National Media: Incurious, Unseeing, Infectious

LAZY, STARRY-EYED JOURNALISM LEADS TO BENGHAZI COVERUP, BURYING OF GOSNELL MURDER TRIAL

Posted: April 28, 2013 at 2:07 a.m.

Remember when you could trust the national media to report news completely, objectively and even-handedly ?

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 11 on 04/28/2013

Oh Buddy.
It seems that 'journalism' means television network news.
Not newspapers or news magazines or wire services.
Not PBS or NPR.
Journalists are all TV anchors, not investigative reporters.
Who knew?

Posted by: Coralie

April 29, 2013 at 2:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"friends Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright"
Dishonest use of words.
Decades ago I was on a couple of boards.
I don't know remember any of the people I was with on those boards. They weren't my "friends" merely because I served on a board with them.
Similarly,as a choir member I have attended religious services with seven different ministers, only two of whom I spent time with outside of church and could call a "friend" although I certainly respected all of them.
Politicians tend to have a great many acquaintances, more than the rest of us. These are not all "friends" any more than several hundred people on your Facebook page are really "friends."

Posted by: Coralie

April 29, 2013 at 2:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

According to Wikipedia, "The case has been reported in Associated Press and around the world, but a considerable sense of perception had also built up among some journalists and pro-life groups that there had been a reluctance to report on the trial among mainstream media."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_G...
"60 Minutes" last night aired a segment about a nurse, Charles Cullen, who probably murdered hundreds of patients over a period of many years.
I had not previously heard about this case, either.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162...

Posted by: Coralie

April 29, 2013 at 2:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Here's what would seem to be a really important news story and I wonder if there is a news blackout on it.
What may be the largest ever international collaboration among journalists this month uncovered "the concealed world of tax havens, cracking open the secrets of more than 120,000 offshore companies and trusts and almost 130,000 individual in over 170 nations."
This involves trillions of dollars.
http://www.ibtimes.com/international-...
News outlets in UK, Ireland, India, and Canada picked up on it but not very many in the U.S. One that did is in Youngstown, Ohio.
http://www.vindy.com/news/2013/apr/13...
So have you seen anything about this in the ADG or heard about it on the TV network news?

Posted by: Coralie

April 29, 2013 at 2:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

PBS and NPR? Give us a break Coralie. They are both controlled by progressive liberal phiosophies and agendas. They are both very far from being unbiased sources of facts. Both are operated from a politically progressive liberal perspective that attempts to disguise itself with facts that aren't. Both are at best broadcasters of political propoganda.

The last person to go to for facts is a journalist with a preconceived agenda. Choose your outlet. I can't identify one that doesn't routinely support on side or another. As far as I can see all of it amounts to slanting views from different perspectives

It is interesting that I can read and understand two languages fluently. It is very interesting to read the "news" reported here from whatever source and then read about the same events in "Der Speigel", any of various "Tageblatts", or "Der Frankfurter Zeitung". Afterwards and upon reflection one wonders if they are actually talking about the same events. The bias in views is easily apparent.

It makes me believe there is no real "news" reporting anymore. It is diffucult to find any that are not biased on significant issues. So referencing the "news" from nearly any source doesn't prove an argument one way of another. It merely reflects the view of the reporter or whatever editiorial control they are subject to.

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 29, 2013 at 2:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

And here my friends is a good example of what I'm talking about. Cummon Freebie, let us kow if it is real!

http://weaselzippers.us/2013/04/29/ho...

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 29, 2013 at 3:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "They are both controlled by progressive liberal phiosophies and agendas."
So if I understand you correctly, the media in a country that has far more socialism than we do-- that is, that has market forces that steer toward socialism and social liberalism (which you apparently equate with the "progressive liberalism" that supposedly taints our own news media)-- has more dependable news media that we do. Interesting position. Maybe having more socialism here would make our news media more centrist.

RE "And here my friends is a good example of what I'm talking about."
Here is the full text of the resolution:
http://thehill.com/images/stories/blo...
Note that of the seventeen reasons for the resolution (the "whereases"), conservatives latched on to the one that mentions sex.

Did you present this as an example of the lack of news reporting, or the inanity of what is reported? if the former, explain how selecting one of seventeen reasons for the resolution is news. If the latter, note that this selective, truncated reporting comes mostly from conservative outlets.

Is there any argument that women in developing countries will not suffer these consequences, as well as the others mentioned, as a result of climate change?

