[TUT317]

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.

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.

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?

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

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[speechlesstx]

No, I just don't see how it became about Fox. Are they the only biased network or something?

[TUT317]

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

[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.

[Beardedsumo]

Wasn't the Columbia Journalism Review at one time considered the arbiter of professionalism? Whatever happened to that?

[TUT317]

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

[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.

[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

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

And you think Sebelius came up with the mandate in response to Santorum? Bwahahaha!

[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.

[excon]

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

[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 .

[TUT317]

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.

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.

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.

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

[paraclete]

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?

[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