Thales

Objective News Media Today?

48 posts in this topic

I predict that Obama, if elected, will figure out a way to put Ayers on the payroll and be part of his cabinet.

And I predict that he will put put Al Gore as head of the EPA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't find any actual lawsuits against Joe, but he certainly has been libelled and investigated. In addition, his right to work as a plumber may be challenged by Tom Joseph, business manager for Local 50 of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters, and Service Mechanics.

As much as I'd hate to see him unable to go back to work and buy that business he wants, there may be a bright side to that. In

, Huckabee tells Joe "you have now been through the worst of politics, you could run for Congress and you're already over the worst of it."

Well, if he can't go back to being a plumber then maybe he WILL end up in politics. We could do with more like him in government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imagine you are transported to a different universe, where journalists are honest and logical. A world where there is a right and a wrong.

[...]

Thank you Barbara West!

Here's someone who was NOT thanking Barbara West and wrote:

I suspect that many conservatives would regard this video interview of Joe Biden as an example of what journalism ought to be:

In fact, it's nothing of the sort. It's blatant partisanship, not objectivity.

Guess who? (link)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imagine you are transported to a different universe, where journalists are honest and logical. A world where there is a right and a wrong.

[...]

Thank you Barbara West!

Here's someone who was NOT thanking Barbara West and wrote:

I suspect that many conservatives would regard this video interview of Joe Biden as an example of what journalism ought to be:

In fact, it's nothing of the sort. It's blatant partisanship, not objectivity.

Guess who? (link)

Barbara West in all likelihood is just another pawn in the neocon's over-arching plan to overthrow America and establish a Christian Theocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's someone who was NOT thanking Barbara West and wrote:
I suspect that many conservatives would regard this video interview of Joe Biden as an example of what journalism ought to be:

In fact, it's nothing of the sort. It's blatant partisanship, not objectivity.

Guess who? (link)

Yes . . . I saw that and immediately wondered whose "blatant partisanship" we were supposed to notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imagine you are transported to a different universe, where journalists are honest and logical. A world where there is a right and a wrong.

[...]

Thank you Barbara West!

Here's someone who was NOT thanking Barbara West and wrote:

I suspect that many conservatives would regard this video interview of Joe Biden as an example of what journalism ought to be:

In fact, it's nothing of the sort. It's blatant partisanship, not objectivity.

Guess who? (link)

While I was glad to see Biden facing tough questions for a change (the same thing happened on Philadelphia's CBS affiliate, with the same Obama camp ban on further interviews), I wasn't impressed with West herself. It seemed to me she was doing nothing more than reading from a script - note how when Biden challenged one of her questions she made no reply and just moved on to the next one, with a pause and a look on her face like she didn't know what to about it.

I would argue that West seemed not to have any understanding backing her up, which would make her a poor interviewer no matter what questions she asks. This could cause an appearance of inflexibility which comes from sticking to a script the way a bad actor does even when a fellow actor flubs a line. A good actor will react and adapt the dialog to accommodate - West seemed incapable of anything like that. Combine that with the fact that the questions would put any leftist on the spot, and one might come away with the mistaken impression of blatant partisanship when the only thing there was relatively incompetent interviewing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I was glad to see Biden facing tough questions for a change (the same thing happened on Philadelphia's CBS affiliate, with the same Obama camp ban on further interviews), I wasn't impressed with West herself. It seemed to me she was doing nothing more than reading from a script - note how when Biden challenged one of her questions she made no reply and just moved on to the next one, with a pause and a look on her face like she didn't know what to about it.

I would argue that West seemed not to have any understanding backing her up, which would make her a poor interviewer no matter what questions she asks. This could cause an appearance of inflexibility which comes from sticking to a script the way a bad actor does even when a fellow actor flubs a line. A good actor will react and adapt the dialog to accommodate - West seemed incapable of anything like that. Combine that with the fact that the questions would put any leftist on the spot, and one might come away with the mistaken impression of blatant partisanship when the only thing there was relatively incompetent interviewing.

