or some such BS?
On 5/18/23 12:17 PM, ScottW wrote:
or some such BS?
No, you keep making up stuff like that despite having been corrected
several times and referred to the correct idea.
Here's a different take:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/02/06/when-americans-lost-faith-in-the-news
Of course, your frequent misstatements demonstrate a similarity to the essence of what I shared: mainstream media sees itself
as objective and
correctable while the Foxes of the world are propagandists who repeat disinformation after its been debunked, just as you are doing yet again.
On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 1:18:37 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/18/23 12:17 PM, ScottW wrote:
or some such BS?
No, you keep making up stuff like that despite having been
corrected several times and referred to the correct idea.
Here's a different take:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/02/06/when-americans-lost-faith-in-the-news
American's with a great deal of trust in media broke below 50% in
2004 with a 10% crash year over year. It's never been back above 50
since and that was the single largest YoY decline on record. You
gonna blame Trump for that too?
It's amusing that you would turn to the media for a complete BS
explanation of why the public has lost trust in the media. It's
almost as stupid as Biden claiming his polls are due to bad media
coverage. Maybe Joe has a hand in the new lows for media approval
after Trump?
Of course, your frequent misstatements demonstrate a similarity to
the essence of what I shared: mainstream media sees itself
Who in their right mind gives one shit what a decadent, corrupt, and
self adulating POS sees itself as?
as objective and correctable while the Foxes of the world are
propagandists who repeat disinformation after its been debunked,
just as you are doing yet again.
Only thing debunked here is any justification for your faith in
media.... beside the fact they mostly carry water for the dem party
just as you do.
But that's changing Newsmax which is far right and more in on Trump
than Fox is just jumped over CNN in viewers. Maybe they can restore
trust in media.
The Newsmaxes aren't building trust, they're telling their audience what
they want to hear.
On 5/18/23 10:08 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 1:18:37 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/18/23 12:17 PM, ScottW wrote:
or some such BS?
No, you keep making up stuff like that despite having been
corrected several times and referred to the correct idea.
Here's a different take:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/02/06/when-americans-lost-faith-in-the-news
I'm not blaming Trump for a right-wing movement dating back to the fifties.American's with a great deal of trust in media broke below 50% in
2004 with a 10% crash year over year. It's never been back above 50
since and that was the single largest YoY decline on record. You
gonna blame Trump for that too?
It's amusing that you would turn to the media for a complete BS explanation of why the public has lost trust in the media. It'sGood Lord! You're a walking illustration of "Mister Gotcha"!
almost as stupid as Biden claiming his polls are due to bad media coverage. Maybe Joe has a hand in the new lows for media approval
after Trump?
On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 11:41:44 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/18/23 10:08 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 1:18:37 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:I'm not blaming Trump for a right-wing movement dating back to the fifties.
On 5/18/23 12:17 PM, ScottW wrote:American's with a great deal of trust in media broke below 50% in
or some such BS?
No, you keep making up stuff like that despite having been
corrected several times and referred to the correct idea.
Here's a different take:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/02/06/when-americans-lost-faith-in-the-news
2004 with a 10% crash year over year. It's never been back above 50
since and that was the single largest YoY decline on record. You
gonna blame Trump for that too?
Backing away from your link so quickly? That's pretty spineless....even for you.
It's amusing that you would turn to the media for a complete BSGood Lord! You're a walking illustration of "Mister Gotcha"!
explanation of why the public has lost trust in the media. It's
almost as stupid as Biden claiming his polls are due to bad media
coverage. Maybe Joe has a hand in the new lows for media approval
after Trump?
It's your stupid argument so pathetic it's impossible not to "getcha".
and just because you might find a case or two of BS from the media you hate doesn't make the media you love....trustworthy.
They're all in it for the money and always have been.
The idea that the media developed a moral code about a century ago was
BS lie propagated by media to try to clear the slate of their horrendous lying past.
