Let's Play a Game!

[TemplarKormac]

This is one of those threads in which the OP proves the opposition's point. So keep on keepin' on, you sad moron.

Care to elaborate on how you reached that conclusion?

Just look at the assertion in #1 and her subsequent posts. It's laughable.

Her point in the OP is that most of the media includes bias in their reporting and she gave examples of both left and right followed by an unbiased example.

Then she posted an unbiased article from NPR.

Are you alleging that NPR is biased?

In which case the onus is on you to demonstrate that bias.

You think that NPR is Not Biased?

*snicker*

Prove it.

Easy. Juan Williams. Apparently he wasn't as far left as NPR wanted him to be, so they fired him. The top editor resigned when an investigation revealed she mishandled his dismissal, over comments he made which ironically were about Muslims. That made them super mad.

Shakeup at NPR latest news analysis video

Editor who fired Juan Williams resigns after NPR review

 

[Carla_Danger]

This is one of those threads in which the OP proves the opposition's point. So keep on keepin' on, you sad moron.

You are fantasizing.

No. I feel very grounded in reality today.

Based on what you are posting in this thread, you are not, and you are the one who is laughable. Why don't you explain your perception of how the OP's examples are in conflict with her assertions?

I guess they have no other sources besides Breitbart, the National Review, the Heritage Foundation, or Fox.

It's too embarrassing for them to post.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Her posts speak for themselves. If you can't identify the cognitive dissonance between her assertion in #1 and what she puts forward as "journalism", then illuminating you is an impossible task.

Failure to do so on your part means her point stands unchallenged.

You will need substance if you are going to to prove your allegation.

This has already been addressed by another poster.

NPR calling the report on CIA interrogation a "Torture" report is in itself evidence of bias. But what else would we expect from people who call ObamaCare, "health care"?

So you are alleging that NPR is biased just because it used a single word that you personally disagree with?

Obviously you are incapable of identifying your own bias and setting it aside in order to see things from an unbiased perspective.

Thank you for clearing that up. Your subsequent contributions to this thread will be considered in the light of your self admitted bias.

Here's a clue: there is No News Source and No Human who is without bias. Judgment and values are applied in interpreting what happens. If the other party's value and judgement are congruent with one's own, that appears as an unbiased source, but to others' they see bias. Anyone who says he is completely unbiased is either lying or completely delusional.

Here is something for you to ponder. At one time, the focus of reporting news was to report it without bias. Those who studied journalism were taught to be objective. Though there is no person who, as an individual, is unbiased, real reporters made every attempt to be as objective and unbiased as possible. That was their mantra, those who were seriously interested in being good reporters and journalists.

What has become the norm is the opposite of that. And that is the purpose of this thread, to think about what has happend in the past decades to change the focus of reporting news from the desire to be objective to be, rather, quite biased.

You use the term 'interpeting.' News reporting should not be about interpreting. That is the point of this thread.

Exactly!

 

[boedicca]

Her posts speak for themselves. If you can't identify the cognitive dissonance between her assertion in #1 and what she puts forward as "journalism", then illuminating you is an impossible task.

Failure to do so on your part means her point stands unchallenged.

You will need substance if you are going to to prove your allegation.

This has already been addressed by another poster.

NPR calling the report on CIA interrogation a "Torture" report is in itself evidence of bias. But what else would we expect from people who call ObamaCare, "health care"?

So you are alleging that NPR is biased just because it used a single word that you personally disagree with?

Obviously you are incapable of identifying your own bias and setting it aside in order to see things from an unbiased perspective.

Thank you for clearing that up. Your subsequent contributions to this thread will be considered in the light of your self admitted bias.

Here's a clue: there is No News Source and No Human who is without bias. Judgment and values are applied in interpreting what happens. If the other party's value and judgement are congruent with one's own, that appears as an unbiased source, but to others' they see bias. Anyone who says he is completely unbiased is either lying or completely delusional.

Here is something for you to ponder. At one time, the focus of reporting news was to report it without bias. Those who studied journalism were taught to be objective. Though there is no person who, as an individual, is unbiased, real reporters made every attempt to be as objective and unbiased as possible. That was their mantra, those who were seriously interested in being good reporters and journalists.

What has become the norm is the opposite of that. And that is the purpose of this thread, to think about what has happend in the past decades to change the focus of reporting news from the desire to be objective to be, rather, quite biased.

You use the term 'interpeting.' News reporting should not be about interpreting. That is the point of this thread.

One cannot report on something if one doesn't either observe it firsthand or interpret second hand reports. Those acts themselves affect the reporting outcome.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I guess they have no other sources besides Breitbart, the National Review, the Heritage Foundation, or Fox.

Note how I later cited the HUFFINGTON POST in my thread? Citing both sides is objective. You on the other hand citing only one is biased. Do I need to break out the dictionary?

 

[The Rabbi]

U.S. Boosts Security At Facilities Ahead Of Torture Report's Release

The U.S. has increased security of its facilities around the world ahead of the release Tuesday by the Senate of the executive summary of its report on the CIA's interrogation practices in the war on terrorism, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said today.

"The administration has for months been preparing for the release of this report. There are some indications that the release of this report could lead to a greater risk that is posed to U.S. facilities and individuals all around the world," Earnest said. "So the administration has taken the prudent step to ensure that the proper security precautions are in place at U.S. facilities around the globe."

He said the Senate Intelligence Committee had informed the White House that the executive summary will be released on Tuesday, adding that the White House supported the move.

"The president believes that on principle it's important to release that report so that people around the world, and people here at home, understand what exactly what transpired," he said.

The Senate Intelligence Committee voted in April to release the 480-page executive summary of the report on the CIA's interrogation policies during the presidency of George W. Bush

It's worth noting here that many people are calling the document the Senate's report. It is, in fact, the executive summary of the full 6,200-page report.

Criticism began even before its details were made public.

Secretary of State John Kerry called Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, chair of the Senate intelligence panel, last week on behalf of the White House, asking for a delay. NPR's Lauren Hodges reported there were fears in Congress the report would put "American personnel in danger overseas and incite further violence from extremists."

But lawmakers such as Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said it was essential the executive summary was released.

"This report would never happen in North Korea or China or Russia," she told CBS on Monday. "But in the United States, we hold our government accountable. And, I think, that process is so important, so fundamental to our democracy, that it's essential that this report comes out."

Bush, speaking on CNN over the weekend, said he hadn't read the report, but called those in the CIA "patriots."

"And whatever the report says, if it diminishes their contributions to our country, it is way off base," he said. "And I knew the directors, I knew the deputy directors, you know, I knew a lot of the operators. These are good people, really good people and we're lucky as a nation to have them."

The New York Times reported that the former president's team "has decided to link arms with former intelligence officials and challenge its conclusions."

U.S. Boosts Security At Facilities Ahead Of Torture Report s Release The Two-Way NPR




It must be pretty bad if they're having to tighten security.

You failed.
The report is about US interrogation techniques.
The headline writer characterized it as "torture", which is a value judgement.
/fail.

If you're referring to waterboarding, it is torture. You need to brush up on some history. In 1947, the US charged a Japanese officer with war crimes just for waterboarding a US civilian. He did 15 years of hard labor in prison.

That is an opinion.
The US waterboards many of its military trainees as part of their training. Clearly it is not necesarily torture, although some people could hold that opinion.
BUt the report detailed "interrogation". Had the headline rwiter been honest he would have repeated that. Calling it torture is bias.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Failure to do so on your part means her point stands unchallenged.

You will need substance if you are going to to prove your allegation.

This has already been addressed by another poster.

NPR calling the report on CIA interrogation a "Torture" report is in itself evidence of bias. But what else would we expect from people who call ObamaCare, "health care"?

So you are alleging that NPR is biased just because it used a single word that you personally disagree with?

Obviously you are incapable of identifying your own bias and setting it aside in order to see things from an unbiased perspective.

Thank you for clearing that up. Your subsequent contributions to this thread will be considered in the light of your self admitted bias.

Here's a clue: there is No News Source and No Human who is without bias. Judgment and values are applied in interpreting what happens. If the other party's value and judgement are congruent with one's own, that appears as an unbiased source, but to others' they see bias. Anyone who says he is completely unbiased is either lying or completely delusional.

Here is something for you to ponder. At one time, the focus of reporting news was to report it without bias. Those who studied journalism were taught to be objective. Though there is no person who, as an individual, is unbiased, real reporters made every attempt to be as objective and unbiased as possible. That was their mantra, those who were seriously interested in being good reporters and journalists.

What has become the norm is the opposite of that. And that is the purpose of this thread, to think about what has happend in the past decades to change the focus of reporting news from the desire to be objective to be, rather, quite biased.

You use the term 'interpeting.' News reporting should not be about interpreting. That is the point of this thread.

Exactly!

And Derideo calls me a cheerleader? I would be if Carla didn't steal my pom-poms.

 

[TemplarKormac]

As far as bias is concerned:

"He who is without sin, cast the first stone."

