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.
Quote:
"Not exactly keeping your cool, were you? "
|
Clark Kent was a reporter mr. lack of humor.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
"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.
lol
Quote:
"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.
Quote:
It was an EXAMPLE, you dolt.
|
It obviously pertained to what I was saying, moron.
[quote"But you have no authority whatsoever to say if it is or isn't true."[/quote]
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
"Yes, it is. Any journalist will tell you this."
|
Victory on the only point I was originally even trying to make thank you?
Quote:
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