When s it OK to use the press as a weapon

[gowlerk 2,190]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

No - your assumptions of me are coloring your inferences.

The vagueness and open ended quality of your posts, something I know you do on purpose, is what leads to needing to take your posts "literally". The title of the thread, and the content of your OP are what is guiding me. You must be a land turtle but you try to be slippery like a swamp dwelling turtle.

[turtlespeed 220]

11 hours ago, jakee said:

Lol what? You have a problem with news outlets telling the truth? Get over it, snowflake.

 

The 1st amendment lets you tell all of us what your political beliefs are. It lets you write them down and publish them so you can tell more people. It lets you write down and distribute what you think about current events through the lens of your politics. But you shouldn't be able to do that if you're part of a media outlet, even when what you're saying is true and accurate?

That's EXACTLY the opposite of what I said.

(Side Note - Be Careful . . . I was recently banned for an equal or lesser use of words . . . If all is fair, anyway.)

If an entity can have that influence then - No, it has a responsibility to tell the truth, or it is simply  entertainment, not news.

 

 

 

[wmw999 2,444]

Everyone, and every media source, has a bias, because it’s done by humans, who are inherently biased. The honest ones admit and identify their bias, or say where they’re coming from. 

“Reporting just the facts” is not a good way to look at it, because the choice of facts can be biased just as much as anything else. That’s why context, and being honest with it, matters. 

After all, it’s truth that the Bible has the words “put to death men and women, children and infants,” but devout Christians generally don’t that into practice because in Samuel it refers to the Amalekites. And yes, I know you’re not a devout Christian.

I’d like to see less conflating of editorials with hard news, and more questioning of one’s own biases, and honest appraisal that one might not be the best person to deliver a particular story. 

Wendy P. 

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

2 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Everyone, and every media source, has a bias, because it’s done by humans, who are inherently biased. The honest ones admit and identify their bias, or say where they’re coming from. 

“Reporting just the facts” is not a good way to look at it, because the choice of facts can be biased just as much as anything else. That’s why context, and being honest with it, matters. 

After all, it’s truth that the Bible has the words “put to death men and women, children and infants,” but devout Christians generally don’t that into practice because in Samuel it refers to the Amalekites. And yes, I know you’re not a devout Christian.

I’d like to see less conflating of editorials with hard news, and more questioning of one’s own biases, and honest appraisal that one might not be the best person to deliver a particular story. 

Wendy P. 

Well, of course there has to be an editorial bias. 

It's utterly impossible not to have one to some degree. 

The important part is how much it colors the facts. Both in the stories that are presented and the way they are presented. 

The same story on Fox or MSNBC will have a very different 'flavor'. 

As with so many other things, getting the whole picture involves getting information from more than one source. Preferably from sources that have opposing views, but openly admit their positions and attempt to present more than 'just their side of the story'.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

No - your assumptions of me are coloring your inferences.

I am saying that the media should not be used by Trump.  Not as a weapon, or as a crutch.

The media should be facts, not opinions.

So if President trump states his opinion that he believes Mexico is unable to control their crime problem and he is of the opinion the US will invade Mexico if crime has not been reduced in 6 months. You think this should not be reported, because they are opinions?

You think that if the Chair of the Federal Reserve gives his view on the state of the economy, this shouldn't be reported because that is an opinion?

How do you see this all working?

[turtlespeed 220]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

So if President trump states his opinion that he believes Mexico is unable to control their crime problem and he is of the opinion the US will invade Mexico if crime has not been reduced in 6 months. You think this should not be reported, because they are opinions?

You think that if the Chair of the Federal Reserve gives his view on the state of the economy, this shouldn't be reported because that is an opinion?

How do you see this all working?

Reporting the statements, if it is a fact that they said them = News.

A reporter with an opinion giving that opinion = Entertainment.

[gowlerk 2,190]

13 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

A reporter with an opinion giving that opinion = Entertainment.

But not a weapon?

Edited December 10, 2019 by gowlerk

[jakee 1,489]

3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

No - your assumptions of me are coloring your inferences.

I am saying that the media should not be used by Trump.  Not as a weapon, or as a crutch.

You seriously have not said that. In your post 19 reply to Gowlerk you damn near say the exact opposite.

[jakee 1,489]

3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

That's EXACTLY the opposite of what I said.

No it's not. It is what you said. You said it's not enough to tell the truth. You said you have a problem with news outlets telling the truth if they're not going out of their way to tell the exact same equal amount of truth about both sides. 

