or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Journalistic Integrity
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Journalistic Integrity - Page 3

post #81 of 100
Hey as part of this discussion on journalistic integrity, perhaps we should discuss the appropriateness of the media in discussing all Obama's family members, former girlfriends, any insinuations or allegations made by third parties that may or may not be important or substantiated in any form or fashion.

Oh wait..... the media doesn't do that for Obama.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #82 of 100
Politico's Jonathan Martin provides expert analysis of the Florida primary for MSNBC this morning and hurls an offensive epithet to describe counties in the panhandle of the state.

Leftists are always experts at being racists.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #83 of 100

I heard about that....couldn't BELIEVE it. "The cracker counties, if you will...." OMG.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #84 of 100
NYT Editors have flipped for the third time on the senate filibuster. Oddly their flips are always to the advantage of the democrats. BUT rest assured good readers. It's all for sound principles of logic and reason and not at all politics.

here

Quote:
Three Papers in One!
"It is time to end the ability of a single senator, or group of senators, to block the confirmation process by threatening a filibuster, which can be overcome only by the vote of 60 senators," the New York Times editorialized yesterday:

We agree with President Obama's call in the State of the Union address for the Senate to change its rules and require votes on judicial and executive nominees within 90 days.
This is a major change of position for us, and we came to it reluctantly.


In calling this "a major change of position," the Times gives the impression that it has long supported the filibuster. But a Times editorial of Jan. 1, 1995 was headlined "Time to Retire the Filibuster." It called for abolishing the process altogether, for legislation as well as nominations.

The paper's "major change" yesterday was a change from its last major change of position, which it explained in a March 29, 2005, editorial titled "Walking in the Opposition's Shoes":

A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the "nuclear option" in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton's early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it's obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide.

Yet amid its zigging and zagging, the Times has been consistent, in that its view on the filibuster has always been in line with the immediate interests of the Democratic Party. Its claims both in 2005 and today to have undertaken a thoughtful reconsideration of the matter look rather hypocritical.

Andrew Rosenthal, the Times's editorial page editor, seems aware of this problem. Yesterday he tweeted a link to the new editorial with this comment: "It risks fringe rightwingers getting named by a GOP president, but filibustering nominees must end." This seems to imply a promise to stick to the current antifilibuster position if, a year or two from now, President Romney's nominees are being held up by a Democratic minority's unwillingness to bring them to the Senate floor.

We'll believe that when we see it.
post #85 of 100
Komen Foundation reverses funding decision of Planned Parenthood

Now we begin the wait for the bevy of articles and editorials claiming that Komen "caved" or "buckled" under pressure from Planned Parenthood advocates just the like articles we saw claiming they "caved" and "buckled" under pressure from anti-abortion advocates.

I won't hold my breath.

Oh, and widespread media criticism of brainwashing the kids into promoting your agenda:

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #86 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Komen Foundation reverses funding decision of Planned Parenthood

Now we begin the wait for the bevy of articles and editorials claiming that Komen "caved" or "buckled" under pressure from Planned Parenthood advocates just the like articles we saw claiming they "caved" and "buckled" under pressure from anti-abortion advocates.

I won't hold my breath.

Suck eggs, MJ.

Quote:
Oh, and widespread media criticism of brainwashing the kids into promoting your agenda:

And while you're at it, suck a couple more.
  • "I don't want it!" Brooke replied angrily, attempting to throw the flyer back to her mother. "There's a picture of Obama on there!"

    Brooke, her mother confirmed, is five years old.
post #87 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Suck eggs, MJ.



And while you're at it, suck a couple more.
  • "I don't want it!" Brooke replied angrily, attempting to throw the flyer back to her mother. "There's a picture of Obama on there!"

    Brooke, her mother confirmed, is five years old.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #88 of 100
According to the admittedly hearsay report, the VP of Komen flat out LIED about their intentions. Looks like the media was right on that call.

And college students holding signs is equivalent to five year-olds who have been taught to hate Obama? Uh. Okay?
post #89 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

According to the admittedly hearsay report, the VP of Komen flat out LIED about their intentions. Looks like the media was right on that call.

Regardless of the reasons for the original decision and whether the reports were correct. Why no articles saying that they have now "caved" and "buckled" under pressure from the Planned Parenthood contingent? Isn't that what the reversal indicates? A "buckling" and "caving" in the other direction?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And college students holding signs is equivalent to five year-olds who have been taught to hate Obama? Uh. Okay?

Sorry the original pic didn't look like a college student. Perhaps the cropping made it seem different. My bad.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #90 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

According to the admittedly hearsay report, the VP of Komen flat out LIED about their intentions. Looks like the media was right on that call.

And college students holding signs is equivalent to five year-olds who have been taught to hate Obama? Uh. Okay?

How is not wanting a flyer in her hands the same thing as hate tonton?

How crazily distorted and authoritarian has your reasoning become?

This is insane. How can someone have legitimate discourse with you when a five year old refusing a flyer is a hateful action.

Did she engage in hate speech too in your estimation? Should she be prosecuted? I mean she actually expressed her little five year old opinion and it was contrary to your views. Should we go "process" her out back with a round of bullets to the brain?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #91 of 100
Forget to take your meds, Nick?
post #92 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Forget to take your meds, Nick?

You've got serious projection issues if you are declaring five year olds who don't want a paper flyer to be hateful. Go double your dosage.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #93 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You've got serious projection issues if you are declaring five year olds who don't want a paper flyer to be hateful. Go double your dosage.

