Some media quotes

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

2. You refer to all journalists as idiots"

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

Let's review.

Originally Posted by grislygus

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.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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;

Originally Posted by kahljorn

BUT LOOK OUT I DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT JOURNALISM NOT LIKE GRISLYGUS CLARK CUNTFACE.

Not exactly keeping your cool, were you?

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

"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?

Originally Posted by kahljorn

"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.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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 [iwhole[/i]. 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.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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[/i]. 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. "

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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

I have, actually.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

"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.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.

[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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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".

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.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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[i] 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 really would have been impartial.

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

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Clark Kent was a reporter mr. lack of humor.

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

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.