Re: See why the MSM should be questioned?
- From: "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:17:20 -0600
Jud wrote:
This is very much a 'hot-button' topic for me. I have been witness to
a number of newsworthy events, and have found that what actually
happened and what was reported are often 2 different things. Although
I enjoy reading opinions, they belong in the editorial pages, not the
front page. Words taken out of context, or fabricated words find their
way into the news. Sensationalism of otherwise backpage events finds
its way to the forefront. "If it bleeds, it leads".
? Tom Brokaw, NBC news reporting on the side impact of Chevy trucks
showing how the gas tank explodes. After numerous attempts to get one
to explode, NBC put detonators in the truck. No mention of fabricated
news, until it came out later.
? Barbara Walters on the 20/20 news program interview with 'Buckwheat'
from "The Little Rascals" shows. Turns out that the interviewee only
claimed to be Buckwheat, who had died over 20 years earlier.
? Peter Arnett reporting from Kuwait City while under Scud attack from
Iraq stated that they were "Chemical Weapons". Pure conjecture, and
opinion.
? Numerous New York Times articles that were later proven to be pure
fiction.
? Oprah Winfrey plugging a book that was pure fiction as well.
These are just a few of the national/worldwide examples of
journalistic incompetence. There are many others that I know about on
a local basis. Whatever happened to journalistic integrity where ONLY
facts were reported? Who, what, when, where and why. And the 'why'
distinctly identified as the reporter's opinion.
Believe only 1/2 of what you hear, and the remaining half to be taken
with a grain of salt, because of reporters slant or incompetence in
reporting the entire story.
End of rant. We now return you to your regularly scheduled coin
related discussions, already in progress.
Two more things that irritate me no end: 1) "Man in the street" sound and
video bites. Why is some guy in South Lugburz allowed to give his (usually)
badly-thought-out response to an interview question on camera, as if to say
that his opinion counts for anything? This is how we got Joe the Plumber.
2) People who are being interviewed no longer face the camera, but are
given a three-quarters shot that makes them look as if their interlocutor is
behind me and to one side. I keep wondering what that person is doing back
there.
End of rant - maybe - but don't count on it.
James
.
- References:
- See why the MSM should be questioned?
- From: oly
- Re: See why the MSM should be questioned?
- From: PC
- Re: See why the MSM should be questioned?
- From: Bruce Remick
- Re: See why the MSM should be questioned?
- From: mazorj
- Re: See why the MSM should be questioned?
- From: note.boy
- Re: See why the MSM should be questioned?
- From: Jud
- See why the MSM should be questioned?
- Prev by Date: Re: Is it counterfeit?
- Next by Date: Re: See why the MSM should be questioned?
- Previous by thread: Re: See why the MSM should be questioned?
- Next by thread: Re: See why the MSM should be questioned?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|