Do You trust the 'Media'?

[Millermoos]

Do we trust what the media tells us about the war in Iraq, terrorism and other things? Is there someone behind them, who is trying to manipulate how we see things? Are they making things bigger than what the really are are so that we will watch more tv and buy more newspapers? Or are they being true and objective?
I was thinking this while I was reading a newspaper regarding an article about the Queen (which will not be of much interest to you in the USA but it is to some of us over here in England). Basically someone from a terrorist group linked to Bin Laden said they want to kill the Queen. On the following day on a major newspaper over here there was a picture of the Queen with a weird catch phrase ( I can't remember it exactly) with the meaning she only protects Christian religions but not Muslim religion or something on this line. First of all the magazine that put it on is against the Monarchy and to put it after they made a threat the day before to the Queen it's disturbing( does the magazine want to get read of the Queen? As Some major newspapers are run by working class Editors who hate the upper class and the Monarchy and what they stand for.Is Rupert Murdoch behind this? I don't think so but there are dark forces at play... ) as she never publicly said anything of the like and she supports religious tolerance because she is very well aware at how many Muslims there are in this country.
Millermoos

[ELVIS]

You're a liar yourself, so what the fuck do you care ??

Bullshitting people starts with individuals, like yourself...

The next time you think you can't trust someone, look in the mirror...

And stop telling us about your fucking dyslexia and do something about it...

[FORD]

I trust some media.

Air America Radio.

The Guardian

Sydney Morning Herald

CBC

BBC

Keith Olberman Countdown (MSRNC)

The Daily Show w/Jon Stewart

Various independent online sources.

That's pretty much the extent of the trustworthy media these days. :(

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by FORD
I trust some media.

Air America Radio.

The Guardian

Sydney Morning Herald

CBC

BBC

Keith Olberman Countdown (MSRNC)

The Daily Show w/Jon Stewart

Various independent online sources.

That's pretty much the extent of the trustworthy media these days. :(


http://theory.music.indiana.edu/mit/u523/directorCD/Sounds/Laughing.wav

[Warham]

FORD also trusts the Democratic Underground for unbiased discussion.

[Keef]

I hope you guys are making money off of still supporting this treason.

[David Lee Rocks]

as long as they are liberal, I trust them, lol

[Millermoos]

You're a liar yourself, so what the fuck do you care ??

Bullshitting people starts with individuals, like yourself...

The next time you think you can't trust someone, look in the mirror...

And stop telling us about your fucking dyslexia and do something about it...


[Post #2]
Originally posted by ELVIS
You're a liar yourself, so what the fuck do you care ??

Bullshitting people starts with individuals, like yourself...

The next time you think you can't trust someone, look in the mirror...

And stop telling us about your fucking dyslexia and do something about it...

I only have one thing to say to you: ELVIS
YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE!!!!!! GET SOME THERAPY!!!! From your post I also gather that you are some sort of ex addict who does not trust people and you are e prejudiced with no manners and the brain of a peanut.
Maybe you should start looking inside your hole before you make false accusations. Actually you should go and put up a thread for yourseld called: Grumpy old Man cos it really applies to you.
Miller

[Millermoos]

as long as they are liberal, I trust them.
I agree with this.
Millermoos

[scamper]

I trust the weathermen they're never wrong...unless you count not being right as being wrong.

[Cathedral]

I trust nobody, especially corporate media sources.

The media is only good for those who are incapable of thinking for themselves, case in point, we didn't have this kind of dissention before the internet and blogging.
Whereas the generations before us relied on each other, supported each other and defended each other...Today it's all about political football and outdoing "The Other Side".

It's actually quite pathetic what has become of this country. the division is destructive, but as long as your side comes out on top who gives a shit, right?

It is far and beyond time for America to remember its roots, and for some of you self important pompus assholes to remember that your freedom to speak your mind was paid for in blood that wasn't your's.