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 29, 2013 at 4:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hey Cat, they have been suffering over it for a million different reasons since the beginning of time. What is hillarious is that now it's "climate change". The same thing happens in bad job markets, economic downturns, wars, plagues, political and civil unrest, and yes, just making a few bad decisions on their part.

It is belly clutching hillarious that now we add "climate change" as a significant factor in the exploitation of women for political expediency. Liberals will grasp at any straw to advance their agendas. One must see it as a joke because if they are serious about such associations they aren't funny as much as they are pitiful.

Like "Jed" used to say, "Pitiful, just pitiful!".

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 29, 2013 at 6 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Buddy: "Remember when you could trust the national media to report news completely, objectively and even-handedly?">>

This is ripe with irony coming from Buddy who only knows one trick: rightwing uber conservative all the time. And that would be okay, if only he could get his facts straight once in a while.

Bud: "...the writer’s agendas, blinding biases and laziness.">>

That's Buddy to a tee. Back in 2010 he tried an article on climate change. He got his science all wrong, and I do mean all of it, which certainly smells of extraordinary laziness. Nicely unpacked here: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

When he was extra wound up before the latest election he managed to stuff over 20 errors into a single article. Is that laziness or just blinding bias? Detailed here: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Then the other day he passes along a handful of Dinesh claptrap about Hitler being an atheist. He got that all wrong too: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

So now he goes back to his old hobby horses from 2008:

Bud: "Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright...">>

That's some stinky old stuff right there. How are those old ponies working for his team? https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...

Not so well. Keep talking wingnuts.

Bud: "a “tingle” up anyone’s leg as Obama did Chris Matthew’s. Leg tingles apparently...">>

He never said "tingles." Mr. Matthews gets grumpy when people misquote him like that (he said "thrill").

Bud: "what happened at Benghazi or to penetrate the coverup.">>

There was a cover up? Do tell. Maybe you ought to go back to the Bill Ayers line. Benghazi was a flop for you too. Probably because:
"Attacks on US Diplomatic Targets" http://www.motherjones.com/files/imag...

And for the climax:

Bud: "The laziness of not thinking also allows local media to be infected with national agendas and biases. Without thoughtful editing and rigorous verification, local media can report unverified, even unverifiable stories...">>

Hey Buddy, save that for the autobiography. If you were to subtract the errors, agenda, bias, unverified and false claims in your articles, there wouldn't be much left past your name.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 29, 2013 at 9:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jef: "PBS and NPR? Give us a break...">>

It's a statement of faith in rightwing circles that because these sources are geared to those with some mental maturity (as opposed to say FOX), that they are leftwing. That's just reality kicking in again. Reality has a left-wing bias. This is why Jeff becomes so furious when reality is introduced to him. Some time ago FAIR did a head count of republicans v. Demos and checked:

"Even NPR , characterized by conservative critics as “liberal” radio, favored Republican sources over Democrats by a ratio of more than three to two in a... study of its main news shows (Extra! , 5-6/04). And Republican political domination doesn’t explain the imbalance: In FAIR’s 1993 study of NPR (Extra! , 4–5/93) , when Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, Republicans still outnumbered Democrats 57 to 42 percent.—S.R. and J.H." More details here: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1187

Jef: "liberal perspective that attempts to disguise itself with facts that aren't.">>

Translation: facts that don't accord with the evidence Jeff carries "in his head."

Jef: "I can read and understand two languages fluently.">>

Please don't tell us you are going to claim one of them is English. I've seen your spelling.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 29, 2013 at 9:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Hey Cat, they have been suffering over it for a million different reasons since the beginning of time. What is hillarious is that now it's 'climate change'."
And the resolution's sixteen other citations, which you ignore. But it's nice that you find something hilarious about the suffering of women-- even the ones who have not dated you.

RE "They are both controlled by progressive liberal phiosophies and agendas."
http://specialreports.4thestate.net/l...
http://fair.org/extra-online-articles...

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 30, 2013 at 1:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oh people, ladies and gentlemen. It's all B.S. from the earliest days of our represenative republic reporting that we/they were moving Native American Indians to reservations "for their own good" so better use can made of the land.

All the way to today. Companies don't lie, goverments don't lie, people lie. It is and always will be about stating your case. And has NOTHING to do with the truth. That is the human condition.

Posted by: Andyroo

April 30, 2013 at 6:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

there is only one way to know if you are right...courtesy of Carl Sagan. The Baloney Detection Kit. One must be able to demonstrate one's findings.
Then and only then can you move forward.

