I think this is going to be frightening for everyone but the most hardened Democrat political operatives:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/18/whos-partisan-now//print/
Anita Dunn–White House Communications Director
“two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse Tung and Mother Theresa."
–screwed up on both counts
You have two issues here which you are somehow trying to mix.
One is fox news and the supposed war on it. The obama administration is correct in the fact that
fox news is an arm of the GOP. That is clearly not in dispute. Fox news is the broadcast arm of the GOP
party. Now whither or not, Fox does broadcast GOP political scandals or not, makes no difference.
It is still an alleged news organization and should broadcast scandals of either party.
Now before you whine about CNN, they do broadcast scandals of both parties. All the white house is doing
is bringing it to the attention of the American people that fox news is not fair nor balanced.
If fox news had the balls, they would simply go out and announce the fact that they work for the GOP, but
they don’t, so we get pretend journalism.
Now your second separate issue, how is this any different than when bush spoke on national TV about how
his favorite philosopher was jesus. Yep, jesus. No less than Nixon praised Mao and if tricky dick can praise the
chairman, so can we.
Kropotkin
I think it’s more accurate to characterise Fox News as an organ of conservatism, than of the Republican party.
Fox news offers diversity that otherwise would be lacking on TV. We’d have to rely on the Cartoon network, and Comedy Central for laughs.
I agree. Fox does a perfectly fine job discrediting itself all on its own!
Even if it was (and it isn’t as is amply demonstrated in the articel) so what? Freedom of the press is freedom of the fucking press.
Bullshit, and if it were, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the massively biased mainstream media in the Democrat camp.
The point in any case is freedom of speech. Obama wants to shut them down. Whether or not you think that’s what they’re trying to do, do you think they should be able to try?
[/quote]
the second amendment insures the first
dead liberals
-Imp
Even if it was (and it isn’t as is amply demonstrated in the articel) so what? Freedom of the press is freedom of the fucking press.
Bullshit, and even if it were, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the massively biased mainstream media in the Democrat camp.
The point in any case is freedom of speech. Obama wants to shut them down. Whether or not you think that’s what they’re trying to do, do you think that would be a good thing if they did?
[/quote]
Obama is not trying to shut them down. He’s trying to get a health care bill passed.
With all this talk about how horrible Fox News is, I am wondering why everyone feels this way. What specific stories have they reported that were untrue, or biased? Fox covers republican and democrat scandals, as Paine pointed out.
It seems very trendy and popular to rip on Fox, but how are they any worse than the other networks? All cable and TV news is a joke, pretty much. But I have seen plenty of all major networks, and Fox is no worse than the rest; in many respects, they are better. Really there is no charge that you can level against Fox that also cannot be levelled against the other networks as well. MSNBC in particular, I can turn on any time of day and within a couple of minutes there is shameless bias and clear rips on the GOP and republicans, and obvious cheerleading for the president or the DFL. And they don’t even hide it, or try to. Where is the outrage over that?
So isn’t it a bit hypocritical to hate on Fox without hating on the other guys as well?
. . . .I would also point out that Fox News has more daily viewers than CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and HLN combined.
Sure it’s hypocritical. It’s also politics.
Nothing on TV is more entertaining than flipping between Fox and MSNBC as they “cover” the same issue.
A while ago, I saw Sean Hannity interview Michael Moore. Hannity is a clown, but that was the best interview with Moore I have ever seen. The two should do a regular show together. But such moments are few and far between on either network.
I feel as if the media has an ethical obligation to keep people informed and not place slants on news. The news I really want is fact filled not being clowned with.
Also, the people who seem to have the most pull on the right is COMPLETELY unworthy of their influence. Take the top 3 at the moment for the right wing.
Rush-- The man did not graduate from college
Hannity-- Did not graduate from college
Beck-- Did not graduate from college
Now I do believe that ad homs are relevant when people declare themselves experts in morality/politics. It seems clear they are all just “personality” and they lead people to believe the uneducated banter they spew. They are in the wrong morally in my opinion for using news to make themselves wealthy and they are actually foolish if they believe they are “experts” of any manner.
