Objective journalism as this administration likes it ? news you can't use

[cumhail]

Originally posted by: nowareman


And what pray tell heartsurgeon do you consider a reputable news source...?

Let's see if I can guess... Fox News, the New York Post, the Weekly Standard, and any of Rupert Murdoch's so-called "news organizations" (which Murdoch, himself, has long said he uses as a means to promote his own conservative views).

And, of course, such non-Murdoch publications as the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, the Washington Times, and any other organizations that understand how wrong it is to question our elected (or not elected, as it were) leaders so long as they happen to be Republican. At such times as a non-Republican administration or politician or view or whatever is at question, however, such news sources' "reputabilities" are pretty much defined by their willingness to not only criticize, but to excoriate them. After all... anyone with any understanding of what constitutes reputability, when it comes to news sources, understands that attacking and denigrating an elected official from the Democratic party, up to and including the President, is good reporting, while any questioning, even in the mildest terms, of OUR LEADERS, when those leaders are Republicans isn't just unreputable... it's UNAMERICAN.

That about sum it up?

cumhail

 

[preslove]

An article about objective journalism and the quoted article is from the NYTimes........ There seems to be a little irony there........

And what do you consider a reputable new source? Faux News?????

 

[heartsurgeon]

on important issues, i generally tryu to find the original speech, or document, or article that is referenced in any "news" story.

when you read the actual document - goverment document, press release, original book or original article, you frequently find that whoever has written the "news" article, has distilled the info down to a smaller form, typically with a obvious bias.

i generally take everything with a grain of salt, and read both liberal and conservative news sources daily. i am a old fashioned news junkie, and i like to read stuff from all sorts of sources..BBC, NPR, WSJ, NYT, FOX, CBS, NBC, National Review, Village Voice, IHT, Agent-Press Francaise, you name it...i read it all...

if someone quotes a speech somebody gave..i try to find the speech and read it,
if someone quotes a goverment study, i try to find the actual study a read it..
the internet makes this all possible.

when you start to see how different news outlets "spin" speeches and documents you can actually read for yourself, you start to get a pretty good idea what the
bias of that news outlet is..liberal or conservative...

the NYT most definitely has a very liberal bias. Who do i consider reputable? I try to verify everything important myself with as much source material as possible. Everybody "spins" the news...

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

the NYT most definitely has a very liberal bias. Who do i consider reputable? I try to verify everything important myself with as much source material as possible. Everybody "spins" the news...

Some people apply their bias to the news and they spin intelligence too. Or are such captives of their own ignorance they must get their news already digested for them by their Chief of Staff and National Security Advisor rather than expend the effort to understand what is happening around them. That is my condensed version of the piece from Frank Rich. Notwithstanding your declaration of very liberal bias please address the pertinent facts and charges in the piece instead of attacking the source.

 

[heartsurgeon]

please address the pertinent facts and charges in the piece instead of attacking the source.

i believe this is an op/ed piece and consists almost exclusively of "opinion" and "editorializing"
if you point out a "fact" in the article, rather than an opinion, i would be happy to debate it's meaning with you.

 

[Witling]

HeartSurgeon (boy, I sure hope you're a lonley hearts advice columnist -- it seems a little smarmy to spread a medical status out for others to awe, IMO). I mean, I'm the Secretary of Defense and I don't spread that about here. I'm amused that you think the New York Times is a liberal publication. And the preceding sentence says something about where each of us comes from. Second, one of the very good things about this group is that sources are generally disclosed. We may then subtract or add points for credibility as our prejudices -- I mean, "Wisdom" -- moves us.

 

[heartsurgeon]

I'm amused that you think the New York Times is a liberal publication

yikes! and you apparently don't?

next thing your gonna tell me maureen dowd is a neocon.

 

[Witling]

I'm a fairly big follower of news, but not editorial opinion. I presume Maureen Dowd is a liberal. Operating as if that assumption was correct, I don't think Maureen Dowd is a neocon. But William Safire is.