Saturday, November 25, 2006

Yet Again...


Blogger Gayle said...

I think it goes beyond eggs on their faces, Wordsmith. What is the difference between what they are doing: complete fabrication of news stories, and being a traitor to this country? They should be shut down for knowingly telling outright lies about our troops. Actually, charges should be filed and the news editors jailed.

Saturday, November 25, 2006 12:10:00 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Curt's on the case with some interesting developments and detective work.

Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Seth said...

This all makes me rather ashamed that back in the 1970s, I started off on a path toward majoring in Journalism. Today, I'm rather glad I didn't go the distance... The news industry has become so politically corrupt on a treasonous portside bent that if there were true justice available, the pinnacle of most editors' careers would be in front of a wall already pockmarked by bullets.

The news media has a responsibility supported by privilege to report the truth, and they have been ripping off the very people that support them via blatant lies based upon political agendas.

In fairness to the MSM, they should be given options; The noose, or the firing squad.

Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:58:00 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

In fairness to the MSM, they should be given options; The noose, or the firing squad.


I don't know, Seth. The world of journalism could use more conservatives to balance out the liberal journalists.

I found Hugh Hewitt's interview of Mark Halperin interesting. Halperin seems to aim for the idealism of nonpartisan, fair and balanced, nonbiased journalism. I just question whether such a journalistic goal is realistic, or even desireable. I think there are good journalists, who are fair. But I think bias does still creep up, and especially when least intended by those such as Halperin. Also, I don't think it should be a "journalist's code" to not reveal their political affiliation. It would be more honest. If a journalist's reporting is indeed not colored by their perspective, it will show through. So why not just admit which political party you vote for?

Saturday, November 25, 2006 10:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Seth said...

Wordsmith --

That would be a start, but one of the things I believe should be requisite in reporting the news should be all the facts.

Several years ago, when I was "coming up through the ranks" in my chosen profession, I was an investigator in a casino security department. The bulk of my work involved liability situations, and the final product of my efforts was written reports.

This was "facts only" -- the document that went to court was totally unbiased, nothing in favor of my employer, nothing biased against the "other guy".

If I found a banana peel on the step the subject slipped on, the fact was in the report and there was a pic of the banana peel included. If it appeared that the torn off stem of the banana matched the part of the bunch it was possibly torn off from, and the rest of said bunch reposed in one of our restaurant kitchens, implicating my employer one way or another, that, too was in the report.

If I had to testify in court re the contents of my report, I would not speculate, I would simply deliver the facts.

The same should apply to anybody who enjoys the job title of "reporter". To report is to report.

Opinions, bias, spin, etc should be the job of those whose job title is "columnist". People paid to express their opinions rather than report the news.

Reporters who are selective in the facts of a report or who fabricate, as well as editors who don't insist upon homogeneously objective reporting are equally guilty of violating the public trust, no matter in which political camp they hang their hats.

Their access priveleges and position carry a responsibility to the public to do exactly what their job title suggests: Report.

Sunday, November 26, 2006 4:40:00 AM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...


Have there ever been any newspapers that ever reported just the barebone facts? I mean, that would be pretty dry reading; but I wonder if bias has always been there, in news reportings. I do think today's straight news sounds more and more like op-eds than they probably did in bygone days; certainly, when Sulzeberger jr. and Howell Raines took over the helm at the NYTimes, I think you can see a clearcut bend toward agenda-driven reporting and blatant liberal slanting of their stories.

Sunday, November 26, 2006 5:59:00 PM  
Anonymous mudkitty said...

Try reading the Military Times...for a if you really cared.

Monday, November 27, 2006 9:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Seth said...

Wordsmith --

You are totally correct, there has always been some bias, but these last several years it has gone so far to the left that anyone expecting to get the whole picture of an event is wasting his or her time by reading most newspapers or watching the news.

Mudkitty reading the Military Times? That would be like Newt Gingrich reading "The Daily Worker"!

Monday, November 27, 2006 10:01:00 AM  
Blogger Little Miss Chatterbox said...

Yah, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times are basically commie rags only good for lining bird cages with.

Monday, November 27, 2006 6:11:00 PM  
Anonymous mudkitty said...

Oh yeah. Dig the letters from the soldiers on the various Military Times issues. You can get it onlint. I recommend it.

Monday, November 27, 2006 7:07:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Day By Day© by Chris Muir.

© Copyright, Sparks from the Anvil, All Rights Reserved