Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Bit Banger

Celebrities & politics

59 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, MrBigShot said:

A Press that tells it to us straight w/o slander, bias, opinion, propaganda or advancing an agenda...We can all hope, can't we?

I, for one, would be thrilled to live in a society where there was a Press with the moral standards and political ideological neutrality of which you speak. I'm simply saying that it doesn't exist and has never existed. If I am mistaken, I invite you to correct me.

The press has always been all about "yellow journalism"... and one of the greatest hoaxes ever performed on the public was the one where they convinced everyone they weren't biased.  Kind of like that saying about the devil's greatest triumph.  

At the local raw news level, they're generally OK enough.  Though to get into the editorial board of even the smaller city newspapers, you'd better toe the line.  Once you get to the national level however, you ideology better damn well fit the narratives, because it's one big club.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom of Speech is being trampled on. Mostly by the media ,who seem to love leaving out the adjectives of "legal ' and "illegal" when talking about immigration. Then you have propaganda pages ,such as Occupy Democrats, that make up stuff just to incite people. My biggest turnoff this year about the award shows have been their injecting politics without telling the truth. With freedom of speech comes the responsibility of telling truth.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JRWolfe said:

With freedom of speech comes the responsibility of telling truth.

Is that how it works? I haven't read that in the Constitution. Maybe I'm just not that versed on the First Amendment after all. Could you link that part of the First Amendment to your reply, please?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bit Banger said:

The Black Power salute in Mexico City: I found distasteful. It was disrespectful to the country the represented  

Muhammad Ali: While I did not agree with his position, I did agree with his method. Instead of fleeing the country, he applied & fought for Contentious Objector status. Then took his lumps when he lost. 

For the sake of accuracy, the Smith/Carlos protest was not just about black power:

What is currently agreed on is this: they wore gloves to represent black America, and removed their shoes and wore black socks to symbolise the poverty of the American black community. Smith wore a scarf and Carlos a bead necklace, recalling lynching. Both Americans wore the badge of the Olympic Project for Human Rights, and they planned to raise their gloved fists, which according to Smith at the time “stood for the power in black America”.

Norman recalled those moments in “the dungeon” thus: “They involved me in the conversation. It wasn’t a secret huddle, they were letting me know. It was my suggestion that they split Tommie’s gloves because John had left his back in his room. [Then] I said to John: ‘You got another one of those badges?’ ‘If I get you one, will you wear it?’ he asked. ‘I sure would,’ I replied.”

Neither Smith nor Carlos had a spare badge, but as they walked into the light of the stadium they saw Paul Hoffman, a (white) member of the US rowing team and OPHR activist. “I was wearing my badge and he came up and said: ‘Hey mate, you got another one of those?’ So here’s this white Australian, with two black Americans, who wants to wear an OPHR badge, and I was damned if I was going to be the one who says he can’t,” Hoffman told the BBC (in the excellent documentary Black Power Salute, which you can currently see here). “So I took mine off and handed it to him.” 

 

And to clarify, Ali won his case before the Supreme Court in an 8-0 decision and was granted CO status. How the court reached its decision is a fascinating story in itself. 

Edited by bluesbroker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem isn't with speaker biases; celebrities or the media. It's with the listeners. Most people are poor critical thinkers. Moreover, they are lazy and would rather let someone else form their opinion for them rather than doing any of their own analysis. People want to believe something and rather than try to determine if that's the right thing to believe in, they merely look for validation of their beliefs, which usually comes from high profile sources, such as celebrities or the media, because those sources have an easier time getting the soapbox. If we stopped listening to the celebrities and the media, they wouldn't be able to get a soapbox.

So, this problem is of our own making. WE have the power to change it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, FuriousInch said:

My problem isn't with speaker biases; celebrities or the media. It's with the listeners. Most people are poor critical thinkers. Moreover, they are lazy and would rather let someone else form their opinion for them rather than doing any of their own analysis. People want to believe something and rather than try to determine if that's the right thing to believe in, they merely look for validation of their beliefs, which usually comes from high profile sources, such as celebrities or the media, because those sources have an easier time getting the soapbox. If we stopped listening to the celebrities and the media, they wouldn't be able to get a soapbox.

So, this problem is of our own making. WE have the power to change it.

Seems like there is plenty of blame to go around, and as long as we're still homo sapien sapien, things will probably not change that much.  

What I find fascinating most of all is we're having these discussions here on a forum dedicated to.. well, we all know, and I for one find it interesting in contrast as to what the media would portray us as.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, FuriousWeasel said:

Seems like there is plenty of blame to go around, and as long as we're still homo sapien sapien, things will probably not change that much.  