It's takes a hugely gullible tool to think there is any difference based upon the audience
they cater too.
On 5/19/23 6:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 11:41:44 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/18/23 10:08 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 1:18:37 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:I'm not blaming Trump for a right-wing movement dating back to the fifties.
On 5/18/23 12:17 PM, ScottW wrote:American's with a great deal of trust in media broke below 50% in
or some such BS?
No, you keep making up stuff like that despite having been
corrected several times and referred to the correct idea.
Here's a different take:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/02/06/when-americans-lost-faith-in-the-news
2004 with a 10% crash year over year. It's never been back above 50
since and that was the single largest YoY decline on record. You
gonna blame Trump for that too?
Backing away from your link so quickly? That's pretty spineless....even for you.Polling of trust levels isn't my point. And I labelled it a "different
take" from my original one. To repeat:
On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 8:04:27 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/19/23 6:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 11:41:44 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Polling of trust levels isn't my point. And I labelled it a "different
On 5/18/23 10:08 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 1:18:37 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:I'm not blaming Trump for a right-wing movement dating back to the fifties.
On 5/18/23 12:17 PM, ScottW wrote:American's with a great deal of trust in media broke below 50% in
or some such BS?
No, you keep making up stuff like that despite having been
corrected several times and referred to the correct idea.
Here's a different take:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/02/06/when-americans-lost-faith-in-the-news
2004 with a 10% crash year over year. It's never been back above 50
since and that was the single largest YoY decline on record. You
gonna blame Trump for that too?
Backing away from your link so quickly? That's pretty spineless....even for you.
take" from my original one. To repeat:
Random different takes aren't making you anymore coherent, check that...coherent at all.
On 5/20/23 10:47 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 8:04:27 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/19/23 6:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 11:41:44 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Polling of trust levels isn't my point. And I labelled it a "different
On 5/18/23 10:08 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 1:18:37 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:I'm not blaming Trump for a right-wing movement dating back to the fifties.
On 5/18/23 12:17 PM, ScottW wrote:American's with a great deal of trust in media broke below 50% in >>>>> 2004 with a 10% crash year over year. It's never been back above 50 >>>>> since and that was the single largest YoY decline on record. You
or some such BS?
No, you keep making up stuff like that despite having been
corrected several times and referred to the correct idea.
Here's a different take:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/02/06/when-americans-lost-faith-in-the-news
gonna blame Trump for that too?
Backing away from your link so quickly? That's pretty spineless....even for you.
take" from my original one. To repeat:
Random different takes aren't making you anymore coherent, check that...coherent at all.A lot of those "random" takes are response to your misstatements.
On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 5:33:08 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/20/23 10:47 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 8:04:27 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:A lot of those "random" takes are response to your misstatements.
On 5/19/23 6:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 11:41:44 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Polling of trust levels isn't my point. And I labelled it a "different >>>> take" from my original one. To repeat:
On 5/18/23 10:08 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 1:18:37 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/18/23 12:17 PM, ScottW wrote:I'm not blaming Trump for a right-wing movement dating back to the fifties.
American's with a great deal of trust in media broke below 50% in >>>>>>> 2004 with a 10% crash year over year. It's never been back above 50 >>>>>>> since and that was the single largest YoY decline on record. You >>>>>>> gonna blame Trump for that too?or some such BS?
No, you keep making up stuff like that despite having been
corrected several times and referred to the correct idea.
Here's a different take:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/02/06/when-americans-lost-faith-in-the-news
Backing away from your link so quickly? That's pretty spineless....even for you.
Random different takes aren't making you anymore coherent, check that...coherent at all.
Don't blame me for your incoherence. I couldn't make you that stupid even if I tried.
Look at the incorrect takes you manufactured from the simple idea that mainstream media operates on an ideal of objectivity.