I tried to examine the more liberal people’s education but they came away fairly well educated.
Olberman – Communications from Cornell: Not politics though I am iffy on his credibility
Franken --Political Science degree from Harvard
I think the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. But ask yourself whose words do more damage to the structure of America as a whole-- The utilitarian left or the egoist right? I still believe all news sources should be held responsible for the misinformation and the propaganda tactics they continue.
It most certainly is in dispute. Just look at the examples in the article where Fox has criticized Bush and the Republicans. Can the same be said of the rest of the main stream leftist media not slanting/lying in order to support socialism/the Democrats.
I thought it made no difference???
He didn’t appeal to Jesus as a “political philosopher” like Ms. Dunn did. Oh and one other thing, Jesus wasn’t responsible for the death of 25-35 million of his own people–to which he was monumentally indifferent. And neither am I a Republican nor especially a fan of Nixon who should have been tried.
Fair (and balanced). They do have more conservative commentators that liberal as the article said (fairly), which is not a mirror image of the rest of leftist mainstream media, and their news is unbiased.
How, besides that being your desire?
Glad you brought this up, even thought it’s totally irrelevant since the Truth is the Truth, even if Obama states it.
Why is our economy being run into the ground by economists and politicians who graduated from Ivy League (read socialist) schools.
Uh huh…
My theory of economics has little to nothing to do with this statement. I believe in order to understand any of the current occurrences you must read into the past. Every day we do not wakeup and everything starts anew. It is is continuation. The momentum is unstoppable we can only hope to deflect it from doing harm. So, if you want to believe that people in the last several years have been the breakers of our economy-- I will clearly state you are wrong. I purpose a balanced system (similar to the one we have now) that balances market and govt. balancing. But I do enjoy your attempt at Ivy League = leftist as well. I do recall quite a few other politicians left the same institutions and are not interested in socialism–like our last president. All and all no real counterpoints were given by you.
Media does not have an ethical obligation to “keep people informed”. People have the responsibility to keep themselves informed, if they care to.
There is nothing wrong with a media organization having political biases or slants in their coverage. They can do whatever their owners wish them to. It is YOUR responsibility to keep yourself educated and informed and to filter through bias. You have no right to demand others to do it for you.
Just as you have the right to free speech to type whatever you wish here politically, and fill it with any political bias or slant you want, so do the news organizations have the right to free speech to do the same. Assuming it is not slanter, defamation, libel, and all that.
The problem is that not enough people care that news is biased. If enough people cared, it would pressure the news organizations to become more unbiased, or risk losing so much viewers or readers that they go out of business. But people really just want to be entertained and propagandized, which is what the media gives them.
College does not bestow instant wisdom or make you an expert or “worthy of influence”. In fact college tends to condition you in harmful ways, limit your thinking and destroy common sense reasoning and rational thinking. College is great if you want to become an expert in some technical skill or scientific subfield specialty, but in terms of general liberal arts education or social sciences, college is vastly overrated.
Likewise, not having a college degree does not demean your intelligence or ability to see things the way they are, politically or otherwise. I would think that a lifetime devoted to news coverage, political researching and investigative journalism would count for much more than a piece of paper from a stuffy stuck up Ivy League.
Lets see some examples of this. I would challenge you to find things said by either Limbaugh or Beck which are factually inaccurate. I have no doubt they are wrong occasionally on one thing here or there, but generally speaking they have very good research teams and are well informed of current issues. I cannot speak for Hannity, as I do not listen to him.
Hm. Morally wrong for using news to make themselves wealthy. Interesting. So they have a moral obligation to work and be employed, but not to profit from it or earn a living?
Who are you to demand that they have no right to the profits that they have earned freely with their hard work? What if someone demanded that you are morally wrong for earning the wages that you do at whatever job it is that you have? Who are you to decide who is wealthy or too wealthy, or which job is ok to earn a living on and which isnt? No one forces anybody to watch Fox News. If they are wealthy, it is because they have earned a large marketshare of listeners or viewers, and thus deserve their wealth. They did not steal it from anyone.