I just thank God that you weren't alive 100 years ago with this attitude or freedom would be something we long for instead of being something to abuse and piss on.

You're out of touch with reality, and you choose to be that way.

Thanks!

[Nitro Express]

Follow the money. Everything has a bias and that usually is determined by who controls the money. Do you really think these reporters, journalists, and anchor people care about following the Associated Press Guidlines by being nuetral or keeping their jobs or selling a story? Follow the money! News like any product is niche marketed. Nobody is going to tell the whole truth. I say read both sides and come up with a conclusion yourself.

One thing I have learned traveling is most of what you read about countries poorly describes what is actually going on there. People who work in embassies rarely get out of their luxery homes, the nice resturants, and office in a big foriegn city. Most emassy workers know very little about the country they work in.

As far as the war in Iraq goes, as someone who is there or has been there instead of just relying on what the media tells you. I'm amazed that everyone I've talked to who served in Iraq says we are doing the right thing being there and most people there are grateful. Everyolne has an oppionion but I think too many times we get into our partisan biases and refuse to look at what the other side has to say or think for ourselves. Think for yourself. Don't let Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken do that for you.

[Millermoos]

I trust the weathermen they're never wrong...unless you count not being right as being wrong.
Good point.
In England the weatherman gets it wrong quite often. If I want to know how is the weather going to be I just put my head out of the window and I feel the air and look at the Sky.

Whereas the generations before us relied on each other, supported each other and defended each other...Today it's all about political football and outdoing "The Other Side".
Why do think this is happening Cathedral?
Over here is just total apathy.

usually is determined by who controls the money
One thing I have learned traveling is most of what you read about countries poorly describes what is actually going on there. People who work in embassies rarely get out of their luxury homes, the nice restaurants, and office in a big foreign city. Most embassy workers know very little about the country they work in.

Those two statements are true as well Nitro Express.
Millermoos

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Millermoos
ELVIS
YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE!!!!!! GET SOME THERAPY!!!!

You got me all wrong, baby...;)

[Millermoos]

Glad to know I got you all wrong.There is hope than.
Millermoos

[ELVIS]

Then...;)

[Millermoos]

Thanks Elvis, you are cheeky!
millermoos

[ELVIS]

All in good fun...


:elvis:

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by FORD
I trust some media.

The Daily Show w/Jon Stewart


I wouldn't count that as media in how this discussion is defining media. It's fun to watch for the social commentary, but I don't turn to Jon Stewart to find out what went on in the world. All it is is political stand up. Entertaining, yes. News-source, no.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
I wouldn't count that as media in how this discussion is defining media. It's fun to watch for the social commentary, but I don't turn to Jon Stewart to find out what went on in the world. All it is is political stand up. Entertaining, yes. News-source, no.

But at least Jon admits his show is "fake news". You still get more honesty from the Daily Show than you do from FAUX or CNN. ;)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by FORD
But at least Jon admits his show is "fake news". You still get more honesty from the Daily Show than you do from FAUX or CNN. ;)

This is true, I actually think he's better at reporting the truth than half the dimwits on CNN or FAUX.

The DAILY SHOW is actually media criticism 101...

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by FORD
But at least Jon admits his show is "fake news". You still get more honesty from the Daily Show than you do from FAUX or CNN. ;)

which is why ya read/listen to multiple sources ;)

[Cathedral]

Jon Stewart is looked at as a media source?
C'mon, that is just rediculous on so many levels it isn't even funny.

He's a fucking comedian for cryin out loud, what's next, Emo Phillips for Senate?

Um folks, sucking helium is not a substitute for air, take a walk outside so you can clear your head.

[Satan]

HellCable News is accurate. I supervise the operations my Most Unholy self.

But I still keep FAUX News down here to torment the damned.