There's plenty to complain about, of course. The "protest paradigm":
https://uh.edu/news-events/stories/2020/june-2020/06242020-examining-media-coverage-of-protests.php
"The researchers found the type of protest, location of protest and type
of media outlet were significantly related to whether these stories
stuck to the protest paradigm – a pattern of negative coverage of protests, especially when the events are anti-status quo, that demonizes protesters and marginalizes their causes...
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 8:43:56 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
Look at the incorrect takes you manufactured from the simple idea
that mainstream media operates on an ideal of objectivity.
That's a joke. The "ideal" of objectivity is out the window
There's plenty to complain about, of course. The "protest
paradigm":
https://uh.edu/news-events/stories/2020/june-2020/06242020-examining-media-coverage-of-protests.php
"The researchers found the type of protest, location of protest
and type of media outlet were significantly related to whether
these stories stuck to the protest paradigm – a pattern of
negative coverage of protests, especially when the events are
anti-status quo, that demonizes protesters and marginalizes their
causes...
and this, too
"new research suggests mainstream media have a tendency to focus on
the violence and spectacle of a protest rather than the substance"
Which leads a rational person to conclude that if protesters are
aiming for more favorable coverage of their cause, they would best
acieve that by tamping down the violence of their protests.
Protestors have themselves to blame for focusing the press coverage
on their own violent behavior.
The takeaway: protestors are upset that their violence detracts from
their mission. Unless violence happens to be the mission, itself.
On 5/22/23 7:57 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 8:43:56 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
Look at the incorrect takes you manufactured from the simple idea
that mainstream media operates on an ideal of objectivity.
That's a joke. The "ideal" of objectivity is out the window
Yet it exists and has for a century.
There's plenty to complain about, of course. The "protest
paradigm":
https://uh.edu/news-events/stories/2020/june-2020/06242020-examining-media-coverage-of-protests.php
"The researchers found the type of protest, location of protest
and type of media outlet were significantly related to whether
these stories stuck to the protest paradigm – a pattern of
negative coverage of protests, especially when the events are
anti-status quo, that demonizes protesters and marginalizes their
causes...
and this, too
"new research suggests mainstream media have a tendency to focus on
the violence and spectacle of a protest rather than the substance"
Yes, that's one of the things I'm complaining about. It doesn't mean the objectivity ideal doesn't exist.
Which leads a rational person to conclude that if protesters are
aiming for more favorable coverage of their cause, they would best
acieve that by tamping down the violence of their protests.
Peaceful protests are ignored.
Protestors have themselves to blame for focusing the press coverageThere's also the problem of police-instigated violence in otherwise
on their own violent behavior.
peaceful or manageable protests.
The takeaway: protestors are upset that their violence detracts from
their mission. Unless violence happens to be the mission, itself.
No, the feelings of protesters are beside the point in discussing the "protest paradigm."
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 9:13:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/22/23 7:57 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 8:43:56 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
Look at the incorrect takes you manufactured from the simple idea
that mainstream media operates on an ideal of objectivity.
That's a joke. The "ideal" of objectivity is out the window
Yet it exists and has for a century.
Although it had existed, it certainly does not exist now.
There's plenty to complain about, of course. The "protest
paradigm":
https://uh.edu/news-events/stories/2020/june-2020/06242020-examining-media-coverage-of-protests.php
"The researchers found the type of protest, location of protest
and type of media outlet were significantly related to whether
these stories stuck to the protest paradigm – a pattern of
negative coverage of protests, especially when the events are
anti-status quo, that demonizes protesters and marginalizes their
causes...
and this, too
"new research suggests mainstream media have a tendency to focus on
the violence and spectacle of a protest rather than the substance"
Yes, that's one of the things I'm complaining about. It doesn't mean the
objectivity ideal doesn't exist.
The ideal of objectivity does not exist. The model, or ideal, is entirely partisan
Which leads a rational person to conclude that if protesters are
aiming for more favorable coverage of their cause, they would best
acieve that by tamping down the violence of their protests.
Peaceful protests are ignored.
Drowned out by the violent protests.