 

The very, very strong inference being you don't even see how it's more in the public interest to uncover the misdeeds of the freakin 'leader of the free world' - whoever it might be at the time - than some random members of the opposition party. It's ridiculous how biased you have to be to make that argument.

 

Quote

If an entity can have that influence then - No, it has a responsibility to tell the truth,

Ermm, you agreed they were telling the truth in this scenario. Non-sequitur much?

 

Quote

or it is simply  entertainment, not news.

Ok cool, so they're entertainment and not the press. So why did you start this thread to talk about a non-existent problem? No-one is using the press as a weapon, they're just entertainers. Happy now?

Edited December 10, 2019 by jakee

[turtlespeed 220]

8 minutes ago, jakee said:

You seriously have not said that. In your post 19 reply to Gowlerk you damn near say the exact opposite.

 

Quote

 

Post #19::

In politics it is always okay to use the press as a weapon. It is the essence of politics. How well you can do it is a huge part of success in politics. For example, Trump is a master at it.

I partly disagree.  But MOSTLY agree with this.

"Always" is not correct in my way of thinking.

Its normalized deviance from the spirit of what the 1st amendment stands for. 

 

Yes, I partly disagree That it is the essence of politics.  I partly disagree that it is always the only way you can do well in politics.

I WHOLE HEARTEDLY think Trump is a master at it.

That doesn't make it right.

That doesn't make it the correct thing to allow.

I also know that my opinion is very black and white - I know the use of media not going to change and will get even worse.

I also believe that news should be news and not presented as entertainment.

 

 

[turtlespeed 220]

9 minutes ago, jakee said:

No it's not. It is what you said. You said it's not enough to tell the truth. You said you have a problem with news outlets telling the truth if they're not going out of their way to tell the exact same equal amount of truth about both sides. 

 

The very, very strong inference being you don't even see how it's more in the public interest to uncover the misdeeds of the freakin 'leader of the free world' - whoever it might be at the time - than some random members of the opposition party. It's ridiculous how biased you have to be to make that argument.

 

Ermm, you agreed they were telling the truth. Non-sequitur much?

I think you are having difficulty separating opinions that you agree with from truth, and the definition of truth.

[gowlerk 2,190]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

I also believe that news should be news and not presented as entertainment.

Historically it has mostly been used to sell products.

[jakee 1,489]

15 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Reporting the statements, if it is a fact that they said them = News.

A reporter with an opinion giving that opinion = Entertainment.

But in that situation, without any balance, the 'news' are simply mouthpieces for party statements. You've seen Ron's OANN links, right? They're basically a propaganda machine for the Administration because all they do is quote verbatim Republican statements with zero balance, fact checking or analysis. But with the above criteria you would call them one of the only genuine news outlets. It's utter nonsense and you know it, because you know politicians lie.

 

So, politicians lie, we all agree on that. But most people don't have the time or background to fact check truth and lies on their own because they're not economists or criminologist or qualified in whatever subject is being discussed. But the news can get in experts to qualify the public statements of the officials. And the news can report these and still be reporting the facts - because they're reporting the fact of what the expert said, even if what the expert said is his opinion. But it's still factual news, right? You agree, of course.

 

Now here's the rub - good journalists at the major outlets are experts in politics. They are qualified. It's their world. So, given what we just discussed and what you agreed to in terms of factual reporting of opinions... why can't they give theirs?

[jakee 1,489]

9 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

 

Yes, I partly disagree That it is the essence of politics.  I partly disagree that it is always the only way you can do well in politics.

I WHOLE HEARTEDLY think Trump is a master at it.

That doesn't make it right.

That doesn't make it the correct thing to allow.

OK, you seriously need to get better at expressing yourself. There were 4 sentences in that post. Three were saying it is both OK and part and parcel of politics to use the press as a weapon. Only one was about Trump. You said you mostly agreed with the post.

 

If the only bit you agreed with was the Trump statement, it's your fault you were misunderstood and you have no right to accuse others of pigeon holing you.

[jakee 1,489]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

I think you are having difficulty separating opinions that you agree with from truth, and the definition of truth.

Read post 21. See what you said. You absoutely, indisputably stated having a problem with journalists who are telling the truth.

 

When you expect such unreasonable and impossible high standards from the press it's ironic that you become so slimy and dishonest whenever you realise you're losing an argument.

Edited December 11, 2019 by jakee

[SkyDekker 1,465]

45 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Reporting the statements, if it is a fact that they said them = News.

A reporter with an opinion giving that opinion = Entertainment.

Jakee already covered this, but this is quite asinine. It would not allow for any fact checking or presenting any counter opinion. What you are proposing is effectively a blueprint to state run propaganda.