I would recommend that you actually read some of Ms. Rand, whom you quote in your sig here.
Once again. College does not guarantee wisdom, intelligence, common sense, rational thinking skills or ethical behavior. It tends actually to skew your perspectives and turn you into a member of a mass movement of comformity of thought, most of which originates from the left end of the political spectrum. Recent polls that I just read about today put the percentages of professors who lean left at 75%, and who lean right at 20%, across average universities; at Ivy Leavgues, it was about 87% and >10%.
The left and the right are both insane and idiotic. It isnt them against each other, its them together against the rest of us. You and me. We end up being the victims of their shell games and fake feuding.
And news organizations have a right to their opinions (the opinions of their owners) just like you do. If you start a website or radio station or TV show, you have the right to put your opinions on there, do you not? Everyone’s freedom of speech is more important than trying to sanitise the voices of some people “for the sake of” others. You need to educate yourself. Don’t make it an imperative that others do it for you. That’s just being lazy and apathetic.
News has an ethical obligation to give straight information. Revise my statement to be encompassing just the news.
You are right media may do as it wishes. But once they place slants on it they are no longer a proper news organization.
Free speech is non-existent unless no one else encounters your words. The words will almost always have some level of consequence. Whether it causes someone to judge you or any other occurrence it is not truly free. Because speech is not truly free the news should have an ethical guideline. Hell, if before every show a disclaimer was placed that said “The opinions are derivations of facts” or something to that manner that is fine. But since I do not see those and the presenters act as if they are the end all tell all.
College does not bestow instant wisdom. It DOES show that you have spent more time and become more qualified than an ordinary person. Take for example a doctor and just a high school graduate. Who would you trust to diagnose your illness? Just because the high school graduate (who may be the same age as the doctor) has not spent as much time studying illnesses and the human body does not mean he is a bad person. There is just someone who is more qualified.
You can point to where on the doll college education touched you. You are making a HORRIBLE hasty over generalization regarding college. If a person has not spent time thinking in college than sure they will become pantomimes of the institution. But you are assuming by making this statement that it destroys things. Almost all people in my age range who have graduated from school are generally independent thinkers who I know. I disagree with college being overrated because it puts you in a position to LEARN to think critically. To learn to reason. Some may not learn to. Also, remember Ivy league pushes out Conservatives, Liberals, and Moderates.
It does diminish your qualifications (not going to college). Insert example of the doctor and the high school student here. The student may still know some stuff but the fact of the matter is he is NOT qualified. He may be of equal intelligence but the training is what matters. You are right that if they had spent that lifetime doing news coverage, political researching, and investigative journalism I would say they are equal or greater than people w/ degrees within. BUT, the names I listed DID not do this. They are simply inflammatory radio personalities. They do not put their feet to the street. They are not doing research and they are not doing “news” coverage. They are stating there own headlines and making horrific logical flaws which leads the “ordinary” man (that who is not self-informed into a frothing rage at their misinformation. NPR/FOX/MSNBC etc all do this. Olberman was a sport broadcaster so he holds little more value than some of the others.
Ok I do suppose the burden of proof is upon me.
nydailynews.com/ny_local/200 … _oped.html
I like this one cause it is an inflammatory topic and misinformation and may actually be worthy of a lawsuit. I do not care for Sharpton but Rush went too far.
youtube.com/watch?v=YD_xAUTpa7w
I guess saying that the “new black” America is Obama’s fault. This kind of thing was NEVER happening before.
youtube.com/watch?v=zEuAVgmW … r_embedded
Wow…can you research this? Can we prove that our godlessness has led to a political decline? I would like to see the fact checking on that one.
We could go on about how he called Obama a racist and how Obama hated white culture than could not define what white culture is.