What I find fascinating most of all is we're having these discussions here on a forum dedicated to.. well, we all know, and I for one find it interesting in contrast as to what the media would portray us as.

It depends on the Media Outlet. For Instance, Bill Maher would likely have a favorable slant to our little corner of depravity while Christian Broadcast Network would more than likely portray us in a less than enthralling way.

Edited by MrBigShot
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FuriousWeasel said:

The press has always been all about "yellow journalism"... and one of the greatest hoaxes ever performed on the public was the one where they convinced everyone they weren't biased.  Kind of like that saying about the devil's greatest triumph.  

At the local raw news level, they're generally OK enough.  Though to get into the editorial board of even the smaller city newspapers, you'd better toe the line.  Once you get to the national level however, you ideology better damn well fit the narratives, because it's one big club.

Well said and exactly correct. They deceive by misdirection and division. '"CNN ....Clinton News Network is totally biased and lies for the Democrats!!!!!!........Lose the foil hat dip shit, CNN is pure truth...it's Faux News that lies from the pocket of the GOP!!"  While we are screaming at each other, the execs of both sit down to cocktails together along with the wealthy policy makers and decide what propaganda to install in us next.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Admiral C said:

Well said and exactly correct. They deceive by misdirection and division. '"CNN ....Clinton News Network is totally biased and lies for the Democrats!!!!!!........Lose the foil hat dip shit, CNN is pure truth...it's Faux News that lies from the pocket of the GOP!!"  While we are screaming at each other, the execs of both sit down to cocktails together along with the wealthy policy makers and decide what propaganda to install in us next.

I really want to say I understand what you're trying to say here but I'm not sure I do. Are you presenting the argument that certain media outlets are actually practicing objective journalism or that it's all propaganda and many, if not all Media, are in the business of collusion at the expense of the unsuspecting populous? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, MrBigShot said:

I really want to say I understand what you're trying to say here but I'm not sure I do. Are you presenting the argument that certain media outlets are actually practicing objective journalism or that it's all propaganda and many, if not all Media, are in the business of collusion at the expense of the unsuspecting populous

You got it.....the second one.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MrBigShot said:

Is that how it works? I haven't read that in the Constitution. Maybe I'm just not that versed on the First Amendment after all. Could you link that part of the First Amendment to your reply, please?

   It was the first rule i was taught in journalism school. Sadly, it seems to have fallen out of use these days. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JRWolfe said:

   It was the first rule i was taught in journalism school. Sadly, it seems to have fallen out of use these days. 

I see. Are you still employed in the industry? I'm curious whether other Journalists share your passion for Truth. My point was that the First Amendment states the Government shall make no laws limiting Freedom of the Press and that no where does the First Amendment state that the Press has to report Truth. It just isn't in there.

I'm sure you're telling the truth when you say you were taught integrity in journalism during your education by an instructor. It's a nice thought actually to have such lofty ideals being taught to students when in practice there has never been any intention to report facts w/o bias or w/o trying to advance an agenda in an attempt to influence public opinion on an issue or ideology. It doesn't matter if the Media outlet is Left, Right, Christian, Al Jazzeera or Pravda, every Media outlet (to varying degrees) is about spreading propaganda and advancing ideology than objective journalism.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Admiral C said:

Well said and exactly correct. They deceive by misdirection and division. '"CNN ....Clinton News Network is totally biased and lies for the Democrats!!!!!!........Lose the foil hat dip shit, CNN is pure truth...it's Faux News that lies from the pocket of the GOP!!"  While we are screaming at each other, the execs of both sit down to cocktails together along with the wealthy policy makers and decide what propaganda to install in us next.

I don't believe that. Bill O'Reilly gets relentlessly attacked by MSNBC and he's not exactly kind in return. I think the two two networks actually despise one another. Sometimes things are just as simple as they look. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MrBigShot said:

I see. Are you still employed in the industry? I'm curious whether other Journalists share your passion for Truth. My point was that the First Amendment states the Government shall make no laws limiting Freedom of the Press and that no where does the First Amendment state that the Press has to report Truth. It just isn't in there.

I'm sure you're telling the truth when you say you were taught integrity in journalism during your education by an instructor. It's a nice thought actually to have such lofty ideals being taught to students when in practice there has never been any intention to report facts w/o bias or w/o trying to advance an agenda in an attempt to influence public opinion on an issue or ideology. It doesn't matter if the Media outlet is Left, Right, Christian, Al Jazzeera or Pravda, every Media outlet (to varying degrees) is about spreading propaganda and advancing ideology than objective journalism.

