war on women with an aggressive rapid response operation including ads, on-the-ground organizing and more.

    It's important that national Republicans and their allies like Rush Limbaugh are held accountable for their vile, outrageous, and unceasing attacks on women’s health care. We are only $19,433 away from our Women’s Health Accountability fund goal before tonight’s midnight deadline.

    Please chip in $3 by midnight tonight so Democrats can launch an urgent rapid response campaign against the Republican War on Women.

    Republicans in Congress thought they could silence us by refusing to let Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke testify on their all-male panel on birth control coverage.

    They were wrong.

    There are only hours to go before Democrats launch an urgent grassroots campaign to hold Republicans accountable for their War on Women.

    Can you pitch in right now?

    Thanks,

    Rep. Diana DeGette
    Co-Chair of the House Pro-Choice Caucus

    P.S. While Republicans double down on their radical agenda that would restrict women’s access to reproductive health care and the right to have a seat at the table to discuss women’s health care, we are making sure American people know the truth. Will you join us?
    The truth about the "Republican war on women?" Manufactured nonsense. Democrats made it up as a diversion from Obama's failures, invented the enemy and are now engaged in an imaginary war. Sounds strangely like a movie plot...
  • Mar 14, 2012, 02:22 PM
    excon
    Hello again, Steve:

    I don't know. When you take everything that's happened in the last few weeks, it LOOKS like the Republicans are, in fact, declaring war on women...

    Do you want me to list them?? You didn't forget, did you? Well, I didn't. Let me see if I can remember... I'm sure it goes back farther than this, but the Susan G. Komen foundation DEFUNDED PP. Intervaginal PROBING of women seeking an abortion was passed in Texas, and they tried to pass it in Virginia. Of course, there's been HUNDRED of bills in state legislatures LIMITING free choice...

    Yeah, I'm out of order, but it's hard to remember them in their right order...

    Then you got Santorum saying that HE believes contraceptives are BAD for America. Then you got the church fiasco. Then you got the Blount Amendment...

    So, when you take ALL that into consideration, and I'm sure I forgot some stuff, there's no way you couldn't conclude that Republicans have declared war on women.

    excon

    PS> (edited) Oh, yeah. I forgot the LIMPROD fiasco. (slaps head)
  • Mar 14, 2012, 02:30 PM
    speechlesstx
    I'm not responsible for what Komen does, no one is forcing transvaginal ultrasounds on anyone, and Obama started the war on the church with Stephanoupolus' help. Oh, and any bill restricting abortion is a pro-baby bill, not anti-woman. Many of those babies would have grown up to be women you know.

    We didn't start this war, it was you anti-baby people.
  • Mar 14, 2012, 02:37 PM
    speechlesstx
    P.S. It wasn't Rush that posed for a photo groping a cardboard cutout of Hillary or trying to pour a beer down her, it was Obama's speech writer and a pal.

    Quote:

    At the exact moment Jon Favreau is receiving high praise in pre-inaugural media puff pieces, the 27-year-old chief speechwriter for President-elect Barack Obama (not Jon Favreau, the Hollywood actor/ director) finds himself in a minor mess over a photo from a recent private party showing him groping the breast of a cardboard cutout of Hillary Rodham Clinton as an unnamed pal wearing an “Obama staff” T-shirt kisses and feeds her beer.

    If you haven’t seen it, imagine the early stages of the barroom rape scene of “The Accused” with Jodie Foster. Or think prosecutor Mike Nifong’s graphic (though false) descriptions of the Duke lacrosse party. Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson danced to a similar tune at the 2004 Super Bowl.

    Fraternities have been closed for less.
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/phot...washpost44.jpg

    Nothing wrong with that if you're a Democrat though, right?
  • Mar 16, 2012, 04:44 AM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    P.S. It wasn't Rush that posed for a photo groping a cardboard cutout of Hillary or trying to pour a beer down her, it was Obama's speech writer and a pal.



    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/phot...washpost44.jpg

    Nothing wrong with that if you're a Democrat though, right?


    Hi Steve,

    Looks and sounds like a manufactured war as well.

    Seems like a contest to see who can come up with the best manufactured news item.

    Perhaps there is an argument to make a distinction between 'current events' and 'current affairs'

    Tut
  • Mar 16, 2012, 06:43 AM
    speechlesstx
    Tut, the hypocrisy of feminists ignoring the misogyny in their own camp while attacking anyone that doesn't back their agenda isn't manufactured. And at least one feminist gets it:

    Quote:

    Did you know there is a war on women?

    Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.

    Boycotts are reserved for people on the right like Rush Limbaugh, who finally apologized Saturday for calling a 30-year-old Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, a “slut” after she testified before congress about contraception. Limbaugh’s apology was likely extracted to stop the departure of any more advertisers, who were rightly under pressure from liberal groups outraged by the comments.

    Let it be shouted from the rooftops that Rush Limbaugh should not have called Ms. Fluke a slut or, as he added later, a “prostitute” who should post her sex tapes. It’s unlikely that his apology will assuage the people on a warpath for his scalp, and after all, why should it? He spent days attacking a woman as a slut and prostitute and refused to relent. Now because he doesn’t want to lose advertisers, he apologizes. What’s in order is something more like groveling—and of course a phone call to Ms. Fluke—if you ask me.

    But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?

    During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.

    Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.

    Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.” When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.) In Taibbi’s profile of Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann he labeled her “batsh*t crazy.” (Oh, those “crazy” women with their hormones and all.)

    Chris Matthews’s sickening misogyny was made famous in 2008, when he obsessively tore down Hillary Clinton for standing between Barack Obama and the presidency, something that Matthews could not abide. Over the years he has referred to the former first lady, senator and presidential candidate and current secretary of state as a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” and “Madame Defarge.” Matthews has also called Clinton “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her “husband messed around.” He asked a guest if “being surrounded by women” makes “a case for commander in chief—or does it make a case against it?” At some point Matthews was shamed into sort of half apologizing to Clinton, but then just picked up again with his sexist ramblings.

    Matthews has wondered aloud whether Sarah Palin is even “capable of thinking” and has called Bachmann a “balloon head” and said she was “lucky we still don’t have literacy tests out there.” Democratic strategist Jehmu Greene, who is the former president of the Women’s Media Center, told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in 2011 that Matthews
“is a bully, and his favorite target is women.” So why does he still have a show? What if his favorite target was Jews? Or African-Americans?

    But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don't show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”

    Liberals—you know, the people who say they “fight for women”—comprise Maher’s audience, and a parade of high-profile liberals make up his guest list. Yet have any of them confronted him? Nope. That was left to Ann Coulter, who actually called Maher a misogynist to his face, an opportunity that feminist icon Gloria Steinem failed to take when she appeared on his show in 2011.

    This is not to suggest that liberals—or feminists—never complain about misogyny. Many feminist blogs now document attacks on women on the left and the right, including Jezebel, Shakesville, and the Women’s Media Center (which was cofounded by Steinem). But when it comes to high-profile campaigns to hold these men accountable—such as that waged against Limbaugh—the real fury seems reserved only for conservatives, while the men on the left get a wink and a nod as long as they are carrying water for the liberal cause.

    After all, if Limbaugh’s outburst is part of the “war on women,” then what is the routine misogyny of liberal media men?


    It’s time for some equal-opportunity accountability. Without it, the fight against media misogyny will continue to be perceived as a proxy war for the Democratic Party, not a fight for fair treatment of women in the public square.
    Bravo Kirsten.
  • Mar 16, 2012, 02:41 PM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Tut, the hypocrisy of feminists ignoring the misogyny in their own camp while attacking anyone that doesn't back their agenda isn't manufactured. And at least one feminist gets it:



    Bravo Kirsten.

    Hi Steve,

    Hypocrisy and pushing a strong left- wing agenda go hand in hand. It is also the case they hypocrisy and pushing a strong right- wing agenda go hand in hand.

    It is a war of sorts; a war of words. The first casualty of war is the truth.

    I don't mind people having these agends but what I can't understand is why the mainstream media regards this type of stuff as bread and butter issues. The debate on Fox about fairness will end up being a waste of time. Will it not end up being an exercise in promoting someone's, 'over the top' position?

    Tut
  • Mar 16, 2012, 03:39 PM
    tomder55
    I think a government deciding what is fair is over the top.
  • Mar 16, 2012, 03:41 PM
    paraclete
    I have come to the conclusion that this thread is a load of C.R.A.P.
  • Mar 16, 2012, 03:52 PM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    I think a government deciding what is fair is over the top.

