Some media quotes

[Geggy]

Thought I'd throw in some media quotes...

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." -William Colby, Former Director, CIA

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
- David Rockefeller, Baden-Baden, Germany 1991

"There is no such thing as an independent press in America, unless it is in the country towns. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.

I am paid $150.00 a week for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should permit honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, like Othello, before twenty-four hours, my occupation would be gone.

The business of the New York journalist is to destroy truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon; to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. We are the tools and vessels for rich men behind the scenes. We are intellectual prostitutes."
- John Swinton, editor of the New York Tribune.

"We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets, and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows."
- Katherine Graham, Washington Post publisher and CFR member.

"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."
- Richard Salent, former president, CBS News

"We are going to impose our agenda on the coverage by dealing with issues and subjects that we choose to deal with."
- Richard M. Cohen, Senior Producer of CBS political news.

"We in the press like to say we're honest brokers of information and it's just not true. The press does have an agenda."
- Bernard Goldberg, as quoted by Harry Stein in the June 13-19, 1992 TV Guide.

“In war, the truth must be guarded by a bodyguard of lies.”
- Winston Churchill

[Grislygus]

Interesting, this (http://www.circleofprayer.com/media.html) jackass uses a lot of the same quotes.


You know, I'd like to see whatever article that John Swinton quote came out of. I've never heard of the guy, so I'd like to see it in context before I condemn him as a bloody whore, who you should be ashamed of quoting.

Wait a tic, look at this (http://www.constitution.org/pub/swinton_press.htm).

Despite the misattribution, the quote raises the issue of whether there is not continuing truth in Swinton's remarks, and whether some candid journalist might not be able to fairly say similar things today. Anyone who has associated closely with journalists can hardly avoid finding a ring of truth in such words, and the best evidence lies in the actual product of journalists and how well, or how poorly, it both agrees with and covers what actually happens, especially involving such things as corruption and abuse of power.

Thought so. Not exactly as black and white as all that, is it?

[El Blanco]

Geggy, what is your point and where is that appology?

Are you capable of any independant thought at all?

[Grislygus]

The point is that the media and all journalists are whores, a point with which I take great offense, and the CIA and/or government is in cahoots.

The Churchill quote is just tacked on, though.

[El Blanco]

I was hoping geggy could actually give his own thoughts instead of crap cut-n-pasted from someone else. But then again, he is a lying, plagerising, self important bitch that likes to accuse people of supporting Nazis, use white supremeacy propoganda to back his points and piss on the graves of victims of terrorist attacks.

I guess I'm holding him to too high a standard.

[kahljorn]

Although I generally find it irrelevant to quote materials up to 300 years in referance to current events, I have to agree with geggy a bit here. Whether I agree that newspapers actually make bold faced lies because of the government is another issue.

Anyway, it's not as if there hasn't been a history of governmental (sometimes even religous) interferance in literature, journalism and science-- even up until recently. Perhaps accepting that there is a governmental agenda behind the papers you read would be rather difficult, but it's not really all that improbable. Personally, in modern times, I'd be more likely to condemn the entertainment industry than the government for newspaper inaccuracies.
Still, how often do stories we would find important get burried in a mass of shit beneath pictures of celebraties or why gay people should be banned from public? Why did every other place in the world have that TIME thing on Bush, whereas we had it on celebrity pictures? Again, whether this is entertainment or political pressure is hard to detect-- perhaps it's both.

[Grislygus]

Well yes, it's easy to see how journalists can abuse their position. It happens (just look at that bastard from the New York Times), and it usually pays off for the perpetrators (he got a frigging book deal).

However, that's why there's a rigid ethical code for journalists, and that's why any legitimate and highly though of journalist adheres to that code. While there are irresponsible individuals, that's NOT the de facto mentality, and journalists are NOT all giving the government blowjobs.

Of course, I doubt Geggy has ever interned at a newspaper, and I don't think he's even taken a serious journalism class, so I can understand why it's easy for people like him to look at the minority and use it to judge the entire profession. However, I still find the assumption blatant, greatly offensive, and woefully ignorant.

[El Blanco]

I have to agree with geggy a bit here.

Agree with what? He hasn't said a goddamned thing. You, I and any reasonable person here can see these quotes as all refering to the ways and reasons the media presents information to the public. However, geggy has been caught many times posting articles and links that have nothing to do with what he is saying.

[kahljorn]

"However, that's why there's a rigid ethical code for journalists, and that's why any legitimate and highly though of journalist adheres to that code."

lol. I don't know what to say about this. First off, most journalists are idiots. Secondly, most journalists don't give a damn about morals. It may seem like they have some ethical code, but they usually don't. Maybe it's just because I usually read local papers (but it's not limited to local papers) but I can always see the journalists perspective in the matter. The journalist ethic is supposed to be honest, grey "truth"(just the facts, mam!). Has that ever happened?
They adhere to "it" (the moral code) because if they don't they can get fired-- but only if they are perceived as doing something immoral, which would naturally reflect the spirit of the times.

"journalists are NOT all giving the government blowjobs"

I agree, they aren't all doing that, but I feel that the ones writing for the more prestigous magazines usually do-- possibly by necessity. You know, public opinion, contributor opinion etc.
Also, a point I'd like to bring up here about why geggy's an idiot: there's more than one "Government"! I mean, some people(journalists) will blow democrats and make a huge deal out of how NINE ELEVEN IS A HUGE CATASTROPHE CONSPIRACY THEORY CAUSED BY THE DEVIL GOVERNMENT (and geggy'll quote them) and others will blow republicans about how gays are gay and the war in Iraq is going beautifully. Again, though: Journalistic Ethic? Please.
A year or three later all of that will be opposite(except maybe the gay thing).

"However, I still find the assumption blatant, greatly offensive, and woefully ignorant"

What about the quotes he posted? Weren't some of those people journalists? They weren't making assumptions, so is their opinion, which was gathered by experience, valid and worth considering?

Whether the government seriously completely controls the news paper is one thing, but it's ignorant to imagine a government or political body that doesn't use the media for their own benefit and for the management of the populus.

el blanco: i don't know. I don't know geggy's point really but i know it's something about how the government is evil. But I italized the "A bit" part because I figured somebody would respond to me asking about it and I didn't want to have to answer.

[ItalianStereotype]

The business of the New York journalist is to destroy truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon; to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. We are the tools and vessels for rich men behind the scenes. We are intellectual prostitutes."
- John Swinton, editor of the New York Tribune.

I am paid $150.00 a week for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should permit honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, like Othello, before twenty-four hours, my occupation would be gone.


I, for one, would think that the business of selling one's country and race on a daily basis would net a little more than $7,800 a year.

[Miss Modular]

I am paid $150.00 a week for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should permit honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, like Othello, before twenty-four hours, my occupation would be gone.

I, for one, would think that the business of selling one's country and race on a daily basis would net a little more than $7,800 a year.

Yeah, especially since $7,800 is probably what you pay for rent a month in NYC.

