US implements socialism for 80 years, China gets rid of it for 30, China leaps ahead

[Mustang]

What do you believe talk radio hosts can get away with that so-called "journalists" can't get away with? Provide examples.

Are you obtuse?

Here's the way it generally works.

Certain professions are held up to a higher or a lower standard of truthfulness than others are. I think everyone understands this.

As far as the dissemination of information is concerned, journalists (both print and broadcast journalists) are held to the highest standards. That's why they have fact checkers to check claims before publications go to print. That's why they can be sued and/or lose their jobs if they write or broadcast something that's factually untrue.

Op/Ed columnists have more leeway. They can offer their OPINION on current events. An opinion is NOT a fact.

Entertainers have incredible leeway. I remember a famous case from back in the 1980s when Larry Flynt printed a parody ad that claimed to have Jerry Falwell recounting his first sexual experience which was supposedly with his mother in an outhouse while he was drunk. Falwell sued, and he lost. The jury 'rejected the invasion of privacy and libel claims, holding that the parody could not have reasonably been taken to describe true events'. No reputable newspaper would ever be able to get away with that.

The POINT is that talk radio falls under the heading of ENTERTAINMENT which gives it a certain license to make claims that it otherwise could not get away with if it was classified as news and therefore held to a higher standard of journalistic ingegrity. Alas, a lot of gullible people listen to talk radio and simply don't understand that conservative talk radio is not held to the same standards of truthfulness as a news program. Many people simply assume that it must be true if it's broadcast over the air. That's just not the case.

In short, you can't name anything.

What I wrote is clear enough.

But just in case you need a generic example (I can't imagine why), I can provide one.

If a conservative talk radio host says that Obama is trying to destroy the military, or America, (or anything else for that matter), or that Obama is intentionally doing X for reason Y, he can easily get away with it. In this case, it's just an opinion, but it's stated as fact. I've heard worse examples where hosts have made specific as opposed to general claims. They don't get sued, and they don't get fired even though they're saying something that they have no proof about or can't even substantiate to any degree other than citing someone else's opinion. Hell, if anything, they're probably actually encouraged to say more things along these lines by their employers because controversy is good for ratings and higher ratings are good for both advertising revenue and the further syndication of the show which translates into more money for the both the host and the company that syndicates the show. They're all feeding at the troth of controversy and ratings are what matters. Then there's also the likely fact that these shows are competing with each other at the same time in the same markets. In that sense, they're like strippers. Whoever shows the most skin (is the most controversial) makes the most money in tips (gets the highest ratings). It's a business model that has worked for years. But anyone who takes what is being said seriously is the equivalent of a WWE wrestling fan who watches their wrestling matches and thinks they're real sporting events where the outcome is in doubt. It's just two different versions of the players involved following a predetermined script.

 

[bripat9643]

Are you obtuse?

Here's the way it generally works.

Certain professions are held up to a higher or a lower standard of truthfulness than others are. I think everyone understands this.

As far as the dissemination of information is concerned, journalists (both print and broadcast journalists) are held to the highest standards. That's why they have fact checkers to check claims before publications go to print. That's why they can be sued and/or lose their jobs if they write or broadcast something that's factually untrue.

Op/Ed columnists have more leeway. They can offer their OPINION on current events. An opinion is NOT a fact.

Entertainers have incredible leeway. I remember a famous case from back in the 1980s when Larry Flynt printed a parody ad that claimed to have Jerry Falwell recounting his first sexual experience which was supposedly with his mother in an outhouse while he was drunk. Falwell sued, and he lost. The jury 'rejected the invasion of privacy and libel claims, holding that the parody could not have reasonably been taken to describe true events'. No reputable newspaper would ever be able to get away with that.

The POINT is that talk radio falls under the heading of ENTERTAINMENT which gives it a certain license to make claims that it otherwise could not get away with if it was classified as news and therefore held to a higher standard of journalistic ingegrity. Alas, a lot of gullible people listen to talk radio and simply don't understand that conservative talk radio is not held to the same standards of truthfulness as a news program. Many people simply assume that it must be true if it's broadcast over the air. That's just not the case.

In short, you can't name anything.

What I wrote is clear enough.

But just in case you need a generic example (I can't imagine why), I can provide one.

If a conservative talk radio host says that Obama is trying to destroy the military, or America, (or anything else for that matter), or that Obama is intentionally doing X for reason Y, he can easily get away with it. In this case, it's just an opinion, but it's stated as fact. I've heard worse examples where hosts have made specific as opposed to general claims. They don't get sued, and they don't get fired even though they're saying something that they have no proof about or can't even substantiate to any degree other than citing someone else's opinion. Hell, if anything, they're probably actually encouraged to say more things along these lines by their employers because controversy is good for ratings and higher ratings are good for both advertising revenue and the further syndication of the show which translates into more money for the both the host and the company that syndicates the show. They're all feeding at the troth of controversy and ratings are what matters. Then there's also the likely fact that these shows are competing with each other at the same time in the same markets. In that sense, they're like strippers. Whoever shows the most skin (is the most controversial) makes the most money in tips (gets the highest ratings). It's a business model that has worked for years. But anyone who takes what is being said seriously is the equivalent of a WWE wrestling fan who watches their wrestling matches and thinks they're real sporting events where the outcome is in doubt. It's just two different versions of the players involved following a predetermined script.

You're forgetting all the times that so-called "journalists" have made claims on the air that are patently false. For instance, there was a superbowl once where someone claimed that the incidence of wife beating increased dramatically during the superbowl. Prior to the 1993 Superbowl, The Associated Press and CBS labeled Super Bowl Sunday a “day of dread” for women across the country. This claim was later shown to be utterly bogus.

Apparently News outlets operate on the same business model as talk radio.