    Hi Tom,

    So the answer is to do nothing? Not happy with the possibility of standards giving the public a better product to view, listen or read?

    Tut
  • Mar 16, 2012, 04:46 PM
    tomder55
    I am not very much interested in censorship.I also think the public was misinformed when the so called 'main stream media' was the sole gatekeepers of 'truth' . I prefer this system better where host declare their philosphical leaning .
  • Mar 17, 2012, 01:56 AM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    I am not very much interested in censorship.I also think the public was misinformed when the so called 'main stream media' was the sole gatekeepers of 'truth' . I prefer this system better where host declare their philosphical leaning .

    Hi Tom,

    "I prefer this system better where a host declares their philosophical leanings"

    I assume this is reference is to Strossel's declared Libertarian position for the debate.

    I didn't jump the gun. In fact I should have known better. The Fox leopard doesn't change its spots.

    This type of journalism is bad.In fact it is very bad.

    Before I give my reasons I will answer you comment about censorship and standards. Standards are not censorship. It is only censorship if standards are imposed from the outside. Journalistic ethics, like most professions who adopt an ethical standard see the importance of professionall behaviour. Most professions in this country are prepared recognize standards and see the importance of their profession actually contributing to a code of conduct.

    A code of conduct is worth little if there is no independent body to monitor these standards. So no, standards are not censorship.

    As I said in my opinion this type of Fox promoted journalism is bad journalism. Why not have someone who is a declared Marxist on the show? What purpose can this possibly serve? Marxism is about as relevant as Libertarianism. Not at all relevant.

    It would make no difference if they invited Karl Marx on the show to oppose Strossel's point of view. It still would be bad journalism.

    If I wanted to view or read this type of bad journalism I would Google something along the lines of "Western Australia promoting sterilization without parental consent" or some other beat-up of an issue.

    I have no problems with beat-ups. I know to where to look for them and I know what to expect. Should we expect more than just another beat-up from the main stream media?

    Tut
  • Mar 17, 2012, 02:50 AM
    tomder55
    The main stream media is the dinosaur media. Good riddance. What you are saying that some government agency should be the arbiter of the truth ? I prefer this system where an expose by a Stossel or a Dan Rather gets filtered through the independent lense of people with opposing viewpoints . Counterpoints are easy to find in the competition ,and the individual is persuaded .
    When Dan Rather fabricated his story about GW Bush's National Guard record it never would've been challenged in the past under the main stream media model . But now with the web ;those citizen journalists (derided as blogging in their pajamas) were the ones who did the real investigative work and exposed Rather as a fraud . Before then Rather was considered one of the trusted gate keepers . One has to wonder how many other instances of sloppy or outright fabricated journalism was passed off as truth before he was exposed. It wasn't some government censor who discovered his fraud .

    For another example ,read the posting up today about NPR . NPR is a government run news and entertainment outlet . Yet they have been exposed more than once or breaching the very standards you say the government should maintain.
  • Mar 17, 2012, 03:39 AM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    The main stream media is the dinosaur media. good riddance. What you are saying that some government agency should be the arbiter of the truth ?


    No,What I am saying is that the journalists themselves should be the arbiters of truth. If they happen to be too lazy or too inept to do the job properly then it is up to an independent agency, government or otherwise to point out how they falling below the standard. The appointed agency is not arbitrating the truth. Rather they are pointing out a lack of prefessionalism. So,'pajama jourrnalism' is clearly unprofessional.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post


    I prefer this system where an expose by a Stossel or a Dan Rather gets filtered through the independent lense of people with opposing viewpoints . Counterpoints are easy to find in the competition ,and the individual is persuaded .


    What exposure?? Exposure to what?? Libertarianism as a credible position is on par with Marxism. If I want to find a Marxist beat-up I will go to some obsecure, over the top web-site where I know there is no credibility
    .
    Tom, Clete is right. It's example of another beat-up. The only difference here is that Fox mutton is dressed up as credible lamb.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post


    When Dan Rather fabricated his story about GW Bush's National Guard record it never would've been challenged in the past under the main stream media model . But now with the web ;those citizen journalists (derided as blogging in their pajamas) were the ones who did the real investigative work and exposed Rather as a fraud . Before then Rather was considered one of the trusted gate keepers . One has to wonder how many other instances of sloppy or outright fabricated journalism was passed off as truth before he was exposed. It wasn't some government censor who discovered his fraud .


    As I said before, it is not up to the government to decide truth or falsity. It is the particular agency responsible to determine if the journalist is maintaining a professional standard. This is an important difference. Do you see the difference?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post


    For another example ,read the posting up today about NPR . NPR is a government run news and entertainment outlet . Yet they have been exposed more than once or breaching the very standards you say the government should maintain.


    This is not a valid argument. Government agencies are no different to any other private agences. People will break the rules. In this particular case one would expect disciplinary action to follow.

    Tom, you want to see to see the end of main stream media? You want to bring journalism down to the lowest common denominator? You want journalism to grovel at the feet of debased website journalism'
    Surely we need some standards.

    Tut
  • Mar 17, 2012, 03:50 AM
    TUT317
    Hi again Tom,

    Don't get me wrong I am not against the Libertarian debate as such. If it were a novel idea being suggested then I would say it was an excellent idea.

    What I am against is the same old outcome. Iit is the same old genre. Mutton dressed as lamb.

    Tut
  • Mar 17, 2012, 04:36 AM
    paraclete
    Tut
    They don't understand the similae, they are not mutton eaters, let us just say we have some old mountain goats here when we're going to eat the kids, very tough stuff, and the sad part about these feminists is they look like mountain goats and they don't know it
  • Mar 17, 2012, 05:36 AM
    speechlesstx
    Who made this about Fox News? The OP was about an opinion piece on CNN. You do realize an opinion piece is not news don't you Tut? I also cited a Democrat fundraising letter, a Washington Times writer and an op-ed in the Daily Beast. Where does Fox come in? Because Kirsten is also a Fox contributor? It was pretty obvious Kirsten, noted liberal and feminist was speaking for herself. More opinions, not news, on current events and again this is the current events board.

    Now that we know this has nothing chasing some canard about Fox News, the idea that we need some government agency to be the arbiter of truth in the media is terrifying. The Obama regime has attempted that already in trying to revive the fairness doctrine and these feminist clowns want the government to ban Limbaugh because only misogynyst liberal men who love abortion should be permitted to dehumanize women.

    Sorry Tut, our first amendment is still worth honoring.
  • Mar 17, 2012, 06:15 AM
    TUT317
    Hi Steve,

    Tom asked me to dispute his premise. He posted that he preferred a style whereby the host declares their philosophical leanings. I assume this was part of his premise.

    Why he decided to post it here I don't know but I think my assumption was correct because there was a actual response. If you are unhappy about it being here then perhaps we could move the discussion to where Tom raised the issue in the first instance.

    Tut
  • Mar 17, 2012, 08:27 AM
    speechlesstx
    No, I just don't see how it became about Fox. Are they the only biased network or something?
  • Mar 17, 2012, 04:17 PM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    No, I just don't see how it became about Fox. Are they the only biased network or something?

    Hi Steve,

    I think they are all biased. That wasn't the point I was making.

    Tom, mentioned there was going to be a debate on Fox in relation to Libertarianism and fairness. This was the only reason I mentioned Fox. If Tom had said there was going to be a debate on Anarchism and fairness on NBC then I would have mentioned that.

    In this case the problem from my point of view is right-wing and left-wing perspectives. If there was going to be a debate about Anarchism and fairness on left-wing channels then you would have solicited the same reaction from me.

    At first I would have thought that this was a novel idea. But the reality would have been that it would have turned out to be just another left-wing beat-up. Same old stuff, just dressed up differently.

    Tom believes( and I am sure he will correct me if I'm wrong) that this type of journalism is healthy. He says he prefers a system where the exposure of an issue by a Strossel or a Dan Rather gets filtered through the independent lense of people with opposing points of view.

    My response would be that it is bad because they only thing that gets filtered is the possibility there might be some truth located somewhere along the middle ground.

    Tom also goes on to say, "Counter points are easy to find and the individual is persuaded" I would say that counter points are difficult if not impossible to find. The individual is not persuaded. It just reinforces what the audience already know. These people are preaching to the converted. Anyone who thinks they occupy the middle ground are shown there is no middle ground, just two extreme choices.


    All I am saying is that I think this type of journalism is bad no matter who is doing it.



    Tut
  • Mar 17, 2012, 04:51 PM
    tomder55
    OK I will correct you. In the case of Dan Rather the 'pajama media ' through their own brand of investigative journalism was able to prove that Dan Rather's team fabricated the documentation he used in his claim. Now the point is that it wasn't his network or even fellow networks in the main stream media that took him to task for his deception. It was the opposition that did the vetting . After the fact CBS fired his staffers and hastened his retirement .

    Now I don't think this is an isolated case . Walter Cronkite was considered the most trusted man in American journalism. He was so revered that public opinion turned against the Vietnam war when he declared it was unwinnable .

    Years after he retired he admitted a liberal bias in most of his reporting . He made the rather lame excuse that there was not enough time in the news broadcast format to be objective and balanced.
    I think that is generally in the tradition of American journalism for at least a century . HL Menckin was quoted as saying the role of a journalist is to 'comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable';and I think that is indeed the crusade many think they have . But that isn't necessarily being a teller of truth.
  • Mar 17, 2012, 05:38 PM
    Beardedsumo
    Wasn't the Columbia Journalism Review at one time considered the arbiter of professionalism? Whatever happened to that?
  • Mar 18, 2012, 12:31 AM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    ok I will correct you. In the case of Dan Rather the 'pajama media ' through their own brand of investigative journalism was able to prove that Dan Rather's team fabricated the documentation he used in his claim. Now the point is that it wasn't his network or even fellow networks in the main stream media that took him to task for his deception. It was the opposition that did the vetting . After the fact CBS fired his staffers and hastened his retirement .

    Now I don't think this is an isolated case . Walter Cronkite was considered the most trusted man in American journalism. He was so revered that public opinion turned against the Vietnam war when he declared it was unwinnable .

    Years after he retired he admited a liberal bias in most of his reporting . He made the rather lame excuse that there was not enough time in the news broadcast format to be objective and balanced.
    I think that is generally in the tradition of American journalism for at least a century . HL Menckin was quoted as saying the role of a journalist is to 'comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable';and I think that is indeed the crusade many think they have . But that aint necessarily being a teller of truth.

    Hi Tom,

    Thanks for the correction. Yes, I misread you post.

    However, I don't think it really matters because I am in agreement with what you are saying. If these people admit or are exposed as being lazy, biassed or incompetent then I guess they are.

    OK, I will mention this again. My post was NOT in relation to media bias. I am not saying Dan Rather and others should not be put under the microscope.

    I am critical of a particular style of journalism that advocates stating from particular premise and then attempting to justify the premise. The premise in this particular case is the need to analysize politics from a Libertarian point of view.

    Bias is not really an issue if someone states they are arguing from a Libertarian position. In exactly the same way bias is not really an issue when someone states they are arguing from a Marxist position.

    But, again bias is not what I am calling into question. I am saying that this style of journalism is bad. It is bad for the resons I have previously outlined.

    Tut
  • Mar 18, 2012, 03:19 AM
    tomder55
    Sic semper . Perhaps objective journalism is a goal,an ideal. I contend it is rarely achieved.


    I don't think it is possible for a journalist to be completely objective ,and even if there was this ideal reporter ,the reporter is still subject to the standards of the organization that cuts the reporter's paycheck. The truth is often not as important as what sells. Often the reporter is a celebrity that has not been schooled in these ethics. NBC hired Chelsea Clinton for no other reason than the fact that she is the daughter of Bill Clintoon and possibly has insider access . George Stephanopoulos was a long time Clintonista who was hired by ABC ,right out of the White House. He is the "objective ,unbiased " "reporter" who set up the most recent controversy about contraception when he was "moderating " a Republican candidate debate. He was not acting as a journalist . He was acting as a Democrat activist. Unless you believe it a crazy coincidence ;he hounded the candidates with a ridiculous hypothetical question about states banning contraception. Then coincidently ,a few weeks later ,the President announced his decision . Was that a set up ? You betcha.. What is ABC news ? They are one of the dinosaur gate-keepers of truth . It was yellow journalism that he has not been taken to task for ;nor will he .