[Jérôme Frenchise]

Hey, "Faux" News... a French-American pun! :)

The only source I trust here in Frogland is "Charlie Hebdo", a weekly satyric paper. Articles and (great) comics are about national and international issues. It's tremendous. Full of relentless bullshit-free information (as long as it can really exist ;)).
I'll post a few comics from "Charlie" here someday. :cool:

[Jérôme Frenchise]

Here's one: "Caterpillars turn into butterflies", after the liberation of Kabul.

[Jérôme Frenchise]

"Who's ready to die for these two dickheads?" (2002).

Cartoonists sum up things with so much talent. They're the last real philosophers of our time, in a way.

And HUMOUR is something, if not necessary, at least precious as far as giving information. :cool:

[diamondD]

Originally posted by FORD
I trust some media.

Air America Radio.

The Guardian

Sydney Morning Herald

CBC

BBC

Keith Olberman Countdown (MSRNC)

The Daily Show w/Jon Stewart

Various independent online sources.

That's pretty much the extent of the trustworthy media these days. :(


You damn sure can't trust one of the moderators to allow the free flow of opinions in this forum.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Jon Stewart is looked at as a media source?
C'mon, that is just rediculous on so many levels it isn't even funny.

He's a fucking comedian for cryin out loud, what's next, Emo Phillips for Senate?

Um folks, sucking helium is not a substitute for air, take a walk outside so you can clear your head.

Really? Why? I guarantee that Stewart is at least as, if not more so, educated and intelligent than half the dick bags on FOX. You trust BILL O'REILLY's opinion? That masturbator was a tabloid journalist on the 'Insider' or whatever. That's comedic! He's no journalist, he's an asshole portraying a character...

Comedians can express the truth often times far more effectively. He's no worse than the so called moronic pundits that you see on most of these programs. It's no different than an editorialist that uses political cartoons to make a point through comic satire.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Really? Why? I guarantee that Stewart is at least as, if not more so, educated and intelligent than half the dick bags on FOX. You trust BILL O'REILLY's opinion? That masturbator was a tabloid journalist on the 'Insider' or whatever. That's comedic! He's no journalist, he's an asshole portraying a character...

Comedians can express the truth often times far more effectively. He's no worse than the so called moronic pundits that you see on most of these programs. It's no different than an editorialist that uses political cartoons to make a point through comic satire.

This is very true. Stewart may present the news in a humorous setting, but he delves far deeper into the issues than most so-called journalists today.

[Warham]

Jon Stewart's definately a better 'journalist' than Dan Rather ever was.

lol

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Warham
Jon Stewart's definately a better 'journalist' than Dan Rather ever was.

lol

LOL! Touche. ;)

[Millermoos]

Thanks Jerome for pics.
I don't know much about the two guys you are talking about. Over here I just tend to look at different sources mainly on newspapers (English and European). I don't really watch the news on TV.
Millermoos

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Really? Why? I guarantee that Stewart is at least as, if not more so, educated and intelligent than half the dick bags on FOX. You trust BILL O'REILLY's opinion? That masturbator was a tabloid journalist on the 'Insider' or whatever. That's comedic! He's no journalist, he's an asshole portraying a character...

Comedians can express the truth often times far more effectively. He's no worse than the so called moronic pundits that you see on most of these programs. It's no different than an editorialist that uses political cartoons to make a point through comic satire.

Nick, I know you're smart enough to know the difference between reporting and editorial/op-eds. O'reilly's show is not a reporting show. It's a op-ed show. His little speech he gives on what he thinks about issues should give it away. O'reilly, on his show, is an opinion journalist. A show that isn't an op-ed show on Fox would be Neil Cavuto or Shep Smith or Greta Van Icantspellit.

And where did Cat say he trusted O'reilly more than anyone else? Jon Stewart is not reporting the news. He is a comedian who is using the news events as his standup. When you report the news as regular hard news, you don't show bias. I can point out bias in Jon's show and O'reilly's show. Why? They're not reporting shows! Jon doesn't pick the most relevant news items to report on; he picks whatever he and his writers can make hte best jokes out of and what they feel like making fun of. O'reilly picks things he wants to debate. They are editorial/op-ed shows. And if you rely on The Daily Show or the Colbert report as your news sources, then that's sad and even Jon would tell you that.