   Ever look at my avatar ? Its an old Press pass. That said, my youngest nephew came by yesterday,,he just started a journalism class in his high school and we chatted about how badly news is reported these days. To me, it seems that ever since CNN went on the air,reporters have gotten very very sloppy.in the rush to be the first to report it on the air...they don't dig deep into their research anymore and,sadly, omit the adjectives that tell the true story and don't confuse the public. With deep budget cuts to the 24 hr "news ' channels,we now see more "opinion" shows than actual news.Hey,they have to fill the air with something.So,again..sadly, we are now subjected to propaganda vs objective journalism. Any first year journalism student can see how fake news has become.

Kind of curious though, what makes you think that the press doesn't have the obligation to tell the truth ? We were taught that giving us the Freedom Of The Press was because England had dictated what the press should report.

To answer your first question. As some of the ladies have seen in person, due to three surgeries last year,I have not been employed by the industry as I recover,except to review Music CDs and review Adult Videos and Mainstream movies. As posted elsewhere on these forums, I will be covering Mile High Exxxotica for several adult publications,as I am returning to work on a part time basis. Considering how corrupt the mainstream "news ' is,no way would I ever seek a job there. I have integrity after all.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JRWolfe said:

  Kind of curious though, what makes you think that the press doesn't have the obligation to tell the truth ? We were taught that giving us the Freedom Of The Press was because England had dictated what the press should report.

It has just never happened on a regular basis in the history of the United States...or anywhere else for that matter. I'm sure there are individual journalists practicing random acts of objective journalism currently but my point was as in regards to the First Amendment and the language that grants Freedom of The Press while there is no language concerning any obligation whatsoever on The Free Press to report facts/truth w/o bias, opinion, slander or w/o advancing an agenda.

Can you give me an example of a Media Outlet that has this moral obligation to report Truth/Facts in an unbiased way w/o an agenda? Any Media outlet will suffice.

Edited by MrBigShot
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MrBigShot said:

... the First Amendment and the language that grants Freedom of The Press while there is no language concerning any obligation whatsoever on The Free Press to report facts/truth w/o bias, opinion, slander or w/o advancing an agenda.

Can you give me an example of a Media Outlet that has this moral obligation to report Truth/Facts in an unbiased way w/o an agenda? Any Media outlet will suffice.

I agree that there is no requirement for the press to tell the truth.  But many journalist felt a moral obligation to tell the truth. Check out Walter Cronkite's biography. He felt this way early in his career. But after years of covering disasters & poverty felt the need to do something to relieve the suffering, instead of sitting on the sidelines as an impartial witness. 

Additionally, the 24hr news cycle has emphasized the "If it bleeds it leads." mantra. Why else would a train wreck in Paducah or a shooting in Avon become national headline news? The rush to scoop the world skips many steps in the process of developing an accurate story. Once again striving for the quick $ destroys a good product  

Add to this the general shift to liberalism in our institutions of higher learning ...

Edited by Bit Banger
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah the immortal and Great Walter Cronkite. He had a home in my hometown, Myrtle Beach, SC and I would see him often in his yard when I was a youngster. We have one Journalist we can agree didn't try to advance an agenda and upheld an obligation to be straight with the American Public. Just so happens he retired and lived in my hometown so I'm not objective when it comes to Walter Cronkite. He was the reason I majored in and graduated with a Journalism degree from a well known Journalism School in North Carolina. Unfortunately, his replacement, Dan Rather, had  no such obligation to reporting w/o bias or opinion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, MrBigShot said:

It has just never happened on a regular basis in the history of the United States...or anywhere else for that matter. I'm sure there are individual journalists practicing random acts of objective journalism currently but my point was as in regards to the First Amendment and the language that grants Freedom of The Press while there is no language concerning any obligation whatsoever on The Free Press to report facts/truth w/o bias, opinion, slander or w/o advancing an agenda.

Can you give me an example of a Media Outlet that has this moral obligation to report Truth/Facts in an unbiased way w/o an agenda? Any Media outlet will suffice.

 C-Span is objective. Thats about it,like I said..cable news slashed its budget and became fake news. Explanation already posted.

Don't know what you hang up is on the language of the Fiirst Amendment. They didn't have facebook and cable news to muck things up with their agendas. As taught in class,and mentioned before...the First was put in place to escape the news being dictated ,instead of factual. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do take your point about journalism always being slanted.