It's the fault of the violent protestors.
From above:Protestors have themselves to blame for focusing the press coverageThere's also the problem of police-instigated violence in otherwise
on their own violent behavior.
peaceful or manageable protests.
That is such a rarity, in comparison.
The takeaway: protestors are upset that their violence detracts from
their mission. Unless violence happens to be the mission, itself.
No, the feelings of protesters are beside the point in discussing the
"protest paradigm."
Good!!!
Then they have no complaints over coverage
A partisan media favoring the left would look very different from what
we have.
On 5/22/23 8:24 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 9:13:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/22/23 7:57 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 8:43:56 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
Look at the incorrect takes you manufactured from the simple idea
that mainstream media operates on an ideal of objectivity.
That's a joke. The "ideal" of objectivity is out the window
Yet it exists and has for a century.
Although it had existed, it certainly does not exist now.At Fox, Newsmax etc.
Good!!!No, it means you have no basis for your claim concerning their mission.
Then they have no complaints over coverage
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 10:34:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/22/23 8:24 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 9:13:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:At Fox, Newsmax etc.
On 5/22/23 7:57 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 8:43:56 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
Look at the incorrect takes you manufactured from the
simple idea that mainstream media operates on an ideal of
objectivity.
That's a joke. The "ideal" of objectivity is out the window
Yet it exists and has for a century.
Although it had existed, it certainly does not exist now.
I accept that it cuts both ways,
Good!!! Then they have no complaints over coverageNo, it means you have no basis for your claim concerning their
mission.
I do have a basis.
What I see on the news and what i now being taught in schools of
journalism.
And then there is the AP style book, itself, which instructs the vocabularyand terms to be used in reporting. Definitely leaning
towards the woke left.
all of the above culled from the wide spectrum of the media, from
left to right
you have no basis in declaring that the traditional ideas of
independence and objectivity still exist.
On 5/22/23 6:19 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 10:34:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/22/23 8:24 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 9:13:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:At Fox, Newsmax etc.
On 5/22/23 7:57 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 8:43:56 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
Look at the incorrect takes you manufactured from the
simple idea that mainstream media operates on an ideal of
objectivity.
That's a joke. The "ideal" of objectivity is out the window
Yet it exists and has for a century.
Although it had existed, it certainly does not exist now.
I accept that it cuts both ways,Both-sidism is also a problem.
Good!!! Then they have no complaints over coverageNo, it means you have no basis for your claim concerning their
mission.
I do have a basis.The century-old paradigm remains in place no matter what partisan
slights you perceive.
What I see on the news and what i now being taught in schools of journalism.I cited journalism textbooks, so I know you're wrong.
And then there is the AP style book, itself, which instructs the vocabularyand terms to be used in reporting. Definitely leaningStyle is not the foundation of journalism and the less said about the all-purpose epithet "woke" the better.
towards the woke left.
<snip>
all of the above culled from the wide spectrum of the media, fromNone of those address the paradigm of objectivity.
left to right
you have no basis in declaring that the traditional ideas of
independence and objectivity still exist.
Still here in 2018:
https://time.com/5443351/journalism-objectivity-history/
In academia:
https://nieman.harvard.edu/articles/an-argument-why-journalists-should-not-abandon-objectivity/
In the profession:
https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/bias-objectivity/lost-meaning-objectivity/
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 9:23:36 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/22/23 6:19 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
you have no basis in declaring that the traditional ideas of
independence and objectivity still exist.
Still here in 2018:
https://time.com/5443351/journalism-objectivity-history/
History!
In academia:
https://nieman.harvard.edu/articles/an-argument-why-journalists-should-not-abandon-objectivity/
If journalists were NOT abandoning it, there would be no need to
write an article countering the current trend.