[Grislygus]

"However, that's why there's a rigid ethical code for journalists, and that's why any legitimate and highly though of journalist adheres to that code."

lol. I don't know what to say about this. First off, most journalists are idiots. Secondly, most journalists don't give a damn about morals. It may seem like they have some ethical code, but they usually don't. Maybe it's just because I usually read local papers (but it's not limited to local papers) but I can always see the journalists perspective in the matter. The journalist ethic is supposed to be honest, grey "truth"(just the facts, mam!). Has that ever happened?
They adhere to "it" (the moral code) because if they don't they can get fired-- but only if they are perceived as doing something immoral, which would naturally reflect the spirit of the times.

This is the assumption of someone who has never worked at a paper, and never actually studied journalism. It's a widely held opinion, and easy to cling to. It hurts, but there's no way I can really debate it, because it relies on what people want to believe.

"journalists are NOT all giving the government blowjobs"

I agree, they aren't all doing that, but I feel that the ones writing for the more prestigous magazines usually do-- possibly by necessity. You know, public opinion, contributor opinion etc.
Also, a point I'd like to bring up here about why geggy's an idiot: there's more than one "Government"! I mean, some people(journalists) will blow democrats and make a huge deal out of how NINE ELEVEN IS A HUGE CATASTROPHE CONSPIRACY THEORY CAUSED BY THE DEVIL GOVERNMENT (and geggy'll quote them) and others will blow republicans about how gays are gay and the war in Iraq is going beautifully. Again, though: Journalistic Ethic? Please.
A year or three later all of that will be opposite(except maybe the gay thing).

You know, journalism covers a wide variety of subjects outside of politics. And there's a clear difference between reporting and editorializing. A journalist's job is to be as impartial as possible. You can't be TRULY impartial, you just do the best you can. That is why there are clear rules of conduct, and they are followed. Please don't scoff at them.

"However, I still find the assumption blatant, greatly offensive, and woefully ignorant"

What about the quotes he posted? Weren't some of those people journalists? They weren't making assumptions, so is their opinion, which was gathered by experience, valid and worth considering?

John Swinton was the only actual journalist listed. He lived in the 1800s. The CBS quotes were from the McCarthy era.

Whether the government seriously completely controls the news paper is one thing, but it's ignorant to imagine a government or political body that doesn't use the media for their own benefit and for the management of the populus.

That is a highly heated topic, and I'm not qualified to argue it. however, I would like to clear something up.

"We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets, and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows."
- Katherine Graham, Washington Post publisher and CFR member.

No one who actually knows anything about journalistic responsibilites will completely disagree with this.

HOWEVER, pretty much every journalist will forcefully disagree with the extent to which it's applied. Unfortunately, people like Geggy take quotes like this and portray it as ironclad government control over the media.

[Ant10708]

Why did every other place in the world have that TIME thing on Bush, whereas we had it on celebrity pictures? Again, whether this is entertainment or political pressure is hard to detect-- perhaps it's both. It was on Afganstan not Bush and I think ti has more to do with what interests Americans and wills ell a magazine than HIDING THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Preechr]

Back in the earlier part of the last century, your average metropolitan area would generally be served by 15-20 or more newspapers, each one with it's own slant on the news of the day. It was much more like the internet is now, only on paper, and gay. The problem is not that the media is biased... there's no way to assure that we could EVER have a media that's not biased in some way or another... The problem is that the people of today are morbidly retarded.

If your mind is an empty well, anything anyone wants to drop in it has exaggerated value. We think by comparing new information to knowledge we already possess. Let's use Geggy as an example: He woke up intellectually one day to read an allcaps blurb on how 9/11 was an inside job manufactured by the Bush Crime Family. He had no personal knowledge with which to compare that shocking new information, and he liked the sound of it, so he categorized it as fact.

Deep down inside, he knows the websites he is reading are a bunch of crap drizzled out by lifeless blobs of parasitic goo with fantastic imaginations and no real connection to how the world really works because they've spent most of their adult lives so far in grandma's basement chewing hotpockets and pecking away at their keyboards in search of the e-female of their dreams they know is out there somewhere frantically searching for their love... but the truth probably hits a bit too close to home and the fantasy is just so much more appealing...

That's basically about 50% of America. It's sad, but entirely in line with the history of other great civilizations, though the internet part is a recent addition. The luxury of a truly free and economically vibrant society (which go hand and hand) has a pretty bad effect on it's citizens over time. When we are free, we are, unfortunately, free to live as self-destructively and nihilistically as we wish.

Journalists are, of course, just as fucked up as the rest of their society, but they are not the problem. We are.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

The point is that the media and all journalists are whores, a point with which I take great offense, and the CIA and/or government is in cahoots.

The Churchill quote is just tacked on, though.
The Churchhill quote is the only interesting one.

I know mainstream media colours half truths to sell more papers and endorse the politics they want. But I don't really buy the "alternative" media as people cal it cause that's just some redneck in a shack.

Your best bet for news is to resource every source on it and gather as much you as you can on a story from differing networks.

Here is an example:

CNN: Israeli's blow up ambulance, kills civilian

BBC news: Israeli artillery blew up an ambulance in Beirut during the Lebanese war, few pix etc.

EVENTUAL full news sometimes as tiny retraction later or earlier at local news sites in the region: That ambulance was being used as a transport for Hamas armed gunman and the driver was a human shield. As usual Israel peppered the streets with "LEAVE town NOW" leaflets during protests days befor opening fire on militants when they had the least human shields, all pix and relevant things linked too.

Ironic thing? Israel's satellite station now carries Al Jazeera and NOT BBC, the reason given? Al Jazeera was less anti-semetic in their reporting so was less offensive.

Of course there is also the blatant Republican Fox News and the blatantly Democrat ABC news. But a smart person isn't told what to think by either party OR some crazy Geggy in a shack with conspiracey theories. they research all they can and think logicly. At least I assume SOMEONE does I haven't seen them on the internet yet.

Republican biased media won't tell the true danger in Iraq and the state of the war.

Democrat Biased media doesn't report a thing about 80s era WMDs and mustard gas being found and destroyed in Iraq.

Green party biased media smokes weed, forgets to go to work, instead types on internet conveluted pothead theory about 9/11 and feeds it to Geggy.

[Preechr]

Preechr's just some redneck in a shack.

HEY!

[Geggy]

Sorry I have a habit of listening to someone who has been in the game :rolleyes

I'll come back and explain what I learned from the recent protest at galladuet university in DC and the mainstream media. The media is so full of shit. The PR office at the university is partly to blame.

[Geggy]

By the way I've come to a conclusion regarding 9/11 because I have some juicy inside information. :(

*cough*otisairforcebase*cough*

[CreativeOnlineSurname]

You astound me.

How can someone so clueless be so condescending?

[kahljorn]

i wasnt even going to respond to this thread any further because i keep getting gay responses but here we go anyway I'm really bored:

"This is the assumption of someone who has never worked at a paper, and never actually studied journalism. It's a widely held opinion, and easy to cling to."

