Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

The Death of Journalism?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Death of Journalism?

    Not trying to blog... but Today I was off work and was doing a honey do list whilst listening to pod cast from political and comedic people I like. All the subjects were the same ... Gun control, Lance Armstrong and that Teo dude from Notre Dame. ( i care not to spell his name right already sick of him)

    And in all cased it struck me that no one had fully investigated the stories regarding the latter two and the prior was being spun with miss truths and faulty statistics by some news networks( and the president) taken in the 90's in regards to gun ownership.

    What happened to journalism? What happened to reporting the news fully? It seems with all these sensationalist celeb incidents we have they could of been ferreted out way before they broke had anyone ever looked into them. I mean FFS Armstrong had been accused of doping since day one... And with so many political things there are never any counter statements to political positions unless you are watching MSNBC which spends hours debunking any republican thoughts and or telling republicans what they need to do to regain power ( become democrats) or Fox doing the same but towards the dems. The main stream media spends their time pushing the obama cause de jour or bashing rush Limbaugh for his transgressions ......

    Is it our fault? by our viewership and the basic brain dead society who like "scandal" who love the celeb stories and reality TV.. does this make journalism this sorry? Or is more that journalist regardless of political background have just gotten lazy and would rather push their political narrative instead of investigating and reporting both sides.

    Opinions on this subject would be appreciated for i am clearly at a loss why regardless of where i tune there is a narrative not news

  • #2
    Re: The Death of Journalism?

    There may be a few genuine journalists out there, but I never see them.

    Journalism, the news is supposed to speak truth to power. Instead they are propaganda outlets today. Both left and right.

    And the network news today, and news in general must generate a profit. In the old days network news was not a profit maker and the other programming of the network paid for it. So they have to entertain first, push the propaganda second. It makes for basically disinformation instead of truthful information..

    I have stopped watching all news on the boob tube. I got sick of the bias, and the outright propaganda. I was bascially addicted to it until I discovered I had lost about 10 percent of my brain cells. I stick to CSPAN, and try to catch washington journal, and booknotes as often as I can.

    I am in need of a great online news source with real journalism being used. Any suggestions? I don't mind paying for it. I would rather read the news than watch it anyways.

    ?


    • #3
      Re: The Death of Journalism?

      I think it all started in the 70s when the network decision makers decided that the news broadcasts needed to compete for funding based on ratings. Since then, the news has become what is sensational rather than what is important.

      Few would dispute that the overall quality of mass journalism however exactly quality is defined has declined since the 1950s. Long before Matt Druge broke the Lewinsky story on the internet, the ratio of serious to sensational journalism was falling and the ratio of entertainment to information was rising. Some go so far as to say that we are in a crisis of political communication (Blumler and Guervitch, 1995). Others argue merely that the journalistic house is out of order (Patterson, 1994).

      The question taken up in this paper is why. Some blame the values or personal dispositions of journalists (Patterson, 1994; Lichter et al., 1986); others cite the takeover of numerous journalistic enterprises by large, profitmaximizing corporations (Bagdikian, 1992); some blame market competition (McManus, 1994); and still others attribute change to a complex of cultural, political, and institutional factors (Blumler and Guervitch, 1995).

      This paper argues that market competition is the main cause. The values of journalists, as I argue, are for the most part on the side of higher quality news. The profit motive of owners is innocuous, except under conditions of heavy market competition. Yet market competition, whether before the spread of television or after, and whether in this country or abroad, seems to make a consistent difference. For example, British TV news, which has until recently enjoyed a state monopoly and still has a subsidy, is usually considered higher quality than TV news in the United States, where numerous providers compete for the news audience. The U.S. produces some high quality TV journalism, but it is mainly on PBS, where it is shielded from competition by a subsidy. Meanwhile, the lowest quality American TV news is produced in the most competitive news sector, namely, local television. Moreover, the very worst TV news is produced, as we shall see below, in the local markets that are most competitive. A comparison of major British and American newspapers is also telling. In this domain, the America media, which still typically enjoy monopolies in their local markets, seem to have the quality edge over media in Britain, where the most important papers compete against one another in a national market.