    Supposedly the reporter is taught to filter a story through the basic questions of who, what, when, where, why, how . But these questions do not come close to answering the most complex questions of the day. Eventually they have no choice but to filter a story through a preconceived bias. The pressure to satifsy advertisers ,underwiters and deadlines makes it impossible to achieve the goal of thoughtful analysis ,let alone a completely objective report.
    That's just a fact I recognize and accept. The answer to this dilemna is to have so many choices of outlet that the consumer becomes the filter .
    The idea of journalism 'ethics' is a relatively new concept. But I doubt that it will ever be the panacea you think. Anyone who thinks that the report you read hear or watch is unbiased is themselves wearing rose colored glasses.
  • Mar 18, 2012, 05:16 AM
    speechlesstx
    Tut, all I'm saying is as difficult as it may be to sift through the news I find it preferable to having a government bureaucracy being the final arbiter of who is living up to whatever standards they set.

    I don't believe the feds will be any more objective than the journalist and I use Obamacare as the example. The bill was passed in partisan fashion then an agency tasked with writing and the actual rules. First thing is they started issuing exemptions to the requirements to groups that just so happened to support its passage. Now, with the media's help as tom and I both have pointed out the first major rule pandered to a Democrat constituency, manufactured a political crisis to put Republicans in their heels and redefined what qualifies as "religious" in contravention to our first amendment all in one fell swoop.

    I'll keep our current freedom of the press, speech and religion thank you very much. I don't want any more federal referees. Three anti-free speech bimbos are free to air their opinions, I'm free to call them bimbos and call them on their hypocrisy. I like it that way just fine.

    Steve
  • Mar 18, 2012, 05:41 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Unless you believe it a crazy coincidence ;he hounded the candidates with a rediculous hypothetical question about states banning contraception. Then coincidently ,a few weeks later ,the President announced his decision . Was that a set up ? You betcha ..

    Hello again, tom:

    Nahhhh... It WOULD have been hypothetical AND a coincidence IF Santorum hadn't just said that he's AGAINST birth control... But, he did.

    Were you set up by FOX? You betcha.

    excon
  • Mar 18, 2012, 05:57 AM
    speechlesstx
    And you think Sebelius came up with the mandate in response to Santorum? Bwahahaha!
  • Mar 18, 2012, 06:38 AM
    tomder55
    It's the MO of them.. Back in 2006 the Clintoon White House would use newsman Sydney Blumenthal ,and Stephanopoulos ,who had then gone on to ABC ,to set up Bob Dole The White House would feed them the questions ,and they would dutifully repeat them when interviewing Dole.

    As for Santorum... I'm not saying Stephanpoulos was alone in this set up .

    Out of left field Savannah Guthrie of NBC brought up the subject prior to the debate .

    SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Yeah, but, Senator, you yourself have said you will not make these social issues backburner issues. You want them to be front and center. Your views on abortion are well known. You make no exception for abortion in the case of rape or incest. Other Republican candidates have now adopted that view. But somewhat lesser known are your views on contraception. You have said it is not okay, that it's dangerous, and you've said you're the only presidential candidate willing to talk about your views against contraception. For voters not familiar with you, what are they?

    He went on to say that his voting record as a Senator was separate from his personal views of contraception ;that he had voted for funding Planned Parenthood .
    So just like Stephanopolous ,Guthrie was setting up the premise; even though the candidates did not give replies to indicate that banning contraception was a threat.

    During the debate ;Stephanopoulos tried to get the candidates to agree to a proposition that was completely out of left field hypothetical .What they succeeded in doing with this inquire was to set the back drop for the President to create a completely fabricated campaign issue.
  • Mar 18, 2012, 06:57 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    What they succeeded in doing with this inquire was to set the back drop for the President to create a completely fabricated campaign issue.

    Hello again, tom:

    Here's WHY it's just NOT SO.

    IF it was by design, as you suggest, telling the Catholic church what it MUST do, WOULD have been a winner for them.. It wasn't. It was a BIG loser.. Even LEFT WING E.J. Dionne, HATED it.

    What TURNED it into a winner was when the right wing responded by declaring war on women. THAT'S a winner for the Democrats, and the Republicans GAVE it to them.

    excon
  • Mar 18, 2012, 11:43 AM
    tomder55
    The issue surrounding the Presidents unconstitutional mandate ,in violation of the 1st amendment ,should appall everyone . The introduction of contraception into the Presidential debate was a cheap trick by the Obots .