What? Which part of that paragraph were you talking about? My analysis of their ethic being to report the grey truth? Didn't you say they are supposed to report impartially? BUT LOOK OUT I DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT JOURNALISM NOT LIKE GRISLYGUS CLARK CUNTFACE.
Was it that most journalists are idiots? because most people are idiots and there's no reason to argue that.
is it that reporters don't follow their moral code? I don't see how it's possible to report an objective story without realizing that your story is unobjective (possibly due to the lack of information involved) and therefore "Immoral". Stretching beyond that, when you are reporting politics and you have a political association you're more likely to side with the people who are on your side. Hence, impartial. That doesn't really need explaining beyond that. I mean, even showing more of one persons side of the debate/issue than the other is technically "Impartial". Am I right? Isn't that "Partial" to only show "Part" of the "Story"?
See what you really need to consider with the ethic for journalists is what type of an effect the paper is having on the people: Does it give them all the information, or leave them hanging? Does it give them half of the story so that that particular side of the story seems more correct? Impressions are worth a bundle.
I think the newspapers should report both sides to political issues (I'd even like to see third parties thrown in there) because newspapers and the news are supposed to be the masses way to understand politics and make informed, nonstupid decisions when they vote. In my opinion, that's the only purpose of News beyond weather and finding out where a car accident might be. Everything else is inconsequential and focused on making money-- which i would call immoral in light of the circumstance.

And yes there are OTHER FORMS OF JOURNALISM big surprise and yes it's easier to be impartial about sports or fires because you can't lie about the score at the end of the game. but then, sports are inconsequential and gay.

"That is a highly heated topic, and I'm not qualified to argue it. however, I would like to clear something up. "

The government chooses it's press releases and chooses what information to release. Kind of like when the police department only releases certain information about crimes. Same thing could be said for democrat/republican press releases versus the other side ;/
Politically, information is released when it's most valuable or "Needed". Since the government controls what information they release to the press, and they actually consider what effect that information has, they are ERGO using the press. It's not like the government or practically any institution gets involved with the press without considering the publicity and such.
No heated debate about it. Just fact. Whether the government uses the press to some extreme degree is a completely different matter. Never once in this thread did I state that the press is the governments mouth of propaganda and manipulation for hiding the truth. (bolded so idiots like ant can read before they run their mouths) Usually hiding the truth is done best by not talking about it :O Or behind a wall of lies I guess but walls are easily peeked over.

[Ant10708]

By the way I've come to a conclusion regarding 9/11 because I have some juicy inside information. :(

*cough*otisairforcebase*cough* HE HAS CRACKED THE MYSTERTY.

[Abcdxxxx]

*cough*otisspunkmeyercookie*cough*

[Grislygus]

i wasnt even going to respond to this thread any further because i keep getting gay responses but here we go anyway I'm really bored:

"This is the assumption of someone who has never worked at a paper, and never actually studied journalism. It's a widely held opinion, and easy to cling to."

What? Which part of that paragraph were you talking about? My analysis of their ethic being to report the grey truth? Didn't you say they are supposed to report impartially? BUT LOOK OUT I DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT JOURNALISM NOT LIKE GRISLYGUS CLARK CUNTFACE.

Let's see...

lol. I don't know what to say about this. First off, most journalists are idiots.

An offensive assumption held by many people. A partial truth, yes, but isn't that the case with most slander? (or is it libel? I can never remember which is in printed form)

Secondly, most journalists don't give a damn about morals. It may seem like they have some ethical code, but they usually don't.

An offensive assumption held by many people, and this one not even a partial truth. The only group it could possibly apply to in "journalism" would be guerrilla papparazzis.

They adhere to "it" (the moral code) because if they don't they can get fired-- but only if they are perceived as doing something immoral, which would naturally reflect the spirit of the times.

An offensive assumption held by many people. It's also a bullshitting tactic, by the way.

Was it that most journalists are idiots? because most people are idiots and there's no reason to argue that.

So, by that logic, all firemen, police officers, doctors, teachers are idiots. You're completely correct. No reason to argue that at all, mainly because no one would take it seriously anyway.

is it that reporters don't follow their moral code? I don't see how it's possible to report an objective story without realizing that your story is unobjective (possibly due to the lack of information involved) and therefore "Immoral". Stretching beyond that, when you are reporting politics and you have a political association you're more likely to side with the people who are on your side. Hence, impartial. That doesn't really need explaining beyond that.

For the record, if it has ANY OPINIONS STATED WHATSOEVER, it's editorializing, not reporting.

I mean, even showing more of one persons side of the debate/issue than the other is technically "Impartial". Am I right? Isn't that "Partial" to only show "Part" of the "Story"?

Of course it's impartial. It's also irresponsible reporting, and in violation of journalistic ethics. It's a problem which continues to be debated, and has nothing to do with my current problem with you:

1. You've scoffed at the very mention of journalistic ethics.

2. You refer to all journalists as idiots, and make various other sweeping accusations. Basically, you're bullshitting.

3. NOW you're angry because I've called shenanigans, and am trying to make my meager credentials a bad thing. I'm assuming it's because you don't have any.

You know, a while back, I was spouting off opinions in some political thread, when Preechr called me on the fact that I didn't have a background in or extensive knowledge on the topic. To paraphrase, he told me that if I "wanted to argue a subject that you haven't even bothered to crack a book on, that's your decision".

Once again, a crude paraphrase, but the point is made. I then shut up, because he was correct, and it didn't really occur to me to take umbrage and make fun of him for knowing more than I did. Of course, I hadn't thought of calling his response "gay", or calling him "PREECHR CLARK CUNTFACE", either, so maybe that would have worked.


See what you really need to consider with the ethic for journalists is what type of an effect the paper is having on the people: Does it give them all the information, or leave them hanging? Does it give them half of the story so that that particular side of the story seems more correct? Impressions are worth a bundle.

You see, THIS is why I'm pissed off about your assumptions, because journalistic ethics involves giving ALL SIDES to the story. That's why it's called "ethics".

There are many people who are irresponsible journalists, but that DOES NOT give you free reign to simply label the entire profession as jackals, considering that you're basing these knowledgable opinions on the fact that you read a lot of local newspapers.

I think the newspapers should report both sides to political issues (I'd even like to see third parties thrown in there) because newspapers and the news are supposed to be the masses way to understand politics and make informed, nonstupid decisions when they vote. In my opinion, that's the only purpose of News beyond weather and finding out where a car accident might be. Everything else is inconsequential and focused on making money-- which i would call immoral in light of the circumstance.

See above.


And yes there are OTHER FORMS OF JOURNALISM big surprise and yes it's easier to be impartial about sports or fires because you can't lie about the score at the end of the game. but then, sports are inconsequential and gay.

I was only making sure that you knew about it, since apparently you don't. Let's go through hypothetical situations. They'll be limited though, apparently all other forms of journalism only cover sports and fires.