      Market Competition and News Quality, John Zaller, UCLA
      "market competition is the main cause", and how is the competition measured? Ratings.

      With the advent this ratings based competition direction, the news media has started to fall away from their obligations of the social contract, in which they would report on those in power, business and political leaders, in exchange for the privilege of being a free press. Now it's come so far that it seems like the press is a slave to Obama, whether it be by ideology or adoration, there rarely is any news that shows the president, or his policies, or his positions, in a bad light. We've already witnessed where this and the media destruction of an opposing candidate has had a significant impact in the results of an election, especially among the low information electorate, which, no doubt, are the same as those that are enamored by the reality TV craze.

      ?


      • #4
        Re: The Death of Journalism?

        Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
        I think it all started in the 70’s when the network decision makers decided that the news broadcasts needed to compete for funding based on ratings. Since then, the news has become what is sensational rather than what is important.



        "market competition is the main cause", and how is the competition measured? Ratings.

        With the advent this ratings based competition direction, the news media has started to fall away from their obligations of the social contract, in which they would report on those in power, business and political leaders, in exchange for the privilege of being a free press. Now it's come so far that it seems like the press is a slave to Obama, whether it be by ideology or adoration, there rarely is any news that shows the president, or his policies, or his positions, in a bad light. We've already witnessed where this and the media destruction of an opposing candidate has had a significant impact in the results of an election, especially among the low information electorate, which, no doubt, are the same as those that are enamored by the reality TV craze.
        Have TV News from US, UK and Ireland here... Best news for straight impartial is toss up between BBC Newsnight (which Saville screw up apart is very good), Channel 4 (UK) News and RTE News... None of those remotely focus on ratings... We watch America's to have a laugh... The bias in some of the US News stories is unbelievable at times.. Fox gets a special metion... Al Jazzera is closer to the truth when it comes to the middle east than them.

        Eon.. I don't see how you can say Obama gets a free ride when Romney got a ride so free nobody knew what he really stood for by the election... Not to metion the laughing stock which was GOP Nomination race...

        The is usually alot of bemusment in Ireland/UK at what goes on sometimes in America...

        ?


        • #5
          Re: The Death of Journalism?

          Well, we do call it the "media circus" Except the kids can't slip in under the the bottom of the tents these days. And the clowns are frightful instead of comical looking. But still they present plenty of illusions, with con men and pick pockets more prolific than in the old circuses. They also got rid of the fat ladies.But increased the number of pretty sexy females. They don't take their clothes off yet, but I expect it sooner or later.

          ?


          • #6
            Re: The Death of Journalism?

            So much to write about so little time left this afternoon.

            'Real' journalism died in 1932, or there abouts. This is when what became 'The Mainstream Media' decided, on it's own not to tell the truth about FDR... the polio, the walking, the policies, or the cheating. Just wouldn't do it.

            Continued on, more or less, through the '50's and up to the 1960 election. Then there are a repeat of 1932 where again 'The Mainstream Media' refused to tell the truth about JFK... the back and the drugs he took for the pain, the policies, or the cheating, the sex parties, and oh yeah the stolen election. Just wouldn't do it. Nixon wasn't paranoid as they truly were out to get him.

            This time, the supposed (alleged) 'golden age of fair an objective news reporting' simply didn't exist.

            But it was the height of their power Cronkite in 1968, and Woodward and Bernstein in 1973, the media brought down two US presidents. Cronkite by lying about Vietnam and Woodward and Bernstein making Nixon's role in Watergate sound far worse than it was. (Yes Nixon was a fool... surrounded by bigger fools... but he also knew they were out to get him).

            Though the 80's and into the 90's we saw media consolidation increase and gee... if it wasn't the liberal newsroom that always came out on top of such things!?! Evermore stocked full of far left true believers, the MSM kept insisting that they were fair, even when they weren't.

            It wasn't until the late 90's and early 00's that alternate media made a dent in the monopoly in the news. Rush (love him or not) led the charge, to be quickly followed by... most everyone else on the internet.

            The power of the blogospere hit it's (to date) high when 'guys sitting at home in their PJs', took down Dan Rather and his lies about Bush in 2004.

            After failing to stop Bush in 2000, the MSM spend the next 8 years telling anyone that would listen how bad Bush was, and how bad the economy was. News of 275,000 new jobs and 5.2% unemployment was 'not good enough' to the press. Compare that to today's read on 150,000 and 7.8% as being 'steady progress'

            Of course, the gloves came off with Obama's 2008 run, (such as they were still on at that point) and by 2012 all pretense of a non-partisan media was gone. 'In the tank' just didn't cover it... they have be-clowned themselves.

            This has boded ill for the profession as a whole... what with one-half of the population excluded for being too far to the right (if only in the center) they quickly find out that there is no future for them if they aren't cheer leading for the left. Thus the mediocre ones quite after a bit, the good one's never having gone to J-School. What is left is a mesh-mash of far left true believers, out, not to report, but to shape the news, and what news you are told, and those few that want to be part of the news by exposing 'the truth'
            The truth being whatever gets them time on the evening news. Neither one is willing to, you know, actually work for it, an when you for ideological reasons exempt your side... you see where we are.

            ?


            • #7
              Re: The Death of Journalism?

              As was shown on The Daily Show with CNN getting rid of all their investigative journalists the news business in America is now all about profit.

              It just makes me glad we have the BBC that doesn't have to worry about profit or pissing off sponsors and I know it will never happen but it would be great if you had something similar.

              ?


              • #8
                Re: The Death of Journalism?

                Originally posted by tsquare View Post
                So much to write about so little time left this afternoon.

                'Real' journalism died in 1932, or there abouts. This is when what became 'The Mainstream Media' decided, on it's own not to tell the truth about FDR... the polio, the walking, the policies, or the cheating. Just wouldn't do it.

                Continued on, more or less, through the '50's and up to the 1960 election. Then there are a repeat of 1932 where again 'The Mainstream Media' refused to tell the truth about JFK... the back and the drugs he took for the pain, the policies, or the cheating, the sex parties, and oh yeah the stolen election. Just wouldn't do it. Nixon wasn't paranoid as they truly were out to get him.

                This time, the supposed (alleged) 'golden age of fair an objective news reporting' simply didn't exist.

                But it was the height of their power Cronkite in 1968, and Woodward and Bernstein in 1973, the media brought down two US presidents. Cronkite by lying about Vietnam and Woodward and Bernstein making Nixon's role in Watergate sound far worse than it was. (Yes Nixon was a fool... surrounded by bigger fools... but he also knew they were out to get him).

                Though the 80's and into the 90's we saw media consolidation increase and gee... if it wasn't the liberal newsroom that always came out on top of such things!?! Evermore stocked full of far left true believers, the MSM kept insisting that they were fair, even when they weren't.

                It wasn't until the late 90's and early 00's that alternate media made a dent in the monopoly in the news. Rush (love him or not) led the charge, to be quickly followed by... most everyone else on the internet.

                The power of the blogospere hit it's (to date) high when 'guys sitting at home in their PJs', took down Dan Rather and his lies about Bush in 2004.

                After failing to stop Bush in 2000, the MSM spend the next 8 years telling anyone that would listen how bad Bush was, and how bad the economy was. News of 275,000 new jobs and 5.2% unemployment was 'not good enough' to the press. Compare that to today's read on 150,000 and 7.8% as being 'steady progress'

                Of course, the gloves came off with Obama's 2008 run, (such as they were still on at that point) and by 2012 all pretense of a non-partisan media was gone. 'In the tank' just didn't cover it... they have be-clowned themselves.

                This has boded ill for the profession as a whole... what with one-half of the population excluded for being too far to the right (if only in the center) they quickly find out that there is no future for them if they aren't cheer leading for the left. Thus the mediocre ones quite after a bit, the good one's never having gone to J-School. What is left is a mesh-mash of far left true believers, out, not to report, but to shape the news, and what news you are told, and those few that want to be part of the news by exposing 'the truth'
                The truth being whatever gets them time on the evening news. Neither one is willing to, you know, actually work for it, an when you for ideological reasons exempt your side... you see where we are.
                Thanks for the totally unbiased report...