 

[Carla_Danger]

Based on what you are posting in this thread, you are not, and you are the one who is laughable. Why don't you explain your perception of how the OP's examples are in conflict with her assertions?

Her posts speak for themselves. If you can't identify the cognitive dissonance between her assertion in #1 and what she puts forward as "journalism", then illuminating you is an impossible task.

Failure to do so on your part means her point stands unchallenged.

You will need substance if you are going to to prove your allegation.

This has already been addressed by another poster.

NPR calling the report on CIA interrogation a "Torture" report is in itself evidence of bias. But what else would we expect from people who call ObamaCare, "health care"?

So you are alleging that NPR is biased just because it used a single word that you personally disagree with?

Obviously you are incapable of identifying your own bias and setting it aside in order to see things from an unbiased perspective.

Thank you for clearing that up. Your subsequent contributions to this thread will be considered in the light of your self admitted bias.

Here's a clue: there is No News Source and No Human who is without bias. Judgment and values are applied in interpreting what happens. If the other party's values and judgment are congruent with one's own, that appears as an unbiased source, but to others' they see bias. Anyone who says he is completely unbiased is either lying or completely delusional.

In an effort to be even clearer, an actual NEWS story is one that contains no characterizations of people or incidents.

 

[Esmeralda]

Failure to do so on your part means her point stands unchallenged.

You will need substance if you are going to to prove your allegation.

This has already been addressed by another poster.

NPR calling the report on CIA interrogation a "Torture" report is in itself evidence of bias. But what else would we expect from people who call ObamaCare, "health care"?

So you are alleging that NPR is biased just because it used a single word that you personally disagree with?

Obviously you are incapable of identifying your own bias and setting it aside in order to see things from an unbiased perspective.

Thank you for clearing that up. Your subsequent contributions to this thread will be considered in the light of your self admitted bias.

Here's a clue: there is No News Source and No Human who is without bias. Judgment and values are applied in interpreting what happens. If the other party's value and judgement are congruent with one's own, that appears as an unbiased source, but to others' they see bias. Anyone who says he is completely unbiased is either lying or completely delusional.

Here is something for you to ponder. At one time, the focus of reporting news was to report it without bias. Those who studied journalism were taught to be objective. Though there is no person who, as an individual, is unbiased, real reporters made every attempt to be as objective and unbiased as possible. That was their mantra, those who were seriously interested in being good reporters and journalists.

What has become the norm is the opposite of that. And that is the purpose of this thread, to think about what has happend in the past decades to change the focus of reporting news from the desire to be objective to be, rather, quite biased.

You use the term 'interpeting.' News reporting should not be about interpreting. That is the point of this thread.

One cannot report on something if one doesn't either observe it firsthand or interpret second hand reports. Those acts themselves affect the reporting outcome.

IMO, based on your posts, you are very ignorant about good journalism.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is one of those threads in which the OP proves the opposition's point. So keep on keepin' on, you sad moron.

Care to elaborate on how you reached that conclusion?

Just look at the assertion in #1 and her subsequent posts. It's laughable.

Her point in the OP is that most of the media includes bias in their reporting and she gave examples of both left and right followed by an unbiased example.

Then she posted an unbiased article from NPR.

Are you alleging that NPR is biased?

In which case the onus is on you to demonstrate that bias.

You think that NPR is Not Biased?

*snicker*

Prove it.

You already did.

 

[boedicca]

This has already been addressed by another poster.

NPR calling the report on CIA interrogation a "Torture" report is in itself evidence of bias. But what else would we expect from people who call ObamaCare, "health care"?

So you are alleging that NPR is biased just because it used a single word that you personally disagree with?

Obviously you are incapable of identifying your own bias and setting it aside in order to see things from an unbiased perspective.

Thank you for clearing that up. Your subsequent contributions to this thread will be considered in the light of your self admitted bias.

Here's a clue: there is No News Source and No Human who is without bias. Judgment and values are applied in interpreting what happens. If the other party's value and judgement are congruent with one's own, that appears as an unbiased source, but to others' they see bias. Anyone who says he is completely unbiased is either lying or completely delusional.

Here is something for you to ponder. At one time, the focus of reporting news was to report it without bias. Those who studied journalism were taught to be objective. Though there is no person who, as an individual, is unbiased, real reporters made every attempt to be as objective and unbiased as possible. That was their mantra, those who were seriously interested in being good reporters and journalists.

What has become the norm is the opposite of that. And that is the purpose of this thread, to think about what has happend in the past decades to change the focus of reporting news from the desire to be objective to be, rather, quite biased.

You use the term 'interpeting.' News reporting should not be about interpreting. That is the point of this thread.