What about a riot at a ball game? That's covered by sports reporters. Lets say that a fan hit a player, and the team attacked him. This particular journalist doesn't like the team, so he completely covers the attack on the fan, but he glosses over the unruly insigator himself.

This is irresponsible journalism. A firestorm of angry sports fans will flood the paper with letters, and the editor, who really doesn't want to put up with any more shit than he has to, will verbally ream the reporter.

And what about that fire? Look at the reporting during the nightclub fire in Southern California. Someone was obviously at fault. On one hand, the band was not licensed to handle indoor pyrotechnics. On the other, the club itself was a fucking deathtrap. So whose fault was it? Everyone obviously had opinions, as the local commentary section clearly showed.

When it came to actual reporting however, the MEDIA somehow managed to report the event without villifying anyone. A fluke, I guess.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

I think newspapers should publish point counterpoint like this forum does but with spammers like me not allowed in.

[Preechr]

Make the media more like I-mock?

CONGRATUMAFREAKINLATIONS!!!

You just succeeded in slapping together the one way to make the media even LESS dependable, honest and trustworthy! Sweet!

[sadie]

as a journalist and journalism educator, i'll have to say, "what grislygus said." :)

[kahljorn]

Of course you guys would take a personal issue and say NO THATS NOT TRUE AT ALL IT CANT BE TRUE ALL THE THINGS IVE BELIEVED IN MY ENTIRE LIFE.

"1. You've scoffed at the very mention of journalistic ethics. "

I didn't scoff at them I said 90% of the time they are impossible to carry out and follow, most reportors care more about getting their work done than delivering a truthful story and most newsrooms feel the same way.
I knew what journalism ethics were before this conversation started and said what they were, so let's play the game of Shut the fuck up grislypriss.

"2. You refer to all journalists as idiots"

I also said people in general are idiots so again the game grislypriss.

"3. NOW you're angry because I've called shenanigans"

I don't recall ever posting an angry emoticon.

"See above."

Well thanks for making a lengthy argument about something i already said you stupid faced queer.

"I was only making sure that you knew about it, since apparently you don't"

This thread's about Political journalism not about your mother's cunting crossword puzzles and her posting classifieds for bells the two legged cat that shits mercilessly in clothes drawers no it's POLITICAL JOURNALISM LEARN TO READ THREADS YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
I mentioned this in one of my first posts I DONT CARE ABOUT OTHER TYPES OF JOURNALISM because they are generally IMPRACTICAL. There's a fucking fire in a nightclub? What the fuck does that mean?
Political journalism is practical, and, like I said, is supposed to INFORM the masses.

" They'll be limited though, apparently all other forms of journalism only cover sports and fires. "
It also covers your mothers gaping vagina and the amount of centimeters that gape increases yearly, but you don't see me mentioning that because not only is it irrelevant but nobody cares.

"What about a riot at a ball game?"
This will effect the lives and goals of every citizen in the world.

"An offensive assumption held by many people, and this one not even a partial truth."

You're fucking stupid. Just because an association has an ethical code doesn't mean people care or even follow it.

"The only group it could possibly apply to in "journalism" would be guerrilla papparazzis. "

Yes because they are the only ones who write stories that aren't necessarily the complete truth. Every other reporter delivers the complete and whole truth.

"An offensive assumption held by many people. It's also a bullshitting tactic, by the way."

Whatever, writing that black people are smelly and that god hates them in 1923 wouldn't have been considered immoral because at the time it wasn't considered immoral. You need to learn history because I know there's tons of stories that were ran in papers about for example OPIUM causing black people to rape women mercilessly and that's partly why it's banned because the paper said that if black people took opium they would rape white people. Not because people were dying or because will-less but because it supposedly causes black people to rape white women.
Simple fact is, if nobody thinks it's immoral than nobody is going to call it immoral. Learn to read, cunthead. Don't even bother responding to me with your IM A JOURNALST WE ALL HAVE INEGREITY bullshit.

"So, by that logic, all firemen, police officers, doctors, teachers are idiots. You're completely correct."

I call teachers, firemen and policeofficers idiots all the time. Being in a position of prestige or superiority doesn't necessarily make you smart or respectable. It's just a fucking position. These are people who suddenly one day decided they needed a job to make a living and survive in a world. It's not like their entire life has been dedicated to honest journalism since they were 6 months old and they were writing bipartisan stories about the color of their shit. Shut up.
Have you ever had a job with a bunch of idiots? thank you.

"For the record, if it has ANY OPINIONS STATED WHATSOEVER, it's editorializing, not reporting. "

You can state your opinion without actually stating your opinion. Shows what you know about journalism or writing in general. did you even read what I said before?

"1. You've scoffed at the very mention of journalistic ethics."

I scoff at your banana ripened bottom you cherry favored faggot.

"You see, THIS is why I'm pissed off about your assumptions, because journalistic ethics involves giving ALL SIDES to the story. That's why it's called "ethics". "

Isn't that kind of exactly what I said at the begining of this when I said that the journalistic ethic is to report the complete, gray truth? WHOOPEE WE"VE GONE BCK IN TIME. I know what the journalistic ethic is, I just happen to know it's nearly impossible in any pointed matter.

"There are many people who are irresponsible journalists, but that DOES NOT give you free reign to simply label the entire profession as jackals"

I can do whatever I want.

And finally to wrap this thread up: All your sht about fires and sports are irrelevant. I was talking about journalistic ethics in regards to politics. Politics. Not fucking fires. Not fucking sports. Politics. The reason why newspapers exist in a democratic nation. Politics. Now you go read a few papers on the same event from different newspapers and see if theres any "Opinions" in there. Because like I said, when I read political sections I can ALWAYS see the writers opinion. It's fucking obvious 90% of the time. Now you can sit there and argue your little face off all you want but the simple fact is, POLITICAL STORIES ARE 90% OF THE TIME UNETHICAL AND PARTIAL AND THATS ALL I WAS SAYING FROM THE BEGINING AND YOU ARGUED IT BECAUSE THERES OTHER FORMS OF JOURNALISM BUT WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT THEM, HONESTLY? I fucking don't, and I wasn't talking about them. So I'd appreciate it if you'd shut your face, learn to read and respond on topic because I don't enjoy responding to things I never said.

[Grislygus]

Of course you guys would take a personal issue and say NO THATS NOT TRUE AT ALL IT CANT BE TRUE ALL THE THINGS IVE BELIEVED IN MY ENTIRE LIFE.

What part of "partial truth", "ignorant", and "slander (and/or libel) do you not get?


I didn't scoff at them I said 90% of the time they are impossible to carry out and follow, most reportors care more about getting their work done than delivering a truthful story and most newsrooms feel the same way.

Ahem:
lol. I don't even know how to respond to this

I knew what journalism ethics were before this conversation started and said what they were, so let's play the game of Shut the fuck up grislypriss.

No, actually, you didn't.





2. You refer to all journalists as idiots"

I also said people in general are idiots so again the game grislypriss.