But a reporter's job isn't to debate or get into an intellectual sparring match. She asked good, blunt questions and let us see the results. Plus, given the squirmy, slithery nature of Biden I'm not sure trying to press him further would have done any good; for those open enough to see the truth for what it is, her explicitly naming Obama's/Biden's policies for what they are and Biden's subsequent pretentious, mocking non-answers, should have been enough to get the point across.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would argue that West seemed not to have any understanding backing her up, which would make her a poor interviewer no matter what questions she asks.

I don't think that's really fair, given that Biden was hostile to the questions and she probably was afraid of making it seem that she was badgering him. He didn't agree to a debate, he agreed to an interview, so it was only her job to get him to make his views clear to their audience. She asked the right questions, and he evaded them. Her pausing may have been a lack of understanding, or it may have been her deciding whether follow-up would be worthwhile. And she did ask a follow-up on "spreading the wealth", asking him to respond to concerns that they would turn America into Sweden, and again he evaded. I thought she asked the right questions and retained a high level of professionalism - something I can't say of Biden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But a reporter's job isn't to debate or get into an intellectual sparring match. She asked good, blunt questions and let us see the results. Plus, given the squirmy, slithery nature of Biden I'm not sure trying to press him further would have done any good; for those open enough to see the truth for what it is, her explicitly naming Obama's/Biden's policies for what they are and Biden's subsequent pretentious, mocking non-answers, should have been enough to get the point across.

Bah, you beat me to it. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But a reporter's job isn't to debate or get into an intellectual sparring match. She asked good, blunt questions and let us see the results. Plus, given the squirmy, slithery nature of Biden I'm not sure trying to press him further would have done any good; for those open enough to see the truth for what it is, her explicitly naming Obama's/Biden's policies for what they are and Biden's subsequent pretentious, mocking non-answers, should have been enough to get the point across.

I'm not suggesting that an interviewer should debate the interviewee, just that he should be able to adapt his questioning according to the specific answers he gets, and not merely ask things in sequence from a pre-selected list. West showed no such ability, although it would not have been difficult to stay on target for the goal her script was clearly intended to reach, while both keeping Biden on the hot seat and not sounding scripted. And it could even have been done in a way that wouldn't have led to the ban on more interviews.

Good intention, bad execution. It was fun watching Biden squirm, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But a reporter's job isn't to debate or get into an intellectual sparring match. She asked good, blunt questions and let us see the results. Plus, given the squirmy, slithery nature of Biden I'm not sure trying to press him further would have done any good; for those open enough to see the truth for what it is, her explicitly naming Obama's/Biden's policies for what they are and Biden's subsequent pretentious, mocking non-answers, should have been enough to get the point across.

I'm not suggesting that an interviewer should debate the interviewee, just that he should be able to adapt his questioning according to the specific answers he gets, and not merely ask things in sequence from a pre-selected list. West showed no such ability, although it would not have been difficult to stay on target for the goal her script was clearly intended to reach, while both keeping Biden on the hot seat and not sounding scripted. And it could even have been done in a way that wouldn't have led to the ban on more interviews.

Good intention, bad execution. It was fun watching Biden squirm, though.

I don't want to get into a debate on this, but my last point is that there wouldn't be much use in adaptively coming up with new questions in counter to Biden's responses, because you would still get non-answers from him. I would guess that she (or a reporter in general) planned in advance what the most essential, crucial, things were to ask about, and just stuck to that.

Remember though, you won't ever get much of a substantive answer from the party that considers this man to be their patron saint:

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't want to get into a debate on this, but my last point is that there wouldn't be much use in adaptively coming up with new questions in counter to Biden's responses, because you would still get non-answers from him. I would guess that she (or a reporter in general) planned in advance what the most essential, crucial, things were to ask about, and just stuck to that.

I just think a more skilled interviewer could have elicited either exactly what Biden really stands for, in spite of Biden's efforts to evade, or, having reached the point where it's clear nothing honest was to be forthcoming, wrapped up a topic with something along the lines of "So you're not going to answer the question?", let Biden give an answer that showed he wasn't going to, then moved on having demonstrated to any even slightly intelligent viewer that Biden was either lying or avoiding the issue (possibly while leaving Biden thinking he'd "won" - I've seen it done, even did it myself once in a business meeting).

We'll just disagree on this. :blink:

Remember though, you won't ever get much of a substantive answer from the party that considers this man to be their patron saint:
It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.

No argument there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But a reporter's job isn't to debate or get into an intellectual sparring match. She asked good, blunt questions and let us see the results. Plus, given the squirmy, slithery nature of Biden I'm not sure trying to press him further would have done any good; for those open enough to see the truth for what it is, her explicitly naming Obama's/Biden's policies for what they are and Biden's subsequent pretentious, mocking non-answers, should have been enough to get the point across.

I'm not suggesting that an interviewer should debate the interviewee, just that he should be able to adapt his questioning according to the specific answers he gets, and not merely ask things in sequence from a pre-selected list. West showed no such ability, although it would not have been difficult to stay on target for the goal her script was clearly intended to reach, while both keeping Biden on the hot seat and not sounding scripted. And it could even have been done in a way that wouldn't have led to the ban on more interviews.

Good intention, bad execution. It was fun watching Biden squirm, though.

Two things I liked about this interview were that she asked questions that nobody else was asking and she was courageous. They were questions that were dying to be asked and she had the courage to ask them. I loved that. It shocked me when I first saw it.

As to being more nimble afoot with the questioning, you're right, she could have been, although Biden lies about nearly everything, so I'm not sure how much good that would have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barbara West in all likelihood is just another pawn in the neocon's over-arching plan to overthrow America and establish a Christian Theocracy.

There you go again understating the threat. George Bush did it. He arranged to have Karl Rove plan it with Haliburton funding in order to put the Pope in charge of both America and Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barbara West in all likelihood is just another pawn in the neocon's over-arching plan to overthrow America and establish a Christian Theocracy.

There you go again understating the threat. George Bush did it. He arranged to have Karl Rove plan it with Haliburton funding in order to put the Pope in charge of both America and Iraq.

Well everyone knows that Haliburton and the Catholic Church are the shadow government that runs America, and they won't stop until every last middle class family has been devastated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well everyone knows that Haliburton and the Catholic Church are the shadow government that runs America, and they won't stop until every last middle class family has been devastated.

Shadow government, eh? Something more or less like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well everyone knows that Haliburton and the Catholic Church are the shadow government that runs America, and they won't stop until every last middle class family has been devastated.

Shadow government, eh? Something more or less like this?

I am very confused... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well everyone knows that Haliburton and the Catholic Church are the shadow government that runs America, and they won't stop until every last middle class family has been devastated.

Shadow government, eh? Something more or less like this?

I am very confused... :blink:

Yes, shadow governments will do that to ya...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barbara West in all likelihood is just another pawn in the neocon's over-arching plan to overthrow America and establish a Christian Theocracy.

There you go again understating the threat. George Bush did it. He arranged to have Karl Rove plan it with Haliburton funding in order to put the Pope in charge of both America and Iraq.

Well everyone knows that Haliburton and the Catholic Church are the shadow government that runs America, and they won't stop until every last middle class family has been devastated.

Watch it guys, someone may quote you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You people are so clueless. Everyone knows that the real threat is the orbital mind control lasers. You know, the ones that Jewish cabal that runs all the banks built using alien technology.

Get your facts straight before opening your mouths, people. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You people are so clueless. Everyone knows that the real threat is the orbital mind control lasers. You know, the ones that Jewish cabal that runs all the banks built using alien technology.

Get your facts straight before opening your mouths, people. ^_^

That's why I never go anywhere without my tin-foil hat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linked to by Little Green Footballs: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31...d_of_Journalism

The media has succeeded in shielding Barack Obama from journalistic scrutiny. It thereby irrevocably destroyed its own reputation and forfeited the trust that generations of others had so carefully acquired. And it will never again be trusted to offer candid and nonpartisan coverage of presidential candidates.

Worse still, the suicide of both print and electronic journalism has ensured that, should Barack Obama be elected president, the public will only then learn what they should have known far earlier about their commander-in-chief — but in circumstances and from sources they may well regret.

If (reality forbid) that lying socialist/communist/terrorist-loving bastard the Obamessiah is elected, the country faces disaster. But so does he. If he tries to please the "progressive" communists who gave him his start in politics and all his early support, he risks alienating the millions who voted for him believing he was a "centrist." If he holds back turning the country into a People's Republic, he'll alienate the university professors and the press. It is an insoluble dilemma. And all the while, those of us who hate everything he stands for, will be searching out and publicizing, as far as we can, ever more evidence of his unfitness and depravity. Perhaps he'll try to socialize the country, while pretending he isn't--as others have observed, trying to silence dissenters, Hugo Chavez-style, while inventing excuses to "prove" he isn't becoming a dictator.

Let's hope the system of checks and balances will be strong enough to stop him. At least, it should slow him down.

If he were smart, the Messiah would dread becoming president. But he's not smart (not at anything but lying and manipulating, which he's admittedly a master of).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Linked to by Little Green Footballs: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31...d_of_Journalism

The media has succeeded in shielding Barack Obama from journalistic scrutiny. It thereby irrevocably destroyed its own reputation and forfeited the trust that generations of others had so carefully acquired. And it will never again be trusted to offer candid and nonpartisan coverage of presidential candidates.

Worse still, the suicide of both print and electronic journalism has ensured that, should Barack Obama be elected president, the public will only then learn what they should have known far earlier about their commander-in-chief — but in circumstances and from sources they may well regret.

I think he is overestimating the public and its ability, under the circumstances, to learn what is happening. The same thing happened for 3+ terms of Roosevelt's rule. Roosevelt was not the militant ideologue that Obama is. Roosevelt was a power seeking Pragmatist with a political sense of smell and penchant for looney schemes cooked up by his fascist and communist advisors, who provided the ideological drive. But like Obama, Roosevelt was also a lying demagoguic "messiah" with the press acting as full-time cheerleaders, with suppression of dissent rampant from both the "intellectuals" and the government. Most never did catch on to what was done to them.

If (reality forbid) that lying socialist/communist/terrorist-loving bastard the Obamessiah is elected, the country faces disaster. But so does he. If he tries to please the "progressive" communists who gave him his start in politics and all his early support, he risks alienating the millions who voted for him believing he was a "centrist." If he holds back turning the country into a People's Republic, he'll alienate the university professors and the press. It is an insoluble dilemma. And all the while, those of us who hate everything he stands for, will be searching out and publicizing, as far as we can, ever more evidence of his unfitness and depravity. Perhaps he'll try to socialize the country, while pretending he isn't--as others have observed, trying to silence dissenters, Hugo Chavez-style, while inventing excuses to "prove" he isn't becoming a dictator.

Roosevelt made things much worse, too. He not only got away with it, he is still worshipped for it. People he destroyed were mostly never heard from again. Obama and his organization are a more sophisticated version of Roosevelt and his cronies.

Let's hope the system of checks and balances will be strong enough to stop him. At least, it should slow him down.

Roosevelt was slowed down by the Supreme Court, which held his fascist re-organization of industry into syndicates and some other power grabs to be unconstitutional -- which in turn led to the infamous court-packing attempt. The Democrats, which overwhelmingly ruled Congress, stopped that but not the general trend, and Roosevelt appointed and replaced Supreme Court Justices anyway during his extended reign in the White House. That did enormous damage for decades. Supreme Court precedent is worse now than it was then, the Federal Court is mixed with mostly bad factions, and the next president will appoint at least three Supreme Court Justices, probably within the next 4 years. He will also likely have a large majority of progressives in Congress. It will take more than "hope" for "checks and balances" to rein this in.

If he were smart, the Messiah would dread becoming president. But he's not smart (not at anything but lying and manipulating, which he's admittedly a master of).

Power seekers don't dread the exercise of power and never regret having it. There are always scapegoats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites