OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mark Wein said:
So what do you guys think about this? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-acceptance-speech-at-the-2016-rnc/?tid=sm_tw
Click to expand...


I read one from the NYT last night. It presented the same information in a more even handed fashion. I'm sure The Post thinks they are doing some great service, but the reality is their total disregard for objectivity is what birthed Fox News and now The Donald.

69589790.jpg
 
rhino said:
I read one from the NYT last night. It presented the same information in a more even handed fashion. I'm sure The Post thinks they are doing some great service, but the reality is their total disregard for objectivity is what birthed Fox News and now The Donald.

69589790.jpg
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Objectivity is, nor has it ever been, the mandate of great journalism.

Facts, on the other hand, are.
 
Flamencology said:
I disagree.

Objectivity is, nor has it ever been, the mandate of great journalism.

Facts, on the other hand, are.
Click to expand...

But every journalist has their own bias and they choose the facts they want to present them to make their case and not those that are against it. There is no such thing as a neutral journalist, or newspaper, or network news program - that is a myth. Some are a lot closer than others though.
 
Denverdave said:
But every journalist has their own bias and they choose the facts they want to present them to make their case and not those that are against it. There is no such thing as a neutral journalist, or newspaper, or network news program - that is a myth. Some are a lot closer than others though.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. And I think that most will acknowledge this frankly.
 
Flamencology said:
I disagree.

Objectivity is, nor has it ever been, the mandate of great journalism.

Facts, on the other hand, are.
Click to expand...


I agree that totally objective news is a myth. The point I was trying to make is that the two articles present the same facts with much different tones. One is likely to get lots of folks to read it, maybe even some of the people that might be planning on voting for this disgrace. The other, by taking the attitude they have, is playing into the narrative that the media hates him, which will not get read by anybody except the people that weren't going to be voting for him anyway.

To me great journalism gets people to think. It doesn't just pander to its base.
 
Last edited:
rhino said:
I agree that totally objective news is a myth. The point I was trying to make is that the two articles present the same facts with much tones. One is likely to get lots of folks to read it, maybe even some of the people that might be planning on voting for this disgrace. The other, by taking the attitude they have, is playing into the narrative that the media hates him, which will not get read by anybody to read it except the people that weren't going to be voting for him anyway.

To me great journalism gets people to think. It doesn't just pander to its base.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a matter of good writing, not one of having a bias.
 
If Trump wins can we still look forward to voting for the Ted "the man-sized Denny's omelet" Cruz in 2020? Will there be a splinter third party made up of right-wing phony intellectuals attempting to take America back from the wrong kind of America take-backers? What has Das Donald done with Chris Cristies balls? Is Trump threatening to have Springsteen wacked unless Chris plays along?

WHO ARE ALL THESE RIDICULOUS GOOBERS?!?!

#NIXONSHEADINAJAR2016
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top