    It reminds me of a Nixon move when he determined that he wanted the Dem candidate to be McGovern. Of course Nixon did not have the main stream media to do his dirty work... so he set up his own hit operation called CREEP .
  • Mar 18, 2012, 07:51 PM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Sic semper . Perhaps objective journalism is a goal,an ideal. I contend it is rarely acheived.


    I don't think it is possible for a journalist to be completely objective ,and even if there was this ideal reporter ,the reporter is still subject to the standards of the organization that cuts the reporter's paycheck. The truth is often not as important as what sells. Often the reporter is a celebrity that has not been schooled in these ethics. NBC hired Chelsea Clinton for no other reason than the fact that she is the daughter of Bill Clintoon and possibly has insider access . George Stephanopoulos was a long time Clintonista who was hired by ABC ,right out of the White House. He is the "objective ,unbiased " "reporter" who set up the most recent controversy about contraception when he was "moderating " a Republican candidate debate. He was not acting as a journalist . He was acting as a Democrat activist. Unless you believe it a crazy coincidence ;he hounded the candidates with a rediculous hypothetical question about states banning contraception. Then coincidently ,a few weeks later ,the President announced his decision . Was that a set up ? You betcha .. What is ABC news ? They are one of the dinosaur gate-keepers of truth . It was yellow journalism that he has not been taken to task for ;nor will he .

    Hi Tom,

    Exactly right. This is where my concern comes in. It is also where I attempt to answer your original premise. Seems to have been forgotten-again.

    What is happening here is clear bias. It is using a 'set up' scenario to get a political message across.

    When Strossel come on his show and tells people he is arguing from a Libertarian position we immediately know that his position is going to be bias. Why do we know? Because he tells us so. When he has a guest on his show everyone knows that this person will probably be sympathetic to the Libertarian cause.

    On this basis it is no good the left complaining about Strossel being biased or staging a set-up debate. The examples, you have given show the left doing exactly the same thing but without the courtesy of telling the audience it is going to be staged from a Democrat point of view.

    My concern is that Strossel's actions give legitimacy to an illegitimate practice. A practice that is common on both sides of the media. It makes no difference as to whether you state your bias in the beginning or not. It still adds up to the same thing. Bad journalism. I will repeat my objections in relation to your other comments below.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post

    Supposedly the reporter is taught to filter a story through the basic questions of who, what, when, where, why, how . But these questions do not come close to answering the most complex questions of the day. Eventually they have no choice but to filter a story through a preconceived bias. The pressure to satifsy advertisers ,underwiters and deadlines makes it impossible to acheive the goal of thoughtful analysis ,let alone a completely objective report.

    As I said 'urging by argument' type of journalism will do nothing to improve the standard. In fact it is likely to have the opposite outcome. I have nothing against this type of journalism per sec. In fact it is different and interesting. My objection is when it becomes the rule rather than the exception.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post

    The answer to this dilemna is to have so many choices of outlet that the consumer becomes the filter .

    Normally a good idea except there is only one choice. Strossel adds nothing to the choice factor. It is the same argument dressed up differently.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post

    The idea of journalism 'ethics' is a relatively new concept. But I doubt that it will ever be the panacea you think. Anyone who thinks that the report you read hear or watch is unbiased is themselves wearing rose colored glasses.

    I will answer Steve's objection here as well.

    In order to have standards you need standards. I am not an idealist so I am not saying stands are the complete answer. An attempt to implement standards is better than no attempt.

    Steve and yourself keep saying that Governments shouldn't be implementing journalistic standards. I agree they shouldn't. I don't know about where you are but in Australia they don't. The standards have over a period been introduced by the journalists themselves. The journalists have made a major contribution.

    In Australia we make use of statutory authorities to do this type of overseeing.It is not a government bureaucrat deciding what's fair and not fair. Most statutory authorities are made of judges, the people of the particular profession and other qualified individuals.

    So, you are happy with the way things are going in your country from a media point of view?

    Tut
  • Mar 18, 2012, 08:53 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TUT317 View Post

    So, you are happy with the way things are going in your country from a media point of view?

    Tut

    Tut aren't you begging the question somewhat?
  • Mar 19, 2012, 07:39 AM
    speechlesstx
    Tut,

    You said, "If they happen to be too lazy or too inept to do the job properly then it is up to an indpendent agency, government or otherwise to point out how they falling below the standard."

    I stand by my previous objection.

    Steve

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:58 AM.