|New York Times banner ad on this forum. Funny.||Matno|
May 23, 2003 3:15 AM
|"The moon landing was a hoax.
There was life on Mars.
The Raelians cloned a human.
Who can you trust?"
Looks like even THEY realize just how bad their reputation is. Now they're trying to advertise that their reporting is "truthful"? Hah! Just last week, Jay Leno said: "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were both captured today. I guess this is true, it was in the New York Times."
|Did you read the Jayson Blair interview in the...||PseuZQ|
May 23, 2003 9:12 PM
|New York Observer? That's some messed up stuff...|
|re: New York Times banner ad on this forum. Funny.||CrankYanker|
May 24, 2003 12:52 AM
|I think over the last 100 years, the New York Times has earned the trust of the readers. This is why the Blair story is such a big deal. They devoted thousands of words in revealing how their own employee lied and how they published his untrue stories. How many other institutions would voluntarily do this? Do you see people getting all upset about false stories appearing in the National Enquirer? If you haven't earned trust, nobody is upset when you are untrustworthy.
People are getting pretty ignorant about bashing the news media.
When people want to find out who won last nights game they trust the media when they claim the Yankees won, but why should they believe them?
People want to see what the weather will be like tomorrow, but if they have no any faith in news, why do they continue to rely on networks to tell them whether it's going to rain or not?
What percentage of the population has ever met George Bush? How to they know he's actually the president? Chances are, the only proof they have is what you've seen and believed in the news media.
Without the news media functioning with the level of trust that they have earned, we'd be forced to take the word of people like Iraq's information minister.
Sorry for the rant, but I just got through my last journalism class in college. We covered city council, county board of supervisor, and school board meetings along with court cases.
Our papers got failing grades if we didn't have at least two sources, failed to mention party affiliation whenever we quoted an elected official, misspelled any name, or had any error in fact. In reporting on court cases, our papers received an F if we failed to mention how many men and women were on the jury.
Without being law experts, we had to know the difference between robbery and burglary or when a defendent has been found not guilty vs innocent (no defendent has ever been found innocent of any charge).
Without being political science majors, real estate experts, or criminal lawyers we had to know the difference between attorneys, lawyers, public defenders, defense councils, coalitions, councils, committees, motions, actions, prisons, jails, land use codes, zoning laws, robbery, burglary, not guilty, and innocent. I wrote a court story and got a failing grade. I wrote that the defendent was found innocent. He was IN FACT found not guilty. Journalists are expected to know the difference. They have to become instant experts on every subject.
If people knew how much time and effort went into making sure only the true facts were included in even the simplest news stories, there would be a little less tongue wagging.
May 24, 2003 7:00 AM
|"I think over the last 100 years, the New York Times has earned the trust of the readers." Perhaps at one time they did. I'd say that over at least the past 25 years or so, the New York Times has USED the trust of its readers to promote a considerable amount of untruth. (While I admit to being a general media-basher, in this case, I'm bashing the NYT as being worse than most). I am fully aware of the kind of effort it takes to effectively and truthfully present the news. I have a friend who was co-host on "The Early Show" and there is no way I could keep up with her schedule. Literally like writing a huge, fully-documented, college research paper 5 times a week! Not only that, but she actually KNEW what she was talking about on so many topics that it was mind boggling. (Her sister and brother-in-law were both my classmates in law school and excelled as well. Both in the top 10 in our class, both got federal clerkships, and now her sister is clerking for Clarence Thomas. I guess brains run in the family).
One thing that perhaps they didn't teach in your journalism courses was how to draw analogies.
Why do we believe who won the Yankees game? Maybe because there were thousands of first hand witnesses, and because we saw it live on TV? (Maybe they just stage the games they show on TV so they can publish scores that are different from the real ones... Right).
Why do we believe that George Bush is the President? Well, thanks to the media, we didn't for quite some time. There was plenty of "Oops! We reported that wrong" type apologies going on after the last presidential elections. Since that time, we've had plenty of chances to see that nobody else is the president.
Oh, and people who have zero faith in weather reports DON'T check them. Of course, since they're actually fairly accurate most of the time (as accurate as can be expected for something that is, thus far, imperfectly predictable) it would be dumb not to rely on them to some degree.
Perhaps you can explain why journalists' opinions in America are far different from the rest of us. Consider the following from The Federalist: "Eighty-nine% of Washington journalists voted for Clinton in 1992, compared to just 43% of non-journalists; 23% of the public described themselves as liberal, compared to 55% of journalists; 49% of the public is pro-choice, whereas 82% of journalists are; 75% of the public favors the death penalty, compared to 47% of journalists. The differences go on and on. While the media elite differ significantly from the average American, their level of dishonesty and leftist bias is appalling." --Walter Williams
Since most journalists have been fairly well educated, they can't claim ignorance as an excuse for being liberal. (Or at least they shouldn't be able to). Dishonesty is the only
remaining explanation. THAT is why I bash the media.
May 24, 2003 7:30 PM
|"Perhaps you can explain why journalists' opinions in America are far different from the rest of us. Consider the following from The Federalist: "Eighty-nine% of Washington journalists voted for Clinton in 1992, compared to just 43% of non-journalists; 23% of the public described themselves as liberal, compared to 55% of journalists; 49% of the public is pro-choice, whereas 82% of journalists are; 75% of the public favors the death penalty, compared to 47% of journalists. The differences go on and on. While the media elite differ significantly from the average American, their level of dishonesty and leftist bias is appalling." --Walter Williams"
I sure hope Mr. Williams isn't a journalist. That would mean you're a hypocrite for relying on him for your information.
How does he know who journalists voted for? I thought who you voted for was kept secret. Somehow Mr. Williams has access to everybody's voting records? Is he suggesting that people who decide to become journalists are mostly liberal? Do conservative people lack the talent to write? Are schools denying conservative students access to the journalism major?
Is he saying that liberal automatically equals dishonest?
Pro choice or pro abortion is a personal choice based on personal moral and ethical values. It's not something an intelligent person decides based strictly on your political party affiliation. That's something a political sheep, a blind follower would do.
May 25, 2003 4:16 PM
|Mr. Williams was discussing the results of a poll. I have no idea which one, but apparently it was pretty large. The journalists polled indicated whom they voted for.
"Are schools denying conservative students access to the journalism major?"
Your looking at the wrong level. Major media networks won't HIRE conservatives unless they happen to need a token conservative columnist or if their job description has nothing to do with opinions.
I wasn't saying that issues which are based on moral values have anything to do with political party affiliation. What I was pointing out was that journalists twist things to their point of view (that's the nature of the field - there is no such thing as "neutral journalism"), and the "average" journalist is far different from the average American. Thus, the major media players are biased in directions that don't reflect the feelings of the general public, so why should we trust them?
|Where are you studying?||PseuZQ|
May 27, 2003 4:20 PM
|Congrats on getting through you last class. Back in the dayyyyyyyy we had to write our assignments in real time with manual typewriters on pulpy paper, and any edits were done with those fat red pencils that had no erasers.
And yeah, we'd flunk if we misspelled a name, or assumed someone named Marion was a woman or Sydney was a guy.
Did I mention I'm in PR now? ;-)