Saturday, April 14, 2012
Good Night and Good Grief
Alright, let's take a look at this again, folks....All throughout prime-time, Fox and MSNBC have literally peppered their prime-time lineup with partisan, ramrod ideologues. And all throughout these "broadcasts", these very same ideologues are cavalierly tossing around such journalistic terms as "news", "coverage", "reporting", "investigations", "uncovering", "story". To say that these ideologues (all of whom are operating on a cable NEWS station) are NOT trying to have it both ways (i.e., constantly trying to cloak their opinions in this journalistic wrapping) is absolutely ridiculous. These people OBVIOUSLY think that they are engaged in some form of journalistic enterprise.............................................................................................Now, I will agree with you that this type of journalism (advocacy journalism, opinion journalism, etc.) is an exceedingly shitty form of journalism, and that I personally wouldn't want to rely on it for my information. But that, I'm saying, would be an entirely different question, now wouldn't it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
It is perfectly okay and proper if 1) the network presents the news as it is happening without bias or prejudice, 2) clearly identifies segments that are opinion related and meant to sway the viewing audience.
I guess most people can tell the difference, no?
They can't tell the difference if they are among those who can't objectively step back, and falsely perceive one of the two groups (choosing from FOX and MSNBC "opinion journalists") as being objective great journalists and the other nothing but liars.
Point well made.
I think they can't tell the difference if they can't objectively step back and perceive that one side is opinion and the other crosses the line into propaganda. Those people are only slightly less delusional then those who think the side that spews propaganda is the only outlet they can turn to for "the truth".
Propaganda, in the meaning intended by the comment above, meaning "information I happen to dislike".
WD is a flat-out liar when he claims any difference between the two. His uninformed and deceptive use of the (in his usage meaningless) insult "propaganda" for once side and not the other is strong proof.
WD clearly has his preferred "side that spews propaganda is the only outlet [he] can turn to for "the truth".
The rest of us with better critical thinking skills and an ability to look at things a lot more objectively differ on this.
I think critical thinking skills are lacking in a person who does not recognize that Fox Nooz does propaganda. And by propaganda I mean they lie, not that I disagree... although I do find lying VERY disagreeable.
dmarks clearly does not, because every time he says that by "propaganda", I'm REALLY talking about "information I happen to dislike"... he's flat-out lying.
I watch Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz from time to time and, if they don't in fact cross that imaginary line, they certainly blur it on occasion.
So, Will, what do you think, as a moderate who doesn't have a horse in the race? Do Schultz etc do the same thing Hannity does? Does one side engage in "propaganda" and the other never does?
He has a horse in the race. He wants to outlaw both MSNBC and Fox. Come on dmarks! You stick up for both of them when I criticize Fox (claiming they are the same), yet say NOTHING when Will bashes them both? It's dmarks' hypocrisy in action, folks.
I define propaganda as only giving one side to the story and, so, yes, I think that certain people on both networks engage in propaganda.
Will: I define propaganda as only giving one side to the story and, so, yes, I think that certain people on both networks engage in propaganda.
I define propaganda as only giving one side of the story and frequently lying to make your case. And so I think that certain people on ONE network (Fox) engages in propaganda.
So, when Maddow created out of whole cloth that bogus story about the pharmaceutical companies opposing Obamacare, that was what? I mean, at the very least, it was abominable reporting.
Will: Of course it is not. WD likes Maddow's lies, so she escapes the "propagandist" label. WD has made abundantly clear many many times that the main determination of whether or not someone is a propagandist is whether or not they are lying for your side.
"And so I think that certain people on ONE network (Fox) engages in propaganda."
And you are lying if you deny that people in MSNBC don't do the exact same thing.
Will has proven you wrong with numerous examples of MSNBC serving more whoppers than Burger King. Very well documented, also.
"Come on dmarks! You stick up for both of them when I criticize Fox (claiming they are the same), yet say NOTHING when Will bashes them both? It's dmarks' hypocrisy in action, folks."
Both of them are protected under the First Amendment, so I defend their rights to report. Both of them.
When Will bashes them both, at least he is doing it consistently. Unlike you, he doesn't let his personal ideology entirely skew his view on the networks.
dmarks: Of course it is not. WD likes Maddow's lies, so she escapes the "propagandist" label.
I dislike lies and liars. I call them out when they occur... provided someone isn't calling a mistake (for which an apology has been issued) a "lie" for ideological reasons.
dmarks: WD has made abundantly clear many many times that the main determination of whether or not someone is a propagandist is whether or not they are lying for your side.
I have NOT made that "abundantly clear". I'm opposed to lying, as I just said (and have said many many times). I'm opposed to lying, period. This includes lying for "my side" (if it occurs).
It's actually dmarks who approves of lying. We know this because he does it quite frequently... and it's usually Democrats or Democratic policies that he lies about... so we know that his claims about judging Fox and MSNBC from a nonpartisan, non-biased perspective are baloney.
Wd said: "I dislike lies and liars."
But since you are a hypocrite, you embrace and defend liars if they happen to be your ideological allies, like Maddow and Schultz.
"I call them out when they occur..."
Except if they are on your side, they you support their lying.
"provided someone isn't calling a mistake (for which an apology has been issued) a "lie" for ideological reasons."
Yes. we know. Your side only makes mistakes, not lies, according to you. You apply this caveat in an entirely self-serving fashion.
WD said "I have NOT made that "abundantly clear"."
You have. Every time you bash Fox News folks for doing the same thing you support MSNBC folks for doing.
"I'm opposed to lying"
Except if you like the liars.
"as I just said (and have said many many times)"
And just as many times the liars on your side are pointed out
"It's actually dmarks who approves of lying."
No. it is not. We both this.
"We know this because he does it quite frequently"
Yet, you can't name one example.
"and it's usually Democrats or Democratic policies that he lies about..."
Actually, it is never, not 'usually'
dmarks: Yet, you can't name one example.
I've given many examples. You just lie and say you're weren't lying. Which is EXACTLY what a liar would do.
Post a Comment