I never thought I would have to explain that to grown adults in this forum.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
A show that isn't an op-ed show on Fox would be Neil Cavuto or Shep Smith or Greta Van Icantspellit.



Cavuto's show isn't opinionated?? That clown is only slightly less insulting than O'Reichly or Hannity. Actually, he's worse because he tries to pass himself off as some sort of financial expert, when he's really just another corporatist shill selling the right wing agenda.

Greta could have had the closest thing to a legit news show on FAUX, but instead it became a daily hysterical rehash on whatever celebrity trial or other useless distraction (missing rich blonde bimbo of the week) the mediawhores want you to pay attention to so you ignore the collapsing BCE House of Cards.

[Warham]

Now, now, FORD.

Everybody wanted to know what was going on with the Holloway case 24/7. Let's give Greta some props for keeping people informed on just how incompetent the Aruban police departments are.

;)

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by FORD
Cavuto's show isn't opinionated?? That clown is only slightly less insulting than O'Reichly or Hannity. Actually, he's worse because he tries to pass himself off as some sort of financial expert, when he's really just another corporatist shill selling the right wing agenda.

Greta could have had the closest thing to a legit news show on FAUX, but instead it became a daily hysterical rehash on whatever celebrity trial or other useless distraction (missing rich blonde bimbo of the week) the mediawhores want you to pay attention to so you ignore the collapsing BCE House of Cards.

Neil does Wall St and Greta does legal. What's wrong with that?

I don't see how Neil is insulting, but maybe cuz I actually know how those kind of shows are put together.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Nick, I know you're smart enough to know the difference between reporting and editorial/op-eds. O'reilly's show is not a reporting show. It's a op-ed show. His little speech he gives on what he thinks about issues should give it away. O'reilly, on his show, is an opinion journalist. A show that isn't an op-ed show on Fox would be Neil Cavuto or Shep Smith or Greta Van Icantspellit.

Well, I don't watch O'Reilly too often, or for too long. But he still has to adhere to the central core of journalistic ethics on a purported "News channel." He's not seeking the truth, here's merely spinning the point of view, and I object to this on a "Fair and Balanced" "all-news" network...

He often deletes his guests comments, and/or creatively edits things out of context. I find that to be unconscionable. Seriously, he's an asshole, all politics aside. His tabloid style is pretty dishonest.


And where did Cat say he trusted O'reilly more than anyone else? Jon Stewart is not reporting the news.

But he came across as someone that believes that those watching The Daily Show don't know this, in fact there is a substantial amount of media criticism that goes on with that show, where they make fun of reporters and the way the news is selectively presented, like oh say, news-hero Anderson Cooper conveniently "saving" people in New Orleans...


He is a comedian who is using the news events as his standup. When you report the news as regular hard news, you don't show bias. I can point out bias in Jon's show and O'reilly's show. Why?

Yes, but: FOX "News" touts itself as "fair and balanced." What network is Jon on again? Oh yes, Comedy Central Network. He makes no pretension of being a journalist, yet he tells the truth in a way that real journalists can't.


They're not reporting shows! Jon doesn't pick the most relevant news items to report on; he picks whatever he and his writers can make hte best jokes out of and what they feel like making fun of.

No. But The Daily Show is media criticism, they make fun of news programs and the talking heads that report it. Yes, part of the show is a joke with fake news "packages." But Jon also does an interview portion at the end, where he has real guests on, and although he cracks jokes, beneath the comedy, there is often a serious, critical undertone.