                ?


                • #9
                  Re: The Death of Journalism?

                  Originally posted by PeterUK75
                  As was shown on The Daily Show with CNN getting rid of all their investigative journalists the news business in America is now all about profit.

                  It just makes me glad we have the BBC that doesn't have to worry about profit or pissing off sponsors and I know it will never happen but it would be great if you had something similar.



                  Well, some networks do run ad free in the US but they are generally things like HBO etc.

                  Never really watched anything on the CPB / (public broadcasting) but i assume they don't have ads, either.

                  But in the case of the BBC, it is kind of like PBS / NPR and either taxpayer or license funded, which has rather more systemic and wholesale problems as the Beeb has shown lately.

                  But as much as a Been style system may never come about in the US, after the Saville issue and what was happening after David Kelly and previous scandals i think the license fee is pretty much untouchable, too.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Re: The Death of Journalism?

                    In fact coming to think about it, wouldn't having a corporate side of ad free TV leave the networks even more beholden and behest to making money? Through subscriptions rather than ads i guess. But it would make it even more business like in some ways.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Re: The Death of Journalism?

                      Was it really with just FDR? Or did the media used to have different ideas about what they should report? Would you feel better if the media has gone after FDRs mistress, covering it 24/7 as the depression was raging on?

                      Of course it was only when FOX was created that we really ever had any real deal news, huh?

                      I noticed the media to take a turn towards vitriole and just bad manners when FOX arose to the top of the shit pile.

                      If you watched an old newscast from prior eras, you could not see bias. Today they lead with it. And many will even tell you their political beliefs. But you could already tell what they were.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Re: The Death of Journalism?

                        Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                        As was shown on The Daily Show with CNN getting rid of all their investigative journalists the news business in America is now all about profit.

                        It just makes me glad we have the BBC that doesn't have to worry about profit or pissing off sponsors and I know it will never happen but it would be great if you had something similar.
                        Meh. I'd put BBC center-left or left-center if you prefer. Not so sure that it's not leaning, just because it's from the UK.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Re: The Death of Journalism?

                          I'm not going to try an claim the BBC is perfect but one thing it does do is self flagellation and when it gets stuff wrong and it's shown it goes into some kind of odd round of beating itself up.
                          I still think the BBC is one of the great UK institutions which can regularly make awesome TV and not overly worrying about ratings.

                          A good examples is a show called Episodes with Matt LeBlanc from Friends which I've really enjoyed and has was a couple of awards but hasn't been a hit in the ratings and I could see it being cancelled by a US network but the BBC are sticking with it because the fans who do watch it say it's great.

                          The natural history department is also world class with Sir David Attenborough being the obvious standout.

                          http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episodes_(TV_series)

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Re: The Death of Journalism?

                            Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                            Meh. I'd put BBC center-left or left-center if you prefer. Not so sure that it's not leaning, just because it's from the UK.
                            One thing it certainly doesn't do is pander to any party as it's not allowed to. It will rip into all 3 main parties with equal vigor and will report scandals about them all equally. If you watch any comedy on the BBC with any kind of interest in politics you will see the scorn is given to all equally.
                            They may indeed seem to have an overall political leaning compared to US politics but I think that's mainly due to the UK being left compared to the US but it has no bias towards any political party.

                            This is why I find the US system of having news channels that are tied to political parties so odd. Sorry for banging on about Fox but I don't have access to the liberal version but Fox are so pro Republican it doesn't really count as news to me it's more of an information arm for the party. There are no hard hitting interviews of Republicans or scrutiny and if what I hear is true the same is true on the other side so I just think you are getting extremely poor service from your news providers.
                            Last edited by PeterUK75; 01-18-2013, 01:59 PM.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Re: The Death of Journalism?

                              The BBC does an outstanding job of producing quality programming and reporting actual events.
                              In the US, NPR