Surprised no one is talking Shakespear in the Park
- Thread starter DvlDog4WVU
- Start date
No, I am looking for consistency and fairness. The media and Dems IMMEDIATELY blamed Palin. This time, Dems are blaming guns and the media is as well.
The real problem is the Giffords shooting. Palin was not responsible. She had nothing to do with it. Why blame her? Yet, the media and the Dems went bananas.
Perhaps since you are a liberal you don't see the enormous double standard or the hypocrisy.
No I just don't trust any media tv news show to care about anything but ratings. Including FOX. I read reporters that take time and effort to form their opinions.
Minor correction. Reporters should not be forming opinions, that is for the news analysts. Reporters should be all about reporting the facts for both perspectives and letting the chips fall where they may. The problem is that reporters are no longer just reporting facts, but picking sides and presenting the "facts" from that point of view.
I don't agree. A true journalist doesn't JUST provide facts in black and white, but also has to investigate and come up with a "conclusion" of sorts as to what his/her findings are for a situation. Case in point, I will read about this in several days, when a Guardian, Time, or Newsweek reporter looks into this shooters background, mental stability, and activities. I will trust the reporter to not fabricate anything in order to serve some larger agenda, but I will also trust the reporter to lead me to the same place he/she was led by examining the available evidence. I will make certain to glance at, skim, and maybe even read articles by Huffington and Fox on the issue in a week or so....just so I feel informed as to what if anything the article I read missed. Reactionary journalism is a result of the 24 hr news cycle, and the viewers have to stop it. Demand drives supply. Why don't conservatives understand that
The left are already blaming conservative radio for the shooting of Scalise. Talk about crazy
There really isn't a way to stop the thing they were effective at. It requires a well informed electorate who seek out information from both sides and form their opinions on their own. What we have in this country is a lot of lazy group think who form opinions on sound bites.
To stop it, it would require censoring or regulating the internet. I don't support sacrificing liberty for safety nor do I support regulating stupid. And honestly, no one will convince me Trump was a worse option than Hillary. The whole premise of the argument the Left is making is that if it wasn't for the troll farms is based on their belief that Hillary was the obvious choice.
I don't think we should just throw our hands up either. A thorough investigation that shows the dumbass electorate how Russia tried/did influence them (and all the countries to come in the future) will hopefully lead to more critical thought and discussion. Perfection? No. But we should strive to do better.
And we should continue to sanction the f out of them. They were attacking our states' voting infrastructures, a political party and a political campaign.
I think that teaching our youth how to navigate information could help. I also think that some type of BAR Association for journalism credibility could help. The independence and initiation of which would probably be too problematic.
Reporters are not supposed to express opinions. Journalism 101. They are supposed to present the facts they have uncovered. It is up to the analysts of the media to develop opinions on the matter.
You have identified the problem with the main stream media. They are overwhelmingly liberal. You posted this:
I will trust the reporter to not fabricate anything in order to serve some larger agenda, but I will also trust the reporter to lead me to the same place he/she was led by examining the available evidence.
The reporter has a liberal world view and will lead you to the same place he or she came to. That is wrong in so many ways. It is not there job to lead you to a conclusion, it is their job to report all the facts in an unbiased fashion and let you reach your own conclusion. Again, journalism 101.
I agree that Russia should be sanctioned. But the evidence reached thus far shows that not one vote was changed and the hacking of DNC and Podesta had no influence on the election. That needs to be reported as well or else you grind government to a halt and delegitimize a democratically elected President.
As for dumbass electorate, I hope you include both Dems and Republicans in your vitriol.
No, but my daughter did and ATL did and he has commented on this many times. Hard news reporters are NOT SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE OPINIONS IN THEIR ARTICLES. This is not to say that the article in stating the facts and just the facts won't lead the reader to a single conclusion. But it is not the hard news reporters job to draw that conclusion for them.
There is something called investigative journalism, it's not based on opinion, but it is a process of "conclusion" to a question. Balance is always key, but that doesn't mean the reporter doesn't "lead" the reader to the conclusion they reached. For this current example: a true journalist doesn't draw the conclusion that the shooter was driven by the rhetoric of the left. The reporter looks into the shooter's life, actions, likes and dislikes, groups he belonged to, and tries to find some pattern in his actions, sentiments, and goals ( or lack there of). This investigation will lead the reporter to determine what the shooter's motivation was to commit the act. The balance occurs through the reporter covering other possible motivations through evidence he/she has found. Never excluding possibilities or evidence, but obviously reaching a personal conclusion as to what the motivation was. Now if this process is driven by an overall political or social agenda, then of course that conclusion is tainted and not legitimate. If it is however, driven by quest for truth, than it may be murky....but the balanced conclusion will ultimately be reached.
It's much like a law enforcement investigation. The guilt should not be assumed and this the facts filtered to fit the conclusion already drawn, but the conclusion must be reached through an examination of the facts......facts presented in balance, but the conclusion is presented as well.
You said a reporter essentially should express his opinion. That could lead to a reporter going against all evidence and claiming a position, based on his opinion. A reporter is not supposed to "lead" the reader anywhere, just follow the facts. The facts in a case don't have to be balanced since in a particular case, the facts are overwhelming in one direction.
A reporter should not express his opinion of a shooter's motivation. The reporter should report what the police believe to be the motivation. The reporter has no where near the evidence the police have (and may never disclose).
Your description above is different than your original claim that a reporter should provide his/her opinion. It is a much more nuance/neutral description.
If you want hard news reporters to express opinions, I am ok with that as long as the reporter discloses his political positions as well. Then the reader can make more informed judgments about that reporters opinions, biases, etc.
Opinion of the shooters motivation, in this case, derived from a thorough investigation of the shooter's background and life. Yes, balanced facts (maybe he is a Sanders supporter....but maybe he is also a rabid environmentalist.....but maybe his first wife ran off with a GOP big wig). The reporter reached a "conclusion" or "opinion" based on the investigation they conducted, and that's the report that write. If there are potential other conclusions that the writer weighed as well, those are covered also in the report. Yes, the police report is obviously included, but not taken as gospel in investigative journalism. The complexity of a shooter's motivation is substantial, outside of military operations, imo.
I'll leave you with this. Newspapers have hard news sections and they have editorial sections. They completely separate the two. They have walls built between the two. The reason is that editors do not want reporters opinions on hard news pieces. They want truth and fact. Editorials are all about opinions.
I could easily envision a hard left reporter looking at the evidence of this shooting and blaming Trump for inciting violence and providing his or her facts to back up that opinion. This is exactly why editors (at least good editors) don't want opinions on the front page of their newspapers.