And you're telling me that FOX's selections (and deletions) or what stories to report is not a news distortion in itself. I don't think I should have to explain to you that the very images we see, and the editorial decisions made are for ratings, not to seek the truth. They in fact warp our perceptions of reality. Why do you think people have become more reclusive and fear-ridden than they were before TV? That's why I see so many "angle" stories regarding pretty, young blonds missing in Aruba.

There are numerous people, teens that are missing in this country. The only reason that that story is beaten to death is the appeal factor: sex (Natalie and her mom are quite attractive and "telegenic," and it's another "teen-girl out of control" story, and there is repeated insinuation of the "white-sex-slave to South America" paranoia,), money/glamour (the Halloways seem to be well off, enough so to send their daughter to a foreign land for her high school grad.). Crime (a victim, she is. But there are many far less glamorous victims lost in foster care in her home state I believe. But middle class white people tend not to care about that, so neither do the politicians, or news editors). This is one of the things that The Daily Show critiques...


O'reilly picks things he wants to debate. They are editorial/op-ed shows. And if you rely on The Daily Show or the Colbert report as your news sources, then that's sad and even Jon would tell you that.

Yes, O'Reilly also edits out portions and controls a substantial way the guests on the show is presented. This is patently intellectually dishonest. I've heard the complaint from more than one guest. That O'Reilly in fact "spins" people's comments out of context.


I never thought I would have to explain that to grown adults in this forum.

Well thank you for your enlightenment. But I've been through a few news reporting courses myself, and I learned the central facet of news reporting, the main formula, is: The three "C's." Cash, crime, and children(& cute little animals)...

That is, (television, all local and to a lesser extent, the national) news is designed for formulaic appeal. Not for the truth, but for ratings.

So it's hard for me to rank The Onion, or the The Daily Show, much below "Fox and Friends" for credability and truth...

[Baby's On Fire]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
Follow the money. Everything has a bias and that usually is determined by who controls the money. Do you really think these reporters, journalists, and anchor people care about following the Associated Press Guidlines by being nuetral or keeping their jobs or selling a story? Follow the money! News like any product is niche marketed. Nobody is going to tell the whole truth. I say read both sides and come up with a conclusion yourself.

One thing I have learned traveling is most of what you read about countries poorly describes what is actually going on there. People who work in embassies rarely get out of their luxery homes, the nice resturants, and office in a big foriegn city. Most emassy workers know very little about the country they work in.

As far as the war in Iraq goes, as someone who is there or has been there instead of just relying on what the media tells you. I'm amazed that everyone I've talked to who served in Iraq says we are doing the right thing being there and most people there are grateful. Everyolne has an oppionion but I think too many times we get into our partisan biases and refuse to look at what the other side has to say or think for ourselves. Think for yourself. Don't let Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken do that for you.


I trust the reporters, but not the editors.

Reporters are reporters for the love of the story.......editors worry about money and liability.

[Warham]

I rank CBS, NBS, ABS, and MSNBS at the bottom of the pile.

[Terry]

'Bout as much as I trust anyone else.

Kinda bummed that the media has decided to help pump us into a culture of fear with the "if it bleeds it leads" mentality. Am seeing more info-tainment than dry reporting these days, and a lot of really fluff bits ('specially on local forecasts) that can't be of any interest to anyone outside of the participants themselves. That's as far as televised media goes.

Print media...can't really say. Don't bother with daily papers anymore. Plenty of decent periodicals out there, most coming out monthly, that I enjoy reading more than the daily rags. NY Times is still decent.

Still enjoy Frontline.

Really have no use for Bill O'Reillyesque cable news editorial style programs anymore. Seems all these hosts are as busy promoting themselves than really providing thoughful analysis (regardless of my agreeing or not). Still dig the McLaughlin Group. BBC is still humming along, agreed. Am just tired of the newshosts that are obsessed with having their own names associated with the news programs they anchor. Don't really give a shit if it's Wolf Blitzer, Olberman or WHOEVER rwading the shit anymore. None of them are fit to walk an inch in Murrow or Cronkite's shoes, so none of them are gonna have that credibility associated with their names to me anyway. Never cared for Brokaw or Jennings. Always liked Rather.