Or youtube.com/watch?v=OM5P2hix … re=related
Intelligent Design… /sigh
But we trust this man with conveying our “news”
These are just found from 5 minutes of searching. I have only really been following these people for about 3 months and nothing but wrongs and controversy follow them. No fact checking. Hyperbolic statements used to be divisive and misinformation. You can account this as being “entertainment”. That is fine but they must specifically state that their focus in “entertainment”. I know people who claim that whatever these people say is right is “right”.
I am speaking of the subjective /entertainment approach which misleads many. Wealth acquired through moral wrongdoing is not ok. Hard work can be done in fraud cases as well does this signify that they “earned” it?
I enjoy how you choose to bring up Ayn Rand. Perhaps it is you who should invest in some time reading her. These “news” people appear to be far more down the lines of Toohey rather than Wynand. I say this because the aforementioned individuals are taking the hand of the common man and leading them only to the places they choose to go. They tell them how to think about this and that. All the while they probably do not believe it themselves. I like the quote not because I like her philosophy (if you can call it that). People who believe her system is in any way functional are delusional. But she was a great author.
Burden of proof is on you about this one. Where are these polls, who participated, and show me the poll that said college skews your perspectives. Frankly, you are not even making sense here. I know college does not show instant development. BUT it is relevant when discussing intellectual matters. The Doctor example comes into play again.
You are riding the coattails of my misuse of media instead of news. News is "a report of a recent event; intelligence; information: His family has had no news of his whereabouts for months. " No where in there does it say to insert one’s opinion. Rewrite the message to say “entertainment” or “opinion piece” and it makes it valid.
That is your opinion, which is perfectly fine for you to hold. If you do not feel that a media organization is a “proper” news organization, feel free to not pay them for their product, and go somewhere else for your news.
It is all fine for you to distinguish between proper and improper, but in reality what does that amount to? Just your opinion. It does not change any fact here. Most media is inaccurate and biased. Most account or recall of any event is going to be inaccurate, by the nature of second hand information, inaccuracy of eye witness testimony, and conflicting opinions of so-called experts. Opinions are everywhere, thats really all there ever is.
However, as media (and news) organizations are owned and operated by people, they have every right to express opinions as they wish. Just as you do. And yes, they have every right to lie also. Just as you do. Just as I do. Just as anyone in a free society does. When a news organization lies and passes it off as fact, this is “bad”, I agree; if I detect this in the news I am digesting, I stop engaging that news and go elsewhere.
If you want to amend the First Amendment so that no one has the right to tell a lie, I wonder how you would go about doing this; who gets to decide what is a fact or a lie? How many experts are needed? What if there is disagreement? How do you prove the intent to lie, as opposed to a mistake or factual error? Who gets the ultimate power to be the Final Arbitor of Truth in American Media? You?
I do not understand this part here. What does it mean, “Free speech is non-existent unless no one else encounters your words”? Are you saying that we do not have the right to free speech, if that speech has effects on others or has some form of consequence? Please explain this.
It does, but only in relation to a specific technical or scientific field of study. “General education” or liberal arts degrees involve no such speficied training or knowledge.
This is an example of a specific scientific and technical area of knowledge, specified training. Liberal arts degrees are not of this type of knowledge.
Nice, I like that. That is exactly what I am doing here.
I do not think so. It is a generalization, yes, and I am aware that it does not apply everywhere. I am only claiming it as an overall trend, or the general rule if you will. And I speak not just from my readings and talks with others, but also from vast personal experience.
The uselessness, and the tendency to indoctrinate, of so-called liberal arts or social sciences degrees is widely known, but I do not wish to get into a shouting match regarding it now. This issue tends to polarize people one way or another. Either you will agree with me here, or you will not. Arguing likely will not accomplish anything on this point.
I taught myself to learn to think critically, so I suppose my personal experience is different than most. However, I taught myself this after college, and a large part of this self-teaching consisted of breaking down barriers, lies, conditionings, and blindnesses and stereotypes hammered into my brain from the college years.