"Remember the Maine!"

But the think the transition (print->radio->television->cable->web) while increasing both the bandwidth and speed of news has also increased the economic pressures and the visibility of its flaws.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JRWolfe said:

They didn't have facebook and cable news to muck things up with their agendas.

It has been demonstrated that the agenda of Facebook is to present news to each member that reinforces their existing beliefs, opinions, and biases. Because that pleases people and keeps them coming back, hence maximizing user base. Good to know you disagree with that agenda.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JRWolfe said:

 C-Span is objective. Thats about it,like I said..cable news slashed its budget and became fake news. Explanation already posted.

Don't know what you hang up is on the language of the Fiirst Amendment. They didn't have facebook and cable news to muck things up with their agendas. As taught in class,and mentioned before...the First was put in place to escape the news being dictated ,instead of factual. 

JR, You're right. The First was to prevent news being dictated BY THE GOVERNMENT. However I think BigShot's problem is that the news is still being dictated, but now by corporate heads, sponsors/economics, and often by the reporters' agenda(s). A scenario similar to the 1st's protections against government prohibitions against free expression, but not private/corporate rules against the same expression. 

There is no admonition in the 1st to "Tell the truth!"  What limited protection we have in that regard resides in our libel and slander laws. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bit Banger said:

JR, You're right. The First was to prevent news being dictated BY THE GOVERNMENT. However I think BigShot's problem is that the news is still being dictated, but now by corporate heads, sponsors/economics, and often by the reporters' agenda(s). A scenario similar to the 1st's protections against government prohibitions against free expression, but not private/corporate rules against the same expression. 

There is no admonition in the 1st to "Tell the truth!"  What limited protection we have in that regard resides in our libel and slander laws. 

Oye vey....you have to consider the times in which it was written. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JRWolfe said:

Oye vey....you have to consider the times in which it was written. 

Quite true!  I feel that people had more HONOR in those days.  Then again the penalty for libel & slander was often a challenge to a deadly duel. (Andrew Jackson?). People were more careful with their words. Now, "I'm sorry" has the expectations that all will be forgiven.

I also think the 50s of Edward R. & Walter had more honor than today. As someone in another thread commented, "My word is my bond." still held true for many folks. 

Don't get me wrong. I believe that the press should be held to a high standard of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."  Even if that's not a requirement in the First Amendment.  But in today's world of anonymity, unsourced blogs, echo chambers, and lack of consequences, I think that's a fantasy. It pays too well to stir the pot with lies. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 9:47 AM, JRWolfe said:

s to C-Span is objective. Thats about it,like I said..cable news slashed its budget and became fake news. Explanation already posted.

Don't know what you hang up is on the language of the Fiirst Amendment. They didn't have facebook and cable news to muck things up with their agendas. As taught in class,and mentioned before...the First was put in place to escape the news being dictated ,instead of factual. 

There's no hang up on the language of the First Amendment as far as I can tell. Just no mention of any obligation on the Press (See Media) to report Truth anywhere in the constitution . There has also been mention of individual anchors, journalists in the 1950's and 1960's who had integrity and didn't attempt to advance a Political Agenda during their newscasts. How refreshing would that be if that were the case today? Tim Russert may have been the last of a dying breed of Journalists who didn't show their hand as to partisanship and treated both parties the same and held them both to account equally during his interviews. How many examples of non-partisanship can we offer today in respect to an individual Journalist/Reporter on the national scene?

Political Partisans have hijacked our modern day Media by impersonating journalists/reporters and advancing their agenda on a mostly unsuspecting audience. This applies to all forms of Media no matter how they happen to be aligned Politically...Left, Right, Conservative and Liberal.

Edited by MrBigShot
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Left is out of control, press out to get me, media should be controlled, ......... never has this been seen before.  Oh, wait ....... a stroll back in time lol !!!  Funny the current one just made reference to the former one lol.  Nothing new under the sun.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/12/23/1460084/-Daily-Kos-Elections-Time-Machine-It-s-1962-and-we-don-t-have-Dick-Nixon-to-kick-around-anymore

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget the "vast right wing conspiracy" out to get Pres Clinton. Or at least that's what FLOTUS thought. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MrBigShot said:

There's no hang up on the language of the First Amendment as far as I can tell. 

  Much to the chagrin of the alleged moral majority. Porn is protected by the First Amendment.  thats a good thing for us. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of noise out there and we all have political and social predispositions. Whether it's Fox or MSNBC one can distill the difference between information which is useful and a journalists opinion. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0