One cannot report on something if one doesn't either observe it firsthand or interpret second hand reports. Those acts themselves affect the reporting outcome.

IMO, based on your posts, you are very ignorant about good journalism.

Whew! That's a relief. If you agreed with me, I'd have to check my premise

You wouldn't recognize good journalism even if it reached around and gave you an atomic wedgie.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In an effort to be even clearer, an actual NEWS story is one that contains no characterizations of people or incidents.

Once again, calling interrogation techniques 'torture' without substantiating such a claim is not news, it is an assertion based on personal opinion. The clarity of such news is called into question when it starts mislabeling actual persons and events to suit a narrative.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you are alleging that NPR is biased just because it used a single word that you personally disagree with?

Obviously you are incapable of identifying your own bias and setting it aside in order to see things from an unbiased perspective.

Thank you for clearing that up. Your subsequent contributions to this thread will be considered in the light of your self admitted bias.

Here's a clue: there is No News Source and No Human who is without bias. Judgment and values are applied in interpreting what happens. If the other party's value and judgement are congruent with one's own, that appears as an unbiased source, but to others' they see bias. Anyone who says he is completely unbiased is either lying or completely delusional.

Here is something for you to ponder. At one time, the focus of reporting news was to report it without bias. Those who studied journalism were taught to be objective. Though there is no person who, as an individual, is unbiased, real reporters made every attempt to be as objective and unbiased as possible. That was their mantra, those who were seriously interested in being good reporters and journalists.

What has become the norm is the opposite of that. And that is the purpose of this thread, to think about what has happend in the past decades to change the focus of reporting news from the desire to be objective to be, rather, quite biased.

You use the term 'interpeting.' News reporting should not be about interpreting. That is the point of this thread.

One cannot report on something if one doesn't either observe it firsthand or interpret second hand reports. Those acts themselves affect the reporting outcome.

IMO, based on your posts, you are very ignorant about good journalism.

Whew! That's a relief. If you agreed with me, I'd have to check my premise

You wouldn't recognize good journalism even if it reached around and gave you an atomic wedgie.

OUCH. Well, and atomic wedgie plus being hung on the flagpole.

Oops.

 

[blackhawk]

I don't believe there was ever such a thing as unbiased news people just used to try and hide it better and be more subtle about it than they are today.

 

[Carla_Danger]

This isn't the Texas Chainsaw Massacre honey.

The concealment of torture records was perpetrated by the Obama administration as well as Bush's. Objectivity is something you are incapable of.

Of course that is completely false.

Can you prove it? Or will you cite me a leftist website like you did in your OP?

Maybe we should use your National Review source, like you did in your thread titled,
"In Obama's Six Years as President, he has..."

In Obama s Six Years as President he has... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

From NR

"The latest from apologists for President Obama’s planned decree to unilaterally amnesty perhaps 5 million illegal aliens is that Reagan and Bush Sr. did it, so what’s the problem?"

See the difference? Your source was disqualified on the first sentence.

Posting it in big bold letters doesn't make your point any more salient.

You haven't made a point since you've been on this thread.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You haven't made a point since you've been on this thread.

Neither have you. Two far leftist women in a thread squealing at each other frantically because they have something in common. Sheer stupidity. I'll admit it, I never made a point. You spared me the trouble.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's now bias to dub a report about torture a 'torture report'.

I guess then it's some sort of bias to call the nightly report about the the weather the 'weather report'.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's now bias to dub a report about torture a 'torture report'

No, it's biased to call it torture and not prove why. Willful ignorance on her part.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Back around 2000 or thereabout, the nation's top journalism school, Columbia University (from whence Pulitzer Prizes are issued) did a survey of their graduate students of journalism in order to gauge attitudes and ambitions of the up and coming generation. Even back then, a majority of students had given up newspapers entirely, reporting that 100% of their information is gleaned from the Internet, television, and from books.

Yet the most telling indicator of the departure of the old by the vapid modern, was the poll as to what kind of journalism young people wanted to pursue.

Combat journalist? "Are you out of your fucking mind!!??"
Foreign correspondent? "Please. If they don't have at least three Starbucks per square mile of anywhere I am on earth, you can forget that."
Print journalist? "Yawn."
Editor? "That's for old people."
Celebrity journalist? "Yes! Yes! Oh God, please, yes!"

I guess it stands to reason that when a network devotes 40% of its "news" to the glitterati, well then it's going to need a very large staff of "journalists" to collect, collate, and produce all that crap, aren't they? Paparazzi. That's what young journalists want to be, paparazzi. It's what a brain-dead polity demands.