I am glad that you have had a good experience with college education. Once again I am not claiming that college is always bad. I am merely claiming that it is by no means a guarantor of intelligence, common sense, rational thinking, ethical behavior or expert status of any kind.
One again, however, a medical degree and a sociology degree are worlds apart.
Really? They take hundreds of live phone call from the public every day. Anyone and everyone can, and does, call into their radio shows. In addition to this they also interview prominent public figures, experts and politicians. And in addition to this, these radio hosts (Limbaugh and Beck specifically) have very extensive databases of past records, news articles, speech quotes, studies, polls, you name it. They dig into their archives and can pull out just about anything that any politician has ever said. And they have active teams that research news and topics for them. They frequently read directly from bills and proposed language in amendments or proposals on the floor of the Senate or House. And they frequently interview or play quotes from politicians, regarding issues of importance such as healthcare or environmental policy. I do not know why you seem to think they are up there just making stuff up with no evidence at all, but they are certainly not doing that. Yes they have an opinion, and yes they have beliefs in what is good or bad regarding politics and current events. But you cannot accuse them of not providing evidence and first-hand information “from the horse’s mouth”.
So to claim that they do not put their feet to the street is just wrong. You may think they are inflammatory, and in many cases they are just that. It is part of the appeal of their shows. You may not like it, in which case I advise you to not listen. However, you cannot claim that they are not out there getting in touch with the average American; they do this more every single day than most politicians would do in an entire year.
I would call covering news stories “doing news coverage”. It could be done well, accurately, or it could be done poorly and inaccurately. We can argue specifics on this, but any TV or radio personality who talks about news is doing news coverage. I hate when these radio and TV people, from any end of politics be it left or right, get on about “I’m not a journalist, I’m not a news reporter”. They all seem to pull this, as if its some sort of get out of jail free pass they can throw at critics of theirs. If you are on the media, and you are talking about news, then you are covering news. You are a news reporter. They all are. Let’s debate on how good or bad of a news reporter they are, not get side-tracked on the pointless debate of “are they a REAL news reporter?”
I could not find any evidence for this, either way. You will notice that this article here is devoid of any factual information regarding possible roles that Sharpton had in these riots.
They did not reporoduce any substantial quotes from Limbaugh’s article, where he may (or may not) have backed up his claim with facts. I do not know, because that information is not present. This is just a he-says-she-says retort, nothing more. But this little link of yours is a great example of how horrible news media really is. We are left with no evidence one way or another, no new facts to present, and no actually clips from Limbaugh’s article in question. Basically, we are left with no means to judge the accuracy or lack thereof of his statements.
And why is this? Your link provides no reason to assume that Limbaugh is wrong. You are merely taking Sharpton at his word.
I will check these out when I have access to sound on my PC.
Yes, the religious messages that some of these radio personalities throw in tends to annoy me, as well. However, they have every right to make such statements. If they believe in intelligent design, let them talk about it and tout it to their heart’s content. But if I am listening to them and they begin to do this, I will turn off the radio or TV. And I for one have not had that experience. Most of the time they throw in a “God bless America” here and there, but they are certainly not sermonizing while I am listening. Of course that isnt to say that they never do. But then again, if that is their belief that is fine, and they have every right to say it. Just as you have every right to turn off the radio or TV.
No fact checking? Are you kidding here? Limbaugh and Beck both qualify almost all of their statements of fact with “According to this entity…” They are constantly calling out politicians for their own statements, and playing quotes from what the politician said. They go on to INTERPRET those quotes from their own perspectives, to analyze and comment on them, but if there is one thing you cannot accuse these two of doing, it would be not fact checking. Limbaugh and Beck are always qualifying their statements by telling you who or where it came from. You might not like their OPINIONS regarding those statements, but thats fine. You dont need to provide factual evidence for your opinion. But they do explain their opinions and reasons for their positions all the time.
Ok, just so you know, I am not here to blanketly defend any of these people. I enjoy their shows, and I find that in many ways they are the last place I can go for real information on political events and issues. I also know that in many ways they slant coverage, and much of their shows are filled with their opinions. I am not here to defend them or be their champions. They do things that irritate me all the time, like talk about God or Tradition or the Founding or whatever. They tend to generalize also, about their opponents, and they have a very limited understanding of free enterprise, capitalism, socialism and the nature of their opponents. But that being said, I am able to listen to their shows, filter through these various inaccuracies on their part, piece together what is true about what they are saying and where I know they are right or wrong. And as they are entertaining at the same time, as well as give a refreshingly new take on political events which you cannot find anywhere else, I enjoy their shows, and derive benefit from listening to them. This does not mean I always agree with them, or that I am here to defend them to the death. I am merely calling it as it is. No news will ever be completely accurate. But if you learn to discern truth from false and fact from bias, and also can get some entertainment value thrown in there as well, I see no reason not to enjoy it. Or, if you just cant stand these guys, just dont listen to them. See? Problem solved.
Once again, this is your opinion, and that is fine. But I again cite the mountains of data, facts, citations and qualifications that these two guys present while they are on-air. Not to mention their extensive archives, which they dip into consistently to produce past records, reports, legal precedents, laws, quotes, all the time.
Wynand has every right to his wealth, which he built up by manipulating and lying to the people who CHOOSE to read his newspapers. Rand does not ever claim otherwise.
Absolutely not. Even if they were being intentionally deceptive as opposed to merely strongly opinionated with mostly honest intent, your comparison to Toohey is giving them far too much credit.
Well, your opinions here on their motives are your own. You think they are lying deliberately and just trying to manipulate public opinion; well maybe they are. My experiences have not convinced me of this. Maybe yours have. In that case, good for you. But as we cannot know their motives or inner feelings or principles, we cannot be sure who they would be more like. But assuming you are correct, it is far more accurate to call them a Wynand. Merely giving the public what it wants, sensational lies and cheap entertainment, in order to enrich themselves.
You can call people who “believe” in her “system” delusions if you like. As she really had no system to speak of, and certainly not one to “believe in” in any functional way (certainly not one presented in Fountainhead), I do not really know what you are referring to here. You seem to misunderstand her, which is more than common. I do find it interesting that you call those who “believe” in her ideas delusional, yet you praise her for being a great author, and quote her here on this website.
97.74.65.51/Printable.aspx?ArtId=16549 I came across easily enough. I found some lines from others, but could not find the original study. But I am not going to be drawn into a homework debate, whoever churns up the most citations wins. It is widely accepted that college institutions have a left-leaning bias. There is information and polling out there to support that statement, such as the above link, not to mention countless personal testimonies. But if you do not agree, there is really no way for me to convince you.
And once again, doctors go through specific technical training. They learn and memorize huge amounts of scientific information and facts, and they become an expert in a real practical field with practical knowledge that they can apply in a real way. General education degrees do not do this. Liberal arts degrees or social science degrees do not to this. What specific, technical profession is a MA in Sociology or Art History or Political Science qualified for? Nothing.
Nothing against those degrees themselves, per se. Without retracting my previous statements that these sorts of degrees are useless, they still have merits if you are passionate or interested in those subject matters; my point is just that you cannot compare such degrees to a medical degree, or a technical degree or specialty in a hard science.
News is just a word, meaning current or recent or important events or information. It does not immediately strip the content therein of opinion or slant or bias or interpretation or perspective. Being close to the journalism industry myself, I see first hand how difficult it is to remain completely unbiased in any news story, even the most mundane. At some point, personal preference comes into play, even between the selection of people to interview, parts of quotes to contain, experts to mention, prior studies or stories to cite, and how to word so-called factual data. It is VERY hard to write a completely unbiased news story. But there is no need.
As I said before, it is your responsibility to educate yourself. News is information, and not all information is always doing to be accurate, or without a hidden agenda. That is just the way the world is. I see that you dont like it, but thats too bad, there is no changing it. And believe me, it is FAR better to have a free society that lets you speak your mind, whether in person or through the medium of this internet forum, or on the radio waves of the news company that you own and operate yourself. You have the right to your opinions, your speech and to use your personal property to express them. That is what is so wonderful about being in a free society.
The catch is that there will always be people who want to use you for some end of theirs. This just means that you have a responsibility for your own life, for your choices and for determining your beliefs and discerning truth from false. Its not always easy. But thats life. Sometimes you will make mistakes, be lead by false information, or believe a lie. You are not perfect, congratulations. But this fact does not mitigate your inherent responsiblility for your own life and for your personal decisions and beliefs.
Basically, don’t shoulder your own responsibility onto others, and don’t demand that they give up their own right to freedom of speech just because you dont want to have to be bothered to actually think while your paging through the morning news.
I have seen this more than once, in the New York Times. A front page story that told of big company that was laying people off, that the company was clearly in trouble, that times were bad. Sad story. And in the same issue, in the business section, that the same company was laying people off, that it was a sign of good management and long term health, and that times were good for that company. Happy story.
Same newspaper.
In which story was the NYT lying?
Neither. It’s perspective.
Lost plenty of my arguments in transition. Long story short. Fact checking. It is kind of important.
nydailynews.com/news/politic … ogize.html
huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/2 … 32255.html
Sharpton was NOT involved in the Crownside Heights until AFTER the riots. Limbaugh said he was there and caused the riots. This is kind of like saying George Washington died in 1799 while another said he died in 1800. Only one is right. And Limbaugh is wrong.
My presentation for the doctor analogy was qualifications. A person with a PhD in Political Science is FAR more qualified to discuss politics than laymen. If you deny that then you are irretrievable lost.
Wynand = Rupert Murdoch who I have no qualms with. The shock jocks are like Toohey. Toohey is involved with the people where Wynand is all about profit.
Ayn Rand does have a philosophical system called objectivism. Look it up. It is non-pragmatic and dysfunctional not to mention unethical.
There is no contradiction with my quote from Rand. I may quote Gandhi but not believe his philosophy as a whole.
Rand’s aesthetic purpose is in the forefront of “The Fountainhead”. Art has its own value and does not need to compromise. I enjoy architecture and Roark was based on Frank Lloyd Wright, who was a genius.
I do not pay nor endorse any news organization. I simply read what occurred and that generally suffices.
Which is why I am declaring a difference between “news” and “media”. News is the strict definition given in my prior post. Whereas media is used for entertainment purposes. If we do not have the foundational word to differentiate then there cannot be a common system of language for us to stand upon.
I agree they have the “freedom” to speak as they wish (more on this later)-- but when you present situations of an opinionated matter they become editorials and should be relegated to the back of the paper with an statement labeling them as opinions and not news.
Ok I will tentatively agree with this report except I found a huge glaring flaw. rightwingwatch.org/content/c … ar-culture
Just the position of the organization makes me critical of its agenda and the validity of the argument. This is the critical thinking thing at work.
Firstly, what do you do? Because you willingly assail things without declaring your actual position. They do not need to be technical. It is about qualifications as compared to the average man. You can compare them to hard science because there is no such thing. Science is just as wishy-washy as any other field because humans are involved which denotes a limited epistemological stance and other things. I have a deep background in Biology. There is a crazy/ambivalent world in both science and non-science.
YES! “meaning current or recent or important events or information”. It does strip it of its content and make is mere facts. Anything else is not “news”. That is why the ethical standard is supposed to be upheld for “news”. The ethical is not always the easy which is why the simple revision of from “news” to “media” is all I seek.
I am not. You misinterpret me. I am not asking for them to STOP speaking. Though at times it would be preferable. I am not asking them to only cover what I want and say what I want. I am actually saying there are ethical guidelines that “news” has. If you wish to be an unqualified “shock-jock” then you are not a “news” person.
You are correct. For me it is interesting that the NYT held both ends of the spectrum in one paper. That interests me greatly.