In the profession:
https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/bias-objectivity/lost-meaning-objectivity/
Definitely a lost cause,
Its not the tools that need to be unbiased, but the journalist using
those tools. Your article argues that objectivity is meaningless
Its not the tools that need to be unbiased, but the journalist usingIt does not. You're riffing on the URLs.
those tools. Your article argues that objectivity is meaningless
Its not the tools that need to be unbiased, but the journalistIt does not. You're riffing on the URLs.
using those tools. Your article argues that objectivity is
meaningless
It certainly does.
It advocates for unbiased tools and downplays the need forunbiased
persons wielding those tools.. That's in the article, not in the
URL.
On 5/23/23 3:11 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
Its not the tools that need to be unbiased, but the journalistIt does not. You're riffing on the URLs.
using those tools. Your article argues that objectivity is
meaningless
It certainly does."Objectivity is meaningless"? It does not say that.
It advocates for unbiased tools and downplays the need forunbiasedTo identify the need for objective method is not to say objectivity is meaningless. Since no one is beyond bias, objectivity depends on a disciplined method with transparency and verifiability.
persons wielding those tools.. That's in the article, not in the
URL.
On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 9:46:11 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/23/23 3:11 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
"Objectivity is meaningless"? It does not say that.Its not the tools that need to be unbiased, but the journalistIt does not. You're riffing on the URLs.
using those tools. Your article argues that objectivity is
meaningless
It certainly does.
It advocates for unbiased tools and downplays the need forunbiasedTo identify the need for objective method is not to say objectivity is
persons wielding those tools.. That's in the article, not in the
URL.
meaningless. Since no one is beyond bias, objectivity depends on a
disciplined method with transparency and verifiability.
Thanks for making my point. MSM lacks all that.
On 5/23/23 9:36 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 9:46:11 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/23/23 3:11 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
"Objectivity is meaningless"? It does not say that.Its not the tools that need to be unbiased, but the journalistIt does not. You're riffing on the URLs.
using those tools. Your article argues that objectivity is
meaningless
It certainly does.
It advocates for unbiased tools and downplays the need forunbiasedTo identify the need for objective method is not to say objectivity is
persons wielding those tools.. That's in the article, not in the
URL.
meaningless. Since no one is beyond bias, objectivity depends on a
disciplined method with transparency and verifiability.
Thanks for making my point. MSM lacks all that.You're entitled to your opinion. You'll find the MSM still runs
retractions and reacts to criticisms and accusations of bias.
Btw, "verifiability" = multiple sources, fact-checking. This very much
the standard in media that aren't Fox.
On 5/22/23 6:19 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 10:34:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/22/23 8:24 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 9:13:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:At Fox, Newsmax etc.
On 5/22/23 7:57 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 8:43:56 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
Look at the incorrect takes you manufactured from the
simple idea that mainstream media operates on an ideal of
objectivity.
That's a joke. The "ideal" of objectivity is out the window
Yet it exists and has for a century.
Although it had existed, it certainly does not exist now.
I accept that it cuts both ways,Both-sidism is also a problem.
Good!!! Then they have no complaints over coverageNo, it means you have no basis for your claim concerning their
mission.
I do have a basis.The century-old paradigm remains in place no matter what partisan
slights you perceive.
What I see on the news and what i now being taught in schools of journalism.I cited journalism textbooks, so I know you're wrong.
And then there is the AP style book, itself, which instructs the vocabularyand terms to be used in reporting. Definitely leaningStyle is not the foundation of journalism and the less said about the all-purpose epithet "woke" the better.
towards the woke left.
<snip>
all of the above culled from the wide spectrum of the media, fromNone of those address the paradigm of objectivity.
left to right
you have no basis in declaring that the traditional ideas ofStill here in 2018:
independence and objectivity still exist.
https://time.com/5443351/journalism-objectivity-history/
In academia:
https://nieman.harvard.edu/articles/an-argument-why-journalists-should-not-abandon-objectivity/
In the profession:
https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/bias-objectivity/lost-meaning-objectivity/
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 6:23:36 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
In the profession:
https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/bias-objectivity/lost-meaning-objectivity/
Just one example of BS. The piece talks about objectively testing
evidence. But media long ago quit just reporting the news ie the
evidence of what has transpired and has engaged whole heartedly in
forming opinions.
