| Jump to bottom |
Drew: God and your conclusions.........
[Dillon:] ---- Remember now, you are to explain the origins and meaning of existence and life in 25 words or less. ----
.............
Oh, well, why didn't you say so in the first place, Dillon?!
That'll be a piece of cake.
;-)
Drew: God and your conclusions.........
Dillon, please don't feel I'm ignoring you in favor or other posters. It's just that your topic involves a bit more thought. (Which, I hasten to add, doesn't mean that the other posters' topics are simple. Just different.)
Back to the game, though...
8 Mile: I don't think journalistic integrity is a trivial matter
A. Sinner, I read Goldberg's book. (I might even own it; I don't recall.) Thought it was pretty good (assuming he wasn't making stuff up...).
8 Mile: I don't think journalistic integrity is a trivial matter
---- To be honest, my sister would probably agree more with you than with me on most topics. ----
[8 Mile, Rd., MI]
............
Obviously, then, your sister is a brilliant woman!!! (And, I would guess, probably better-looking than both of us...but that's a sexist comment, so I won't say it.)
But don't feel bad; my sisters are sharper than me, too.
;-)
P.S.: I have a feeling that if your sister ran for...oh, say, VP, I might vote for her.
Advanced Studies in Journalism
---- But no one else here displays much knowledge of journalism, so who cares? ----
[8 Mile, Rd., MI]
...........
Actually, 8 Mile, a few people here (and on News Talk) HAVE displayed more than passing knowledge of journalism.
Speaking for myself, while I wasn't a journalist myself, I spent the better part of the last 15 years working closely with journalists, reporters, writers and editors, in newspapers, magazines and broadcast media. My experience included working with TV producers; and an key part of my most recent job was writing press releases for the general media and trade media. Finally, I've written a few feature articles for magazines and newspapers.
(My most recent TV-related project involved helping to script a History Channel documentary and working with a Hollywood producer in Detroit-area filming. Yes, my name---and my company---was listed in the credits....but don't ask me to reveal my "secret identity" or the company. Or the History Channel program.)
All that is not to show off, but to suggest that, yeah, I do know a little something about journalism.
(Of course, you could still argue that, as a nonbeliever, I don't know anything about ethics. Which reminds me of something one of our corporate lawyers once said to me when I started asking him something about ethics: "I'm a lawyer," he said. "What would I know about ethics!" A dry sense of humor, he had.)
;-)
8 Mile: I don't think journalistic integrity is a trivial matter
I respectfully disagree with you, 8 Mile: Intentionally misleading the consumers of news (as opposed to opinion) is not just a violation of textbook journalistic principles, but it undermines the whole idea of a free and open press.
I don't see that as trivial.
In fact, even if the deception is unintended---a result of ignorance or carelessness, for example---it's hardly trivial.
I had said:
"Fox, on the other hand, broadcast old footage with the clear implication that it was fresh video from recent book-tour events. Yes, networks and TV stations often run old footage, but ethical ones usually label it as "file" footage---and don't go out of their way to mislead the viewers."
To which you replied:
"Mislead as to what? ...this is so trivial that it's really not worth our time."
I admit I've only read about these two incidents and haven't seen the reports in question, but it's my impression that the pro-Palin folks at Fox intended to suggest that the crowds at a couple of Palin's recent appearances were bigger and more enthusiastic than, perhaps, they actually had been.
I think your sister would agree that, if my interpretation is accurate, that is a no-no for reputable news organizations.
The larger issue, of course, is our ability to trust that what we're fed as fact is really factual. Unfortunately, modern technology makes such assumptions shaky. And the blurring of differences between genuine news, entertainment and pure opinion has made it even shakier.
As a self-confessed cynic, I don't trust most politicians, but there are ways to deal with them. But if we, as citizens, can't trust the press---or if we are willing to tolerate a press that, like the press in some other countries, is a thinly disguised organ of a political party---then America is in deep, deep trouble. (Deeper, even, that we think.)
I suspect your sister (and any honest journalist) would agree.
Quote of the Day
Hoffer was a pretty bright guy, Lynn.
Interestingly, it was Hoffer who (to my knowledge) coined and popularized the term "true believer" (and explored the psychology behind the phenomenon it refers to).
While in college I read Hoffer's seminal book "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements." As I recall, it was one of the books that propelled me along the path I'm still on today.
Muslim Nations Seeking International Blasphemy Ban
---- Hello? They did not "doctor" photos. They ran old videos as background to a news story. BTW, television stations, newspapers, magazines and other media sources do it all the time. Case in point: Newsweek photo of Palin. ----
[8 Mile, Road]
...........
I think the two examples are dramatically different.
I agree that Newsweek used poor judgment (okay, perhaps even political bias) in running the cheesecake shot of What's-her-name on the cover. However, she had obviously posed for the photo; and Newsweek did not (to my knowledge) claim or imply that the photo had been shot during her book tour.
Fox, on the other hand, broadcast old footage with the clear implication that it was fresh video from recent book-tour events. Yes, networks and TV stations often run old footage, but ethical ones usually label it as "file" footage---and don't go out of their way to mislead the viewers.
Seems to me that's what Fox did---and that IS a violation of journalistic ethics.
Drew: God and your conclusions.........
Dillon,
I'm flattered that you asked. I'll be glad to answer.
Been a busy day today, and probably will be tomorrow. (Oh, and there's a football game, too, I hear.)
But I'll respond as soon as I can find a few minutes. For sure.
(Like you, I'd like to see how others respond, too.)
Gotta get some ZZZZs.
Free Speech
[8 Mile:] ---- I can make light of Drew's persecution of Christians because it's not something that he would do. ----
..........
True. (Maybe.)
But kicking little kittens...I WOULD do that.
;-)
Good news in what has been deleted from the health care bill.
---- The Christian Scientists have lost one. The mandate requiring insurance companies to reimburse for "religious or spiritual health care" is NOT in the merged health care reform bill... ----
...........
Thank God!
Drew and Fundie-Sinner....
That's fine, A. Sinner.
We be cool.
Have a good night.
Drew and Fundie-Sinner....
---- Drew, maybe this review of "Darwin's Black Box" explains the link to the Darwin quote better than I can... ----
[A. Fundamentalist Sinner]
..........
No, it doesn't. Because you still miss the point: Darwin did NOT endorse anything like Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity."
But I appreciate your efforts. Really, I do.
Pray for the President.............................
Lynn: You're probably right: I need to "broaden my horizons" a bit. At least enough to be more tolerant of attitudes like 41fan's. ;-)
.........
Dillon: You said:
"Perhaps your 'experience' is more reflective of a misunderstanding of 'Christian values' on your part than the accurate evaluation of the person or persons you refer to as 'self-anointed'."
.........
Perhaps.
On the other hand, perhaps both I and that "person I refer to" understand "Christian values" pretty well. I do, after all, have 12 years of formal Catholic schooling under my belt, the last 4 under the Jesuits.
Setting aside (for the purpose of this discussion) the theological dimension of Christianity, my idea of Christian values includes compassion, tolerance and love of others. Equally important, it does NOT include hatred, wishing ill on others and dishonesty (which, stretching it a bit, might include fabricating unfavorable stuff about hated political adversaries).
Of course, I understand that there may be morally justified exceptions. For example, I have no problem with wishing (or even praying) that misfortune befall a manifestly evil person (Adolf Hitler, perhaps, or an Osama bin Laden). But I'm not sure Barack Obama has risen to that level.
You said: "Jesus, THE Anointed - Christ, had no aversion to calling out a persons misguided opinions when they were being offered as factual."
Again setting aside peripheral issues (e.g., the historicity of Jesus), I have no problem with that. But I don't think that's what 41fan had in mind with her post.
I could be wrong, of course.
Drew and Fundie-Sinner....
---- Drew, I know it's hard for you, as an Evo-Fundie, to admit... but, yes, Darwin did say that. I quoted him from his book On the Origin of Species, which I'm not sure you've read. ----
[An Egotistical Fundamentalist]
.........
That you insist on being industrial-strength dense about this, A. Sinner, is obvious. What I can't quite figure out is if you're faking your denseness for comic effect (and to keep me responding to you) or if you really, truly just don't get it.
I lean toward the latter 'splanation.
Let's try one more time, Sinner:
What, exactly, is it that you think "Darwin did say" that proves he was advocating "irreducible complexity"?
And what, exactly, do you not get about Darwin's literal rejection of anything remotely resembling "irreducible complexity"?
Can you manage to answer those two questions logically instead of just throwing more dust and insults into the air?
P.S. No, I have not read the whole of Darwin's book. Have you?
Speaking of books, are you into fiction? If so, it seems (based on early reviews) that you might like Sarah's "Wearing Rouge," which hits the shelves today, I believe.
:-)
| Jump to top |