Let's review.

Was it that most journalists are idiots? because most people are idiots and there's no reason to argue that.

So, by that logic, all firemen, police officers, doctors, teachers are idiots. You're completely correct. No reason to argue that at all, mainly because no one would take it seriously anyway.

Let's try the game Shut Up Kahljorn rather than Shut Up Grislypriss, shall we? Oh, wait, not yet, as you bring it up again later in your post. We'll continue it then.


3. NOW you're angry because I've called shenanigans"

I don't recall ever posting an angry emoticon.

True, but one can only assume you were somewhat irked at the time;
BUT LOOK OUT I DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT JOURNALISM NOT LIKE GRISLYGUS CLARK CUNTFACE.

Not exactly keeping your cool, were you?

See above."

Well thanks for making a lengthy argument about something i already said you stupid faced queer.

Totally not angry. If you recall, my actual lengthy argument was

"You see, THIS is why I'm pissed off about your assumptions, because journalistic ethics involves giving ALL SIDES to the story. That's why it's called "ethics".

There are many people who are irresponsible journalists, but that DOES NOT give you free reign to simply label the entire profession as jackals, considering that you're basing these knowledgable opinions on the fact that you read a lot of local newspapers."

Bravo on the "stupid faced queer" bit, by the way.

I was only making sure that you knew about it, since apparently you don't"

This thread's about Political journalism not about your mother's cunting crossword puzzles and her posting classifieds for bells the two legged cat that shits mercilessly in clothes drawers no it's POLITICAL JOURNALISM LEARN TO READ THREADS YOU PIECE OF SHIT.

Completely calm and collected. Also completely insane and nonsensical.

I mentioned this in one of my first posts I DONT CARE ABOUT OTHER TYPES OF JOURNALISM because they are generally IMPRACTICAL. There's a fucking fire in a nightclub? What the fuck does that mean?
Political journalism is practical, and, like I said, is supposed to INFORM the masses.

You have no idea what we're actually arguing about, do you? All non-political journalism is impractical? It doesn't inform the masses?! First of all, Kahljorn, are you retarded?

Secondly, we're arguing the validity of journalistic ethics and your cockeyed idea that 90% of journalists don't give a shit whether their stories are truthful or not. If you had payed any fucking attention to what I was actually saying, you would have realized that my examples proved that ethics are relevent to ALL forms of journalism. It doesn't matter one bit if you personally don't care about non-political news.

They'll be limited though, apparently all other forms of journalism only cover sports and fires. "
It also covers your mothers gaping vagina and the amount of centimeters that gape increases yearly, but you don't see me mentioning that because not only is it irrelevant but nobody cares.

You blithering idiot, I thought you were one of the smart people here! Though I'm starting to see why you think that an event that killed hundreds of people is irrelevent.

What about a riot at a ball game?"
This will effect the lives and goals of every citizen in the world.

It was an EXAMPLE, you dolt.

An offensive assumption held by many people, and this one not even a partial truth."

You're fucking stupid. Just because an association has an ethical code doesn't mean people care or even follow it.

True (the second part, of course). But you have no authority whatsoever to say if it is or isn't true. I called you on it,now you're pissed, and your arguments are steadily becoming more and more emotional, and less and less intelligent.

"The only group it could possibly apply to in "journalism" would be guerrilla papparazzis. "

Yes because they are the only ones who write stories that aren't necessarily the complete truth. Every other reporter delivers the complete and whole truth.

So you agree that the assumption is exaggerated?

"An offensive assumption held by many people. It's also a bullshitting tactic, by the way."

Whatever, writing that black people are smelly and that god hates them in 1923 wouldn't have been considered immoral because at the time it wasn't considered immoral. You need to learn history because I know there's tons of stories that were ran in papers about for example OPIUM causing black people to rape women mercilessly and that's partly why it's banned because the paper said that if black people took opium they would rape white people. Not because people were dying or because will-less but because it supposedly causes black people to rape white women.
Simple fact is, if nobody thinks it's immoral than nobody is going to call it immoral. Learn to read, cunthead. Don't even bother responding to me with your IM A JOURNALST WE ALL HAVE INEGREITY bullshit.

I don't think that I need to point out to any rational individuals reading this that a great deal of societal behaviors have changed since 1923, not just journalistic integrity. I'd also point out the difference between local and national news, BUT, I need to "learn history".

In your case however, I really don't expect to convince you of anything. You have ideas that you WANT to believe, just like Geggy. Case in point:
Simple fact is, if nobody thinks it's immoral than nobody is going to call it immoral.

Listen, folks, this is the reason he wants to believe 90% of journalists are lying parasites. It fits into his nihilistic world view, which we've seen glimpses of in past political threads. There's no real data to back it up, which is why his arguments are getting angrier and including more insults.


So, by that logic, all firemen, police officers, doctors, teachers are idiots. You're completely correct."

I call teachers, firemen and policeofficers idiots all the time. Being in a position of prestige or superiority doesn't necessarily make you smart or respectable. It's just a fucking position.

Yes. I call INDIVIDUAL teachers, firemen, and police officers idiots all the time, too. However, I don't refer to them as idiots as a . Why? because it would be extremely dumb and arrogant to assume that I know everything about the profession and that they are all idiots. Or even that "all people" are idiots. Or that 90% of them aren't honest.

These are people who suddenly one day decided they needed a job to make a living and survive in a world. It's not like their entire life has been dedicated to honest journalism since they were 6 months old and they were writing bipartisan stories about the color of their shit. Shut up.

I would say "see above", but seeing as how you lack the ability, I'll just repeat myself for your convenience.

"Yes. I call INDIVIDUAL teachers, firemen, and police officers idiots all the time, too. However, I don't refer to them as idiots as a [iwhole. Why? because it would be extremely dumb and arrogant to assume that I know everything about the profession and that they are all idiots. Or even that "all people" are idiots. Or that 90% of them aren't honest. "

Have you ever had a job with a bunch of idiots? thank you.

I have, actually.

For the record, if it has ANY OPINIONS STATED WHATSOEVER, it's editorializing, not reporting. "

You can state your opinion without actually stating your opinion. Shows what you know about journalism or writing in general. did you even read what I said before?

Yes, I did. I do you that courtesy, even if it is one that you do not extend to me. There's a reason I said "for the record". It denotes that I was making a clear statement for (guess what?) the record. It doesn't mean that you said it, it means that clarifying a subject that I'm concerned about.

"1. You've scoffed at the very mention of journalistic ethics."

I scoff at your banana ripened bottom you cherry favored faggot.

YOUR MOTHER WAS A HAMSTER, AND YOUR FATHER SMELT OF ELDERBERRIES.

You see, THIS is why I'm pissed off about your assumptions, because journalistic ethics involves giving ALL SIDES to the story. That's why it's called "ethics". "

Isn't that kind of exactly what I said at the begining of this when I said that the journalistic ethic is to report the complete, gray truth? WHOOPEE WE"VE GONE BCK IN TIME.

I know the feeling.

I know what the journalistic ethic is, I just happen to know it's nearly impossible in any pointed matter.

Yes, it is. Any journalist will tell you this. However, the entire IDEA behind journalistic ethics is to MAKE THE EFFORT, and you have inferred that 90% of them don't care, which is something which you are completely unqualified to spout off about. Whoopee, we've gone back in time.

There are many people who are irresponsible journalists, but that DOES NOT give you free reign to simply label the entire profession as jackals"

I can do whatever I want.

Correct, it was a figure of speech. However, you're still wrong, and my entire point is that you're simply believing what you want to believe, regardless of any logical deduction. Thank you for proving my point.

I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your babbling, because all I would do is repeat myself multiple times. All over again. However, I'm all for equal opportunity, so I'll still quote it and let our silent observers come to their own conclusions.




And finally to wrap this thread up: All your sht about fires and sports are irrelevant. I was talking about journalistic ethics in regards to politics. Politics. Not fucking fires. Not fucking sports. Politics. The reason why newspapers exist in a democratic nation. Politics. Now you go read a few papers on the same event from different newspapers and see if theres any "Opinions" in there. Because like I said, when I read political sections I can ALWAYS see the writers opinion. It's fucking obvious 90% of the time. Now you can sit there and argue your little face off all you want but the simple fact is, POLITICAL STORIES ARE 90% OF THE TIME UNETHICAL AND PARTIAL AND THATS ALL I WAS SAYING FROM THE BEGINING AND YOU ARGUED IT BECAUSE THERES OTHER FORMS OF JOURNALISM BUT WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT THEM, HONESTLY? I fucking don't, and I wasn't talking about them. So I'd appreciate it if you'd shut your face, learn to read and respond on topic because I don't enjoy responding to things I never said.

[Ant10708]

I believe Geggy

[kahljorn]

You know what grislygus i really dislike your position in this thread because it's the position of, "IM A JOURNALIST SO EVERYTHING I SAY MUST BE CORRECT AND EVERYTHING YOU SAY MUST BE WRONG".

Now let's play another game! You said I didn't know what the journalistic ethic is(mostly because you're full of yourself, I can see these things even over the internet grislypriss)

Before you even mentioned what the journalistic ethic is:
"The journalist ethic is supposed to be honest, grey "truth"(just the facts, mam!). Has that ever happened? "

That's what I said, maybe it's not the rhetoric definition you heard in your media and society classroom that's in every textbook everywhere but it means the same damned thing. Here's what gray means!
Intermediate in character or position, as with regard to a subjective matter: the gray area between their differing opinions on the film's morality.


Now there's plenty more ways I can prove you wrong in this thread, that just happens to be the only one that pertains to what you learned in a classroom and are so sure about. Otherwise we could talk about that whole senator mccain thing you know alot of journalists were kissing some ass in that time period. and hell how about the IRAQ war shouldn't there have been millions of newspapers everywhere saying, "HEY GUYS LOOK IRAQ AND OSAMA BIN LADIN HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACHOTHER" every single newspaper should've said that because it's the objective truth. Were they all?
so please quit giving me this JOURNALISTS ARE PURE AND PERFECT AND THEY TRY THEIR HARDEST shit.

"Not exactly keeping your cool, were you? "

Clark Kent was a reporter mr. lack of humor.

considering that you're basing these knowledgable opinions on the fact that you read a lot of local newspapers."

Actually if you read what I said carefully you'll note I said MOSTLY local newspapers. Learn semantics, fuckhead.

"Completely calm and collected. Also completely insane and nonsensical. "
More jokes because I didn't want to respond to your lame shit. Duh? This thread was about political journalism, not reporting on fires and sports. I tried to explain this to you: Reporting on things that have already happened is "Inconsequential" and there's no reason for people to be informed of them. It's very difficult to fuck up on a story about something that already happened because the entire story is already out there. The story is already written. They aren't writting a story, they are just repeating what they've heard a million times.
However, when it actually comes to the case of informing people about the truth of things that may or may not effect their future (such as in political journalism etc) suddenly their stories fall apart. My complaint isn't that they can't write objective stories at all, it's that they can't write objective stories about current, important, events. I didn't necessarily say this was the journalists fault at first either.

"All non-political journalism is impractical? It doesn't inform the masses?! First of all, Kahljorn, are you retarded? "

What are you going to do with sports scores, or knowing there was a fire somewhere in wyoming that killed six people? Or that there's a courtroom case going on and stuff is happening? Huh? Can you use it in your daily life? If you answer one question answer this, because if the knowledge isn't usable it's impractical, because that's what the word practical pertains to.

my examples proved

lol

"Though I'm starting to see why you think that an event that killed hundreds of people is irrelevent. "

It is irrelevant. Is there anything that can be done about it? Is there any reason for people to be informed that people died? No. It's just something to fill the paper with shit nobody can do anything about.

It was an EXAMPLE, you dolt.

It obviously pertained to what I was saying, moron.



If I've read the story and found it untrue I do have that authority.

[quote]I called you on it,now you're pissed, and your arguments are steadily becoming more and more emotional, and less and less intelligent.

My arguments? What the hell are you talking about I've been making jokes most of the time (my first two posts were actually my argument, after that I said, "I'm just responding to this gay shit because I'm bored" scroll back and read i think it was my third post). We aren't even talking about my argument anymore we're talking about your argument that you decided to have because you know so much about journalism.

don't think that I need to point out to any rational individuals reading this that a great deal of societal behaviors have changed since 1923, not just journalistic integrity.

lol. Alright I'll admit the world has changed some but not that much. Also the incident I quoted was probably national thank you very much.

It fits into his nihilistic world view, which we've seen glimpses of in past political threads.

It's not nihilistic, it's relative. Learn the difference ignoramous. Killing black/gay people in the 1800's wasn't a big deal because nobody cared about black people, killing them now is a crime. Is that nihilism? No, it's understanding that ethics and morals change. If anybody is nihilist it's the people that cling to the modern ethic, the modern moral; not the one who actually tries to discover what morals and ethics are and should be.

There's no real data to back it up, which is why his arguments are getting angrier and including more insults.

I'm just going to quote this so you'll get over it:
i wasnt even going to respond to this thread any further because i keep getting gay responses but here we go anyway I'm really bored:

okay now realize you're just entertaining me.

"Yes, it is. Any journalist will tell you this."

Victory on the only point I was originally even trying to make thank you?

However, the entire IDEA behind journalistic ethics is to MAKE THE EFFORT, and you have inferred that 90% of them don't care

Alright I'm going to go over this again just so you don't think I'm actually an arrogant asshole and because I know you misunderstood me. What I was talking about wasn't their ability to actually write stories objectively. That's fucking easy grislygus, I could do it with no effort. You don't need an ethic to write a story about a bunch of people who died in a fire, god damn don't you understand that?
What I was talking about is when there's an important, current event and it's important that the masses understand the situation objectively. Such as America against Iraq. Or gay rights, or whatever other laws/movements are coming out. You can DEFINITLEY see people's opinions in that, can you not? Can you not see their opinions going, "THOSE FUCKING TERRORISTS BLEW US UP" or "THOSE GAYS ARE GAY" or whatever, sometimes they are just as inappropriate backwards.
That's what I was talking about, because it's practical. It's practical because it's currently happening and there's something that can be done about it. At the time, we couldn't do anything about 911. Those people were dead. There's no reason to have concern for the dead, it's not going to bring them back to life. However, we can look forward to the future and try to live it PROPERLY and TRUTHFULLY, but for whatever reason when it's actually IMPORTANT that the american public is informed on ALL SIDES of an issue suddenly it's opinions galore or even just blanket statements that say nothing about the true situation.
that's what the fuck ive been talking about, not how most journalists write objective stories about sports and fires; because it's impossible to not be objective in those circumstances. And if you're proud of your "Ability" to do so you're a moron. That's not an ethic at all, and it doesn't even require one.

All in all, I guess I'll say it's easy to be objective in a situation you don't care about. The true test of ethics comes when it's a situation that actually effects that person or when that person actually does have an opinion, thats the test. Not this monotonous everyday shit that people do with their eyes closed.

Am I the only one who remembers the media coverage of/post 9/11, especially involving the iraq war? The media sensation, the media response? Whenever someone was anti-bush or anti-war there was a public reaming of them. People with bad memories shouldn't be arguing about how the world has changed and about how ethically people accord themselves.
Now look: everyone is anti-bush and anti-war and anybody who says otherwise is an idiot and isn't considering the feelings of the soldiers. Again, morals/ethics in the spirit of the times. Although I'll admit it's not as bad now as it was a while ago, and there's still some support for the war. Regardless, there's still plenty of sensationalism around.

ps from what i recall the editorials were the only parts of the media coverage that were actually impartial and looked carefully at the notions of the iraq war.

pps remember that movie outfoxed and all the stuff about the horrible media coverage of 911/post 911? You're so retarded. It's not like im blaming them entirely for it but there should've been alot more stories going GUESS WHAT G USY IRAQ AND OSAMA BIN LADIN ARENT THE SAME PEOPLE. now this is a recent event that happened recently so don't try to tell me that the world has changed you alzheimers whore. This is why almost every person I know is an idiot. You can't even remember two-five years ago.

"They tried really hard" isn't a ethic. okay actually there is some ethical consideration for that and even some kind of more called pragmatism i think :(

[Grislygus]

You know what grislygus i really dislike your position in this thread because it's the position of, "IM A JOURNALIST SO EVERYTHING I SAY MUST BE CORRECT AND EVERYTHING YOU SAY MUST BE WRONG".

No, that's what you've interpreted it to be. I've already admitted that my only experience is talking to journalists and interning for newspapers. My position is that "I have some experience, and you apparently have none, so who are you to call all journalists idiots?"

You took umbrage as soon as I even mentioned some familiarity with the subject, which makes me suspect that I'm correct.

Now let's play another game! You said I didn't know what the journalistic ethic is(mostly because you're full of yourself, I can see these things even over the internet grislypriss)

Before you even mentioned what the journalistic ethic is:
"The journalist ethic is supposed to be honest, grey "truth"(just the facts, mam!). Has that ever happened? "

That's what I said, maybe it's not the rhetoric definition you heard in your media and society classroom that's in every textbook everywhere but it means the same damned thing. Here's what gray means!
Intermediate in character or position, as with regard to a subjective matter: the gray area between their differing opinions on the film's morality.

You're partly right. As a rule, all journalists are supposed to strive for the facts alone. However, that rarely happens, so there is a code of ethics which journalists follow in order to be as impartial as possible.

This is still a seperate matter from your position that all journalists are idiots. Which you then changed to roughly "90% of journalists are dishonest and only care about getting a story in", which you then changed to "90% of [/i]political journalists are dishonest"

Now there's plenty more ways I can prove you wrong in this thread, that just happens to be the only one that pertains to what you learned in a classroom and are so sure about.

I'll ignore the classroom dig, seeing as how I'm eager to hear you definitively prove that all political journalists are lying swine.

Otherwise we could talk about that whole senator mccain thing you know alot of journalists were kissing some ass in that time period. and hell how about the IRAQ war shouldn't there have been millions of newspapers everywhere saying, "HEY GUYS LOOK IRAQ AND OSAMA BIN LADIN HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACHOTHER" every single newspaper should've said that because it's the objective truth. Were they all? so please quit giving me this JOURNALISTS ARE PURE AND PERFECT AND THEY TRY THEIR HARDEST shit.

Oh, yeah. When journalists were writing stories about troop movements in Iraq, they definitely should have brought up the lack of evidence tying Al Qaeda to Iraq. Then they [i]really would have been impartial.

So, your idea of impartiality basically boils down to journalists covering subjects the way you want them to.

"Not exactly keeping your cool, were you? "

Clark Kent was a reporter mr. lack of humor.

Which is irrelevant to your trying to convince me that you weren't angry.

considering that you're basing these knowledgable opinions on the fact that you read a lot of local newspapers."

Actually if you read what I said carefully you'll note I said MOSTLY local newspapers. Learn semantics, fuckhead.

Right. So what else are you basing these knowledable opinions on?

"Completely calm and collected. Also completely insane and nonsensical. "
More jokes because I didn't want to respond to your lame shit. Duh?[/quote]

I love this. "The reason my response was barely comprehensible is because I didn't want to respond to your lame shit". Brilliant.

I really don't need to keep trying anymore.

[kahljorn]

I like how you try to prove I'm angry rather than try to disprove anything I said. Isn't that a logical fallacy :O

also fuck you for respoding after i thought you weren't going to.

ps I think you should reread the thread because I didn't eve halfway say half the thigs you thik I said

This is still a seperate matter from your position that all journalists are idiots. Which you then changed to roughly "90% of journalists are dishonest and only care about getting a story in", which you then changed to "90% of [/i]political journalists are dishonest"

like that, i think I only used the 90 percent thing like once. I'll admit that I also said journalists care more about gettig stories in but lol duh that's how they get money. I know people at mcdonalds are more interested in gettig their paycheck than making a delicous hamburger.

I didn't scoff at them I said 90% of the time they are impossible to carry out and follow
That was when I said 90%, and you agreed with that statement.

I never said that all journalists are lying swine, either. I don't think I ever called a journalist a lying swine. I could be wrong though. Why don't you reread the thread and shut the fuck up instead of putting words in my mouth, you moron.

Right. So what else are you basing these knowledable opinions on?
If you read my last post, you would've noted that I mentioned FOX NEWS. A SOURCE OF NEWS. WELL KNOWN. FAMOUS. I also watched CNN, and I used to like the BBC because they had alot of third party debates on there. The context I mentioned them(fox) in was i the IRAQ war, which, since this thread was posted about geggy, is what this thread is about.