Stop being obtuse. She didn't not want a piece of paper. She didn't want a piece of paper specifically because it had a picture of Obama on it.
post #94 of 100
post #95 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Stop being obtuse. She didn't not want a piece of paper. She didn't want a piece of paper specifically because it had a picture of Obama on it.

Yes and you call that....HATEFUL. If I am holding a rally for some cause and attempt to hand you a sign or flyer for said cause and you do want it because you don't support the cause, that isn't a HATEFUL action.

You've just turned disagreement into HATE. You are the one being obtuse here if you cannot see that. Disagreement isn't hate. Preferences aren't hate. Your rationale for why she hates Obama is nothing more than not wanting the flyer. That is ridiculous and twisted reasoning. It is insane.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #96 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes and you call that....HATEFUL. If I am holding a rally for some cause and attempt to hand you a sign or flyer for said cause and you do want it because you don't support the cause, that isn't a HATEFUL action.

You've just turned disagreement into HATE. You are the one being obtuse here if you cannot see that. Disagreement isn't hate. Preferences aren't hate. Your rationale for why she hates Obama is nothing more than not wanting the flyer. That is ridiculous and twisted reasoning. It is insane.

We're talking about a five year old. Five year olds don't 'disagree' with people. She was taught to hate Obama. When I was five I certainly didn't hate Jimmy Carter, because my parents didn't teach me to hate people. When I was ten I didn't even hate Reagan. By the time I was fifteen and I could determine for myself the effects of what he was doing (making rich people richer and poor people poorer), I started to develop the ability to disagree with him.
post #97 of 100
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

We're talking about a five year old. Five year olds don't 'disagree' with people. She was taught to hate Obama. When I was five I certainly didn't hate Jimmy Carter, because my parents didn't teach me to hate people. When I was ten I didn't even hate Reagan.

Children are born atheists who love one another. They are taught to pray to an iron-age deity and hate each other.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #98 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

We're talking about a five year old. Five year olds don't 'disagree' with people.

Sorry but per child development, children start developing their own strong opinions starting between three and four years old. They may not have sound reasoning but they not only disagree with adults, they do so quite strongly. Just ask any three year old wearing cowboy boots along with their bathing suit in the middle of the summer.

Quote:
She was taught to hate Obama.

For the last time, not wanting a flyer isn't the same as hate. You've got to get that ridiculous notion out of your head. She could have been offered a flyer for Mickey Mouse and wanted Rainbow Bright. That doesn't mean she hates Mickey Mouse.

Quote:
When I was five I certainly didn't hate Jimmy Carter, because my parents didn't teach me to hate people. When I was ten I didn't even hate Reagan. By the time I was fifteen and I could determine for myself the effects of what he was doing (making rich people richer and poor people poorer), I started to develop the ability to disagree with him.

When you were five you probably expressed almost all your opinions in strident manners. You didn't have to hate Jimmy Carter but given the choice between watching him or watching Scooby Doo, I suspect you would have choosen the latter rather with the same level of tact as most five year olds. This likely was true of things like bathing, vegetables, and sharing toys. None of these things are hate. Even if you had used the word hate, as in "I hate carrots" or "I hate taking a bath" it would just be considered as nothing more than you learning to express yourself and not legitimate and actionable hate.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #99 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Sorry but per child development, children start developing their own strong opinions starting between three and four years old. They may not have sound reasoning but they not only disagree with adults, they do so quite strongly. Just ask any three year old wearing cowboy boots along with their bathing suit in the middle of the summer.



For the last time, not wanting a flyer isn't the same as hate. You've got to get that ridiculous notion out of your head. She could have been offered a flyer for Mickey Mouse and wanted Rainbow Bright. That doesn't mean she hates Mickey Mouse.



When you were five you probably expressed almost all your opinions in strident manners. You didn't have to hate Jimmy Carter but given the choice between watching him or watching Scooby Doo, I suspect you would have choosen the latter rather with the same level of tact as most five year olds. This likely was true of things like bathing, vegetables, and sharing toys. None of these things are hate. Even if you had used the word hate, as in "I hate carrots" or "I hate taking a bath" it would just be considered as nothing more than you learning to express yourself and not legitimate and actionable hate.

I'll concede the semantic point, but I hope you're not actually trying to say that a five year old who has never met Obama, who dislikes him, for whatever reason, wasn't taught by adults to support their political position. Isn't this discussion about the political indoctrination of children?
post #100 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I'll concede the semantic point, but I hope you're not actually trying to say that a five year old who has never met Obama, who dislikes him, for whatever reason, wasn't taught by adults to support their political position. Isn't this discussion about the political indoctrination of children?

Actually the discussion is on journalistic integrity and one ought to look at the integrity of any journalist who attempts to label an entire party based on anecdotal observations of a five year old child.

It also isn't a semantic point, it is a child development point. You have declared that a child expressing a strong feeling of disapproval on a subject would only do so because of parent indoctrination. That is simply not a fact. Children begin trusting their own observations and will argue them with parents at three and four years old. I simply used the example of cowboy boots because I've seen it dozens of times. There are these exasperated parents with little kids wearing cowboy boots in all sorts of inappropriate manners. They wear them with shorts. They wear them with purple leggings and an orange shirt. Any talk with the parents will reveal massive struggles to convince the child otherwise.

Now could a child overhear their parent's disapproval and reflect it. Absolutely but that isn't hate. It isn't a Republican Party full of hate. When we look at the president's disapproval rating, they don't call it the HATE rating. Conflating the two is bad reasoning, bad journalism and is merely an attempt to dismiss with bad intentions the actions and concerns of others.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Journalistic Integrity