They spin the evidence and they sure as hell don't treat all evidence objectively. They omit so much evidence because of their bias that
any claim to an objective purpose is delusional.
On 5/25/23 6:04 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 6:23:36 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
You're clearly yearning for a return to 19th century "realism...the idea
that if reporters simply dug out the facts and ordered them together,
truth would reveal itself rather naturally."
You're clearly yearning for a return to 19th century "realism...the idea that if reporters simply dug out the facts and ordered them together,that's a whole lot better than 21st century "cultural relativism",
truth would reveal itself rather naturally."
which distorts facts, hides facts, and lies about facts
On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 10:49:46 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/25/23 6:04 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 6:23:36 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
You're clearly yearning for a return to 19th century "realism...the idea
that if reporters simply dug out the facts and ordered them together,
truth would reveal itself rather naturally."
that's a whole lot better than 21st century "cultural relativism",
which distorts facts, hides facts, and lies about facts
Reality is this...you need to find the truth wherever you can.
But you'll only look at things you know your predisposition can accept.
And that makes you ignorant.
On 5/25/23 6:04 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 6:23:36 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
In the profession:
https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/bias-objectivity/lost-meaning-objectivity/
Just one example of BS. The piece talks about objectively testing evidence. But media long ago quit just reporting the news ie theYou're clearly yearning for a return to 19th century "realism...the idea
evidence of what has transpired and has engaged whole heartedly in
forming opinions.
that if reporters simply dug out the facts and ordered them together,
truth would reveal itself rather naturally."
They spin the evidence and they sure as hell don't treat all evidence objectively. They omit so much evidence because of their bias thatIt's mirror time again. You're mistaking a MSM institutional bias for a left-leaning partisan one.
any claim to an objective purpose is delusional.
You're also overlooking the underlying
foundation for anecdotal cases.
The NYT buries a retraction on A-19; Fox never mentions it.
On 5/26/23 2:34 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 10:49:46 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/25/23 6:04 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 6:23:36 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
You're clearly yearning for a return to 19th century "realism...the idea >> that if reporters simply dug out the facts and ordered them together,
truth would reveal itself rather naturally."
that's a whole lot better than 21st century "cultural relativism","Cultural relativism" isn't a foundation of journalism but recognizing culture would be more objective than leaving subjective bias unexamined.
which distorts facts, hides facts, and lies about facts
It's more of an anthropology term. Fun fact: I once made a purchase at a yard sale hosted by two grad students, one an anthropological
archaeologist, the other an archaeological anthropologist.
'
On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 7:49:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 5/25/23 6:04 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 6:23:36 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:You're clearly yearning for a return to 19th century "realism...the idea
In the profession:
https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/bias-objectivity/lost-meaning-objectivity/
Just one example of BS. The piece talks about objectively testing
evidence. But media long ago quit just reporting the news ie the
evidence of what has transpired and has engaged whole heartedly in
forming opinions.
that if reporters simply dug out the facts and ordered them together,
truth would reveal itself rather naturally."
They spin the evidence and they sure as hell don't treat all evidenceIt's mirror time again. You're mistaking a MSM institutional bias for a
objectively. They omit so much evidence because of their bias that
any claim to an objective purpose is delusional.
left-leaning partisan one.
You keep saying that but I don't. I accept bias exists on all sides.
You're also overlooking the underlying
foundation for anecdotal cases.
The NYT buries a retraction on A-19; Fox never mentions it.
That isn't even an anecdote. It's Stephen fiction.
I accept you can find cases that support your view for any network,
but then again....you'd be and are guilty of omission as well.
Reality is this...you need to find the truth wherever you can.
But you'll only look at things you know your predisposition can accept.
And that makes you ignorant.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 30:53:05 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,353,038 |