Also, it's not a seperate matter because you accused me of not knowing what I was talking about.

Also what I said was most journalists are idiots. Again, read the thread you moron.

First argument portion of this since obviously you couldn't read it properly in the first place:
lol. I don't know what to say about this. First off, most journalists are idiots. Secondly, most journalists don't give a damn about morals. It may seem like they have some ethical code, but they usually don't. Maybe it's just because I usually read local papers (but it's not limited to local papers) but I can always see the journalists perspective in the matter. The journalist ethic is supposed to be honest, grey "truth"(just the facts, mam!). Has that ever happened?
They adhere to "it" (the moral code) because if they don't they can get fired-- but only if they are perceived as doing something immoral, which would naturally reflect the spirit of the times.

You're partly right. As a rule, all journalists are supposed to strive for the facts alone. However, that rarely happens, so there is a code of ethics which journalists follow in order to be as impartial as possible.
Thanks for repeating my argument, you penis. Again, learn to read.
Second argument:
What? Which part of that paragraph were you talking about? My analysis of their ethic being to report the grey truth? Didn't you say they are supposed to report impartially? BUT LOOK OUT I DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT JOURNALISM NOT LIKE GRISLYGUS CLARK CUNTFACE.(that's called sarcasm by the way not anger, unless you want to say SARCASM IS ANGERS UGLY COUSIN)
Was it that most journalists are idiots? because most people are idiots and there's no reason to argue that.
is it that reporters don't follow their moral code? I don't see how it's possible to report an objective story without realizing that your story is unobjective (possibly due to the lack of information involved) and therefore "Immoral". Stretching beyond that, when you are reporting politics and you have a political association you're more likely to side with the people who are on your side. Hence, impartial. That doesn't really need explaining beyond that. I mean, even showing more of one persons side of the debate/issue than the other is technically "Impartial". Am I right? Isn't that "Partial" to only show "Part" of the "Story"?
See what you really need to consider with the ethic for journalists is what type of an effect the paper is having on the people: Does it give them all the information, or leave them hanging? Does it give them half of the story so that that particular side of the story seems more correct? Impressions are worth a bundle.
I think the newspapers should report both sides to political issues (I'd even like to see third parties thrown in there) because newspapers and the news are supposed to be the masses way to understand politics and make informed, nonstupid decisions when they vote. In my opinion, that's the only purpose of News beyond weather and finding out where a car accident might be. Everything else is inconsequential and focused on making money-- which i would call immoral in light of the circumstance.

Didn't you say part of the jouralistic ethic is deliverig ALL SIDES of the story? you even used those capitol letters. So more agreeing with me, after you told me I don't know anything about the journalistic ethic.

ps often times what is taught in a classroom is different than how it is applied i the real world! Just some advice to help you out ;) I think it's called "Real" and "Actual".

and like I said the fact that there are REPUBLICAN media outlets and DEMOCRAT outlets pretty much proves my point. That's not "Impartial". Okay?

Fuck this entire thread has been you agreeing with me but feeling insulted because I called journalists idiots and tryig to make some point that I can't generalize people because OMG IT MIGHT GIVE ME SOME NEGATIVE PRECONCEPTION OF ALL NEWS STORIES I READ. WHAT A GREAT ARGUMENT. I realize your stupid argument, I just don't care. I read the news all the time and the only time i think, "This guy's an idiot" is when he's actually an idiot. But if you want to think people are ETHICAL and IMPARTIAL because they goto a library and look up statistics or talk to a few people and quote them you're right to an extent. That's fuckig great. You win this argument!
Oh but wait my poit was that when it comes down to politics or going to war everybody goes fucking bananza and there's a complete lack of ethical intergrity. Did you know it's easy to be ethical when things are nice? People treat you nicely it's easy to treat them nicely in return. When things goto shit and you yourself turn to shit that's when you're UNETHICAL(A).

Also I'd like to see YOU prove to ME that most journalists ARENT idiots because that would be fucking impossible. So grasp onto some other pubic hair you jerk off.

So, your idea of impartiality basically boils down to journalists covering subjects the way you want them to.

actually, no. My idea of impartiality boils down to not going WE NEED A WAR IN IRAQ BECAUSE THOSE BASTARD TERRORISTS BOMBED US. Okay. That's all. Likewise I don't like to see the media condemning anyone for their political views unless it's somehow relevant-- usually it's not.


AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WORDS "MOST" AND "ALL" because apparantly you can't tell the damned difference. I didn't call EVERY journalist an idiot, I called "MOST" journalists/reporters idiots, and I'm sure most of them are because MOST people i meet in my day to day affairs are IDIOTS.
Your problem with me was that I said all journalists are idiots and I didn't even say that.
You said I scoffed at journalistic ethics but I just scoffed at their ability to lead to impartial stories and that they don't function well in a social bananza and that means ETHICS HAVE FAILED.
I forget what your other problem was but it was probably something stupid.
ah, it's your whole credential thing. I don't give a damn about them. You're the one who walked into the thread going, "YOURE JUST ASSUMING KAHLJORN YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOURE TALKING ABOUT BUT I DO BUT I CANT ARGUE WHAT YOU SAID BECAUSE IT"S A MATTER OF BELIEF" then you argued it :( lol hilarious.

you agree with every thing i say and then fail to see how it applies. You said the journalistic ethic is to provide all sides of the story, when the point I was trying to make the entire time is that in political journalism you often notice definite democrat/republican slants. Okay? Fox is typically considered a Republican news source. During the post 911 they definitley showed it, too. They were like immature children. That's unethical even according to you, okay? So please, quit acting like an idiot. I don't scoff at the journalistic ethic, I scoff at the idiots who don't follow it. Get it? GET IT? MAGIC MYSTERY ANSWERS COME FROM BEYOND THE INTERWAR.

I learned all types of ethics in the classes I took. Did you know there's even a marketing ethic? And it's completely assbackwards to what you'd expect.

[kahljorn]

This thread's about Political journalism not about your mother's cunting crossword puzzles and her posting classifieds for bells the two legged cat that shits mercilessly in clothes drawers no it's POLITICAL JOURNALISM LEARN TO READ THREADS YOU PIECE OF SHIT.

Also how is that barely comprehensible? Crossword puzzles and classifieds quite often occur in newspapers along with alot of other irrelevant bullshit. Also it was obviously an insult. jesus christ you can't really be this dumb that you can't tell the difference between serious intellectual comments and an insult that's not even supposed to really be making much of a point.
Seriously if yo u can't tell the difference you shouldn't even be posting on this message board, you whiny little whore. I EXPECT INTELLECTUAL GOLD MINES FROM INSULTS IM GRISLYGUS I WIN ARGUMENTS WITH MY UNCANNY ABILITY TO CALL PEOPLE ANGRY AND INANE AND NONSENSICAL WHEN THEY'RE MAKING JOKES ABOUT MY MOTHER.
Fuck, behold this day when "Your mother jokes" are supposed to have some deep intellectual component behind them.


grislygus i really like arguing with you.