Posted by: Andyroo

April 30, 2013 at 6:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

If you cannot see what is so clearly easy to see, you are already a victim of the blatant mind control that the media practices. You have become a useful idiot, no matter how educated or intelligent you are. If you can see the obvious bias and slant of Fox news, but cannot see the same from every other media outlet, then any education you have received has been wasted, and you have blunted any wisdom you might have acquired.

Posted by: Osage

April 30, 2013 at 8:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Excerpt from AlphaC's FAIR article above:

"Republican sources outnumbered Democrats on the NewsHour by 2-to-1 (66 percent vs. 33 percent of all partisan NewsHour sources). Only one source represented a third party...

...even among live guests on the program, Republicans outnumbered Democrats by a 3-to-2 ratio (77 vs. 52).

The NewsHour’s 2-1 imbalance is greater than NPR’s skew towards Republicans, which stood at just over 3-to-2 (61 percent vs. 38 percent), (Extra!, 5-6/04), and less than the 3-1 imbalance FAIR found on the networks (75 percent vs. 24 percent), (Extra!, 5-6/02)."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 30, 2013 at 8:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

It's not who you talk to, it's how you slant the presentation that creates a bias. FFT, you should put your considerable energy towards making a differance, and perhaps you are. But I am truly amazed at your shotgun approach, and your inability to understand how ineffective it is in winning hearts and minds.

Posted by: Osage

April 30, 2013 at 9:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Osage, lead by example. Let's see how effective you are, at something, with your carrot method.

My Dharma, raison d'être so to speak is to inspire people to stand up to nonsense and not put up with naked intellectual sloppiness, which is rampant. When Buddy, or someone puts up something filled with falsehoods they should know they are going to be called on it. There's going to be a little sting.

You can use your carrots, sometimes a stick is appropriate. Humans rarely change their minds about things regardless. However, they can learn to avoid a gentle correction after a while.... "Hmmm, maybe I better check that claim *before* I pass it along."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 30, 2013 at 9:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Perfect Freebie! I agree! Lead, follow or get out of the way! One should lead by example. One should also have definitive proof based on repeatable results. However, none of the examples you provide are anything worth following, nor are they true. It is a sad waste of energy.

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 30, 2013 at 12:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Osage speaks of "the blatant mind control that the media practices."
What is "the media"?
Does he, like Buddy Rogers, define the media as television broadcast news?
"If you can see the obvious bias and slant of Fox news, but cannot see the same from every other media outlet..."
EVERY OTHER?
How about reading Der Spiegel or el Haaretz (translated and online), or wire services Agence France Presse and Reuters along with AP?
How about reading The National Review and The Nation for different perspectives?
Balance the various kinds of bias and do your own thinking.
These cynical pronouncements about "everybody's lying all the time" are based on laziness and simpllistic overgeneralizations.

Posted by: Coralie

April 30, 2013 at 12:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

There is bias in almost all "news" reporting. The facts went out with Walter Cronkite and Howard Cosell. Through mergers and aquisitions media companies have concentrated their control of what people see, hear and read. They dominate distribution of information and are anything but unbiased.

While they are "supposed" to provide accurate information in programming that fulfills community needs they actually do less and less to serve the public by promoting any of various agendas and points of view by controlling everything from initial production to final distribution, subject matter, and what to report or not.

It extends beyond "news" programming to sitcoms, documentaries (anyone want a dose of Michael Moore or Al Gore?) and other forms of entertainment including advertising. What the papers, magazines, periodicals, the boob tube, and internet provide are pretty much all part of someone's agenda somewhere whether they are valid and true or not.

You can't trust them so the only way to know the truth is to check it out and see for yourself. Since that isn't possible for everything there is just a lot of stuff you are never going to know for sure. Accepting what others pontificate just because you are unable to verify for yourself doesn't excuse one from any responsibility to do so.

There are a lot of things you are just never going to really know, and you can't be assured of finding the answers in the media or on the internet. All the large and influential professional "news" sources are crafted to serve some purpose, promote some kind of agenda or propoganda, affect people's thinking, or to serve other purposes that have one thing in common. Bias that is sometimes subliminal and at others overt or covert, but in every case indoctrination of the masses. That's the painful truth.

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 30, 2013 at 1:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jef: "One should also have definitive proof...">>

Definitive proof? We can't even get you to stop complaining about people simply backing up their claims with careful, verifiable reference or even something rather than nothing. And this, based upon nothing more than it causing your emotion based beliefs discomfort. You give lip service to the terms "evidence and proof" because it has a nice ring to it but as is clear from your posts, you have only a passing interest or familiarity with those things.