60 Minutes can still get it up on the first and sometimes second segments when it wants to and tackle some tough issues, but they've been descending into celebrity-focused fluff for awhile now. Once Wallace and Rooney depart, that show is about two steps away from becoming another Entertainment Tonight.

I'll tell ya, the media rolled over for the Bush Administration for an awfully long time. Considering the issues at stake post 9/11, and the voraciousness with which they went after Clinton on less substantive issues, took them an awful long time to stop kissing Fleischer and McClellan's asses and ask some tough questions to the administration.

Don't know about trustworthiness, but not much respect from me is gonna go out towards the 4th Estate these days. They gotta earn it, and focusing on promoting their own faces on tv/giving politicians a free pass ain't the way to go about it.

[jero]

I don't trust them! here in Europe you never see or hear someting negative about the muslims! And the keep on terrorise the city's

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Well, I don't watch O'Reilly too often, or for too long. But he still has to adhere to the central core of journalistic ethics on a purported "News channel." He's not seeking the truth, here's merely spinning the point of view, and I object to this on a "Fair and Balanced" "all-news" network...

He often deletes his guests comments, and/or creatively edits things out of context. I find that to be unconscionable. Seriously, he's an asshole, all politics aside. His tabloid style is pretty dishonest.



But he came across as someone that believes that those watching The Daily Show don't know this, in fact there is a substantial amount of media criticism that goes on with that show, where they make fun of reporters and the way the news is selectively presented, like oh say, news-hero Anderson Cooper conveniently "saving" people in New Orleans...



Yes, but: FOX "News" touts itself as "fair and balanced." What network is Jon on again? Oh yes, Comedy Central Network. He makes no pretension of being a journalist, yet he tells the truth in a way that real journalists can't.



No. But The Daily Show is media criticism, they make fun of news programs and the talking heads that report it. Yes, part of the show is a joke with fake news "packages." But Jon also does an interview portion at the end, where he has real guests on, and although he cracks jokes, beneath the comedy, there is often a serious, critical undertone.

And you're telling me that FOX's selections (and deletions) or what stories to report is not a news distortion in itself. I don't think I should have to explain to you that the very images we see, and the editorial decisions made are for ratings, not to seek the truth. They in fact warp our perceptions of reality. Why do you think people have become more reclusive and fear-ridden than they were before TV? That's why I see so many "angle" stories regarding pretty, young blonds missing in Aruba.

There are numerous people, teens that are missing in this country. The only reason that that story is beaten to death is the appeal factor: sex (Natalie and her mom are quite attractive and "telegenic," and it's another "teen-girl out of control" story, and there is repeated insinuation of the "white-sex-slave to South America" paranoia,), money/glamour (the Halloways seem to be well off, enough so to send their daughter to a foreign land for her high school grad.). Crime (a victim, she is. But there are many far less glamorous victims lost in foster care in her home state I believe. But middle class white people tend not to care about that, so neither do the politicians, or news editors). This is one of the things that The Daily Show critiques...



Yes, O'Reilly also edits out portions and controls a substantial way the guests on the show is presented. This is patently intellectually dishonest. I've heard the complaint from more than one guest. That O'Reilly in fact "spins" people's comments out of context.



Well thank you for your enlightenment. But I've been through a few news reporting courses myself, and I learned the central facet of news reporting, the main formula, is: The three "C's." Cash, crime, and children(& cute little animals)...

That is, (television, all local and to a lesser extent, the national) news is designed for formulaic appeal. Not for the truth, but for ratings.

So it's hard for me to rank The Onion, or the The Daily Show, much below "Fox and Friends" for credability and truth...

Nick, I'm not even bothering because all the shit you'vesaid about O'reilly i can sum up in one sentence I've already said -- Editorial journalism has different standards than reporting journalism. If you're bitching that it's not fair standards for a newschannel, then you also have issue with editorial reporters in the New York Times and every other reporter who writes in a newspaper.

And a few news reporting courses do not equal an entire degree. If you'd like to update your knowledge, I know a great reporter/professor

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Nick, I'm not even bothering because all the shit you'vesaid about O'reilly i can sum up in one sentence I've already said -- Editorial journalism has different standards than reporting journalism. If you're bitching that it's not fair standards for a newschannel, then you also have issue with editorial reporters in the New York Times and every other reporter who writes in a newspaper.

Yes, but some have no standards.:D

You're never going to convice me that O'Reilly is anything more than a hack filling a niche.'


And a few news reporting courses do not equal an entire degree. If you'd like to update your knowledge, I know a great reporter/professor

How do you know I don't?

[DrMaddVibe]

Why should ANYONE trust the media?

[Nickdfresh]

Why should anyone trust the media?

Why should anyone trust artists/musicians/actors?

Why should anyone trust their government?

Why should anyone trust major, multinational corporations?

Why should anyone trust the church?

Why should anyone trust the party/politicians?

Why should anyone trust partisan/nationalist propaganda?

If you don't trust the media, fine, neither do I really? But what do you trust? What is the alternative?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I rank CBS, NBS, ABS, and MSNBS at the bottom of the pile.

Where can I find "NBS" and "ABS" on TV?:)

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yes, but some have no standards.:D

You're never going to convice me that O'Reilly is anything more than a hack filling a niche.'



How do you know I don't?

Cuz you would have touted out that information a long time ago in one of the various journalism standards threads to try to give your opinion more weight. It's like me trying to convince veterans that my military strategy opinions count more than theirs because I have countless hours of Risk and war movies under my belt.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
But he came across as someone that believes that those watching The Daily Show don't know this, in fact there is a substantial amount of media criticism that goes on with that show, where they make fun of reporters and the way the news is selectively presented, like oh say, news-hero Anderson Cooper conveniently "saving" people in New Orleans...


First of all, Ally, Thank You for taking a stand in my name, I'll take it from here, sweetie.

Ok, Nick, I Love ya like a brother i never met, but WHAT THE FUCK?

I came across as what?
I was very clear on what i posted, there was no hidden meaning in any of it for me to come across as anything other than what i posted, unless you just didn't comprehend the text in front of your face.

Point #1: I never mentioned Bill O'Reilly at all in this thread, so you "assumed" something that isn't true based on something i didn't even say.

Point #2: The first line in my first post stated "I DON'T TRUST ANY MEDIA SOURCE"

So where is the confusion coming from, my friend?

Hey, if you all want to spend your time on this site arguing one invalid bullshit article over another, that's your problem. but don't put thoughts in my head or try to assume you know what makes me tick because you will never come to the right conclusion.

Bill O'Reilly is an Opinion Head, and i do agree with his views on some things, not all, but some.
You see O'Reilly as something he isn't, I don't.
Jon Stewart is a comedian, and I know everyone knows that, but this thread holds him in high regard as a journalist, and that's just ignorant.
First of all, he isn't "Reporting" a damn thing, he's "Spoofing".
What he does is no different than what Johnny Carson has done since he started on The Tonight Show with the only difference being the limits he was able to push it in the early days of television.

Excuse me, but i don't think The Daily Show qualifies as a legit media source any more than i think Fox News, CNN, BBC, or any other news outlet is in todays culture.
let me re-state what you so blatently missed in my forst post, "I DON'T TRUST ANY MEDIA SOURCE!"

But i will say that out of all tv programming, Stewart makes me laugh on purpose.

Just do me a favor in the future, before you go putting words in my mouth to support what i think is skewed thinking. ask me to explain what you don't understand before making false assumptions.
my PM box is still open, i'll respond as i have been to others for days.

And No, i am not "back" except to defend myself here and post a thread to remind some Bozo's what this country was all about since a little thing called The US Constitution was drafted.

Peace

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
But what do you trust? What is the alternative?

I trust NOTHING!

[Millermoos]

What is the alternative?
Happy News anyone?
Millermoos

[scamper]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
But what do you trust? What is the alternative?

Trust your instincts, 99.9% of the people in this world are self serving it's just the way people are. There's nothing wrong with it as long as you learn to recognize it in them and yourself.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Cuz you would have touted out that information a long time ago in one of the various journalism standards threads to try to give your opinion more weight. It's like me trying to convince veterans that my military strategy opinions count more than theirs because I have countless hours of Risk and war movies under my belt.

I'm sick of giving up personal info. to the fabulous internet psychos. It really serves nothing and gives no opinions any weight at all. So I'll say nothing, but I will say that I'm grate at RISK!! I bet I could conquer RUMMY's and Dumbya's territories in under half-an-hour...;)

http://gallery.userfriendly.net/albums/album74/bush_risk1.jpg :D

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Cathedral
First of all, Ally, Thank You for taking a stand in my name, I'll take it from here, sweetie.

Ok, Nick, I Love ya like a brother i never met, but WHAT THE FUCK?

I came across as what?
I was very clear on what i posted, there was no hidden meaning in any of it for me to come across as anything other than what i posted, unless you just didn't comprehend the text in front of your face.

Point #1: I never mentioned Bill O'Reilly at all in this thread, so you "assumed" something that isn't true based on something i didn't even say.

Point #2: The first line in my first post stated "I DON'T TRUST ANY MEDIA SOURCE"

So where is the confusion coming from, my friend?

Hey, if you all want to spend your time on this site arguing one invalid bullshit article over another, that's your problem. but don't put thoughts in my head or try to assume you know what makes me tick because you will never come to the right conclusion.

Bill O'Reilly is an Opinion Head, and i do agree with his views on some things, not all, but some.
You see O'Reilly as something he isn't, I don't.
Jon Stewart is a comedian, and I know everyone knows that, but this thread holds him in high regard as a journalist, and that's just ignorant.
First of all, he isn't "Reporting" a damn thing, he's "Spoofing".
What he does is no different than what Johnny Carson has done since he started on The Tonight Show with the only difference being the limits he was able to push it in the early days of television.

Excuse me, but i don't think The Daily Show qualifies as a legit media source any more than i think Fox News, CNN, BBC, or any other news outlet is in todays culture.
let me re-state what you so blatently missed in my forst post, "I DON'T TRUST ANY MEDIA SOURCE!"

But i will say that out of all tv programming, Stewart makes me laugh on purpose.

Just do me a favor in the future, before you go putting words in my mouth to support what i think is skewed thinking. ask me to explain what you don't understand before making false assumptions.
my PM box is still open, i'll respond as i have been to others for days.

And No, i am not "back" except to defend myself here and post a thread to remind some Bozo's what this country was all about since a little thing called The US Constitution was drafted.

Peace

Points well taken CAT. But I wasn't in any way saying that The DAILY SHOW was news or had journalistic credibility. What I am saying is that the fact that they're honest and say that they are fake news gives them one-up on the talking head bullshit networks that have pretentions as such, but seek not real news, but run images and info. that are little more than appealing ratings getters and teleprompter reading eye-candy (see FOX NEWS especially on that one). I like hot broads as much as anyone, but that's not why I watch the news...

And again, STEWART'S job title maybe one of comedian, but I would bank-on that he is as well read and educated as most journalists are. He is in fact a media critic using satire to take down news programs and journalists, whatever his shows topics.

No, I get my actual news from a paper, or from some printed or electronic form.

I believe Edward R. MURROW would enjoy The Daily Show, I also think the Bill O'REILLYs and FOX News/CNNs are making him turn over in his grave.