J: "none of the examples you provide are anything worth following, nor are they true.">>

Will Jeffie ever someday learn to argue with something beyond his mere assertions? I'm beginning to doubt it. Humans are creatures of habit and he didn't get this far out in the bushes without a lot of practice.

J: "documentaries (anyone want a dose of Michael Moore...">>

Wingnuts like to lie about MM (and Gore) but I've investigated a great deal of what they have to throw, in detail, and it doesn't hold up. In fact that's kind of how I got into the political debate stuff, I noticed that everything the cons were throwing at Gore in 2000 was false. Everything. Which is pretty amazing.

Kind of what they tried to do with Obama. See:

"Debunking Almost Every Republican Lie Against President Obama"
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/de...

That's just an article so it's very abbreviated and only whacks about 15 examples. To do it right would require a book or two.

A nice thing about MM is that he provides footnotes and references for the claims in his movies. Who else does that? Jeffie has no interest in that since he has an endless well of "evidence in his own head," but for people interested in knowing what is going on in the world outside of their head, it's a very useful thing.

For instance, references for Sicko: http://michaelmoore.com/books-films/f...

And: Capitalism: http://michaelmoore.com/books-films/f...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 30, 2013 at 3:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thanks for the nice words about me Freebe. Love ya forever too, Yours, MM

Posted by: JailBird

April 30, 2013 at 4:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "It's not who you talk to, it's how you slant the presentation that creates a bias."
Except that when your reporting is interview-based, it is the responsibility of those who are interviewed to control the presentation. And when most of your interviews are with a particular "side", that "side" has a built-in advantage.

Note that there was more negative coverage of Obama than of Republican contenders/Romney during the 2012 election because there were more Republicans being interviewed.

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 30, 2013 at 5:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jeffieboy says "Through mergers and aquisitions media companies have concentrated their control of what people see, hear and read."
This is very true and most people don't know how concentrated media ownership is. These are mega corporations.
Ignorance leads to the ludicrous idea that these congolomerates, which also own other businesses such as defense contractors, would go against their own interests by pushing liberal ideas and candidates.

Posted by: Coralie

April 30, 2013 at 6:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

But I still advocate discriminating and critical reading/viewing/listening to a wide variety of news sources.

Posted by: Coralie

April 30, 2013 at 6:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

For the record I'm a gun owning, God fearing , Conservative and I like NPR.
You get interesting facts behind the news, more than just a 20 sec sound bite that's means nothing.
However, you do have to be able to tell the difference between whats news and what's commentary.
Maybe that's why some dont like it., they can't distinguish between the two.
You want biased news listen to Fox News, it stinks.

Posted by: P5harri

April 30, 2013 at 7:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "Maybe that's why some dont like it., they can't distinguish between the two.">>

I think you've nailed it.

P5: "You want biased news listen to Fox News, it stinks.">>

Yes it does. And a big chunk of MSNBC is pretty much the same. Yammering heads filling time with jibber jabber. It's pretty much unbearable in the election off season as they tread water. I actually choose to switch the satellite radio over to the Techo stuff or Howard Stern because it's more intelligent.

D.
-----------
"And like it or hate it, it [Al Jazeera] is really effective. And in fact viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it's real news. You may not agree with it, but you feel like you're getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news which, you know, is not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners."
--Hillary Clinton, telling us (correctly) that our news in the US, is crap.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 30, 2013 at 8:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thanks for your agreement Coralie. One must be very careful and I agree that using every source available is important. One must have the common sense and experience to sort it out and that is a personal responsibility.

On the other hand the "Huffington Post" is about as radical a left wing progressive propoanda machine that it boggles the mind that anoyone would reference it as factual and in good faith as anything that could possibly be reliable source of anything.

In addition expecting the lawyer "Hillary" to come clean on anything after her well known participation on so many scandals, illegal activities, and misdeeds that are too numerous to mention and recent evasive testimony before Congress is infantile and rediculous at best.

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 30, 2013 at 11:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeff can't deny the Hillary quote so he just smears the source and runs. This from a guy that peddled a well known fake Washington quote and didn't have the courage to admit it. Notice the difference, when I debunked his quote (Coralie saw it first!), notice the difference. His quote was refuted with reference, and he acknowledged nothing. Just song & and dance and avoidance of reality.

Jef: ""Huffington Post"... boggles mind... [how] anoyone would reference it as factual...">>

The quote in question is easily verifiable on many sites. Here's ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/...

Let me know if you need more. Your genetic fallacy smear the source bit is an old routine and it can't possibly accomplish anything for you. It never does, it can't. That's why it's a logical fallacy. Address the data, if you can.

J: "Hillary"... her well known participation on so many... illegal activities, and misdeeds... too numerous to mention...">>

"Too numerous to mention," which is why I suppose Jeffie can't manage to even mention a single example of an "illegal activity" she has participated in.

They're just too "numerous."

D.
----------
"My evidence is in my head and usually not derived from conjectures and misinformation spread around by others." --jeffieboy, April 23, 2013

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 1, 2013 at 12:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Last survey results I read NPR has more self-identified conservative listeners than any other group of listeners.

Posted by: cdawg

May 1, 2013 at 2:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

jeff
if you want radical, it ain't the Huffington Post. Check out Susan Faludi. Read some of Counter Currents.
you ain't seen nothing! Susan will tear you a new one.

Posted by: Andyroo

May 1, 2013 at 8:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Susan will tear you a new one."
Given the amount of use and abuse jeffieboy's old one has been subjected to with his recent spate of posts, he needs a new one.

Posted by: AlphaCat

May 1, 2013 at 12:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thanks for the tip Andy, but I'm not interested in mythical thinking, misdirection, redifinition, or any other misreporting and misrepresentation and don't read the senseless drivel either side puts out. One is just as "bad" as the other. The only difference between them is that they stand on opposite sides of the fence, and the only thing they have in common is that they are both wrong about just about everything.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 1, 2013 at 1:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"the senseless drivel either side puts out. One is just as "bad" as the other."
Agreed that much of what we hear is a Punch and Judy show. But you yourself have bought into it, jeffie, assuming that there are just two sides.
^^^
THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO SIDES!

Posted by: Coralie

May 1, 2013 at 1:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Yes there are more than two. But for some reason only two get the vast majority of attention. I am not part of either so that leaves me wondering what part I am. One thing is for sure, I see the insanity of the left and the right and I don't want anything do do with either. I think that anyone with any common sense and a bit of personal responsiblity that is concerned with the principles of personal freedom and responsibility to themselves, their families, communities, state, and nation should do their best to dismantle both of them. I do my best.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 1, 2013 at 2:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'm forming bad habits. I'm becoming like a certain freebie. I was mining the internet and found something astonishing. Can it possibly be real? Can it be true?

http://newjersey.watchdog.org/

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 2, 2013 at 10:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jef: "I'm forming bad habits. I'm becoming like a certain [person who backs up their claims with reference].">>

Baby steps. They grow up so fast.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 2, 2013 at 11:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

What that organization revelas is that public sector unions are stealing the public blind. I can't see a better reason to abolish the whole notion of "public servants" being represented and protected by unions. They seem pretty unreasonably expensive to be called "servants", "thieves" is more like it.

A soldier that loses both arms and legs in war might clear $20K in disability payments annually dependent on military rank and gets VA care for life.

It is disgusting that civilian government workers like firemen, policemen, and yes...even teachers and various administrators, can collect well in excess of 6 figures, sometimes tax free, with full health benefits for life for not really doing very much in comparison.

It's pretty disgusting.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 2, 2013 at 2:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

A lot of important stuff gets left out of the MSM. For instance see the following, regarding the hunger strike at Guantanomo: Apparently 86 prisoners have been already cleared for release but are stuck in limbo.
"Gitmo is not all his fault: Congress imposed roadblocks, including a prohibition on giving the prisoners civilian trials. But it is a real failure of presidential leadership even so, given Obama's many missed opportunities, including his weirdly passive refusal to be proactive in dealing with the 86 inmates who've been cleared by our own intelligence agencies for transfer out."
For heaven's sake, if they've been cleared, let them out!
Probably in the wrong place at the wrong time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/w...
http://readersupportednews.org/opinio...

Posted by: Coralie

May 2, 2013 at 5:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What does Guantanamo Bay have to do with public employees stealing from their betters? I lived with Muslims in the Mideast and can assure you that many of them, especially the radical ones, aren't worth a moment of consideration or respect from any rational person. They are worse than mindless animals. We call them Hadg. They are surely beneath consideration for anyone hat is civlilized.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 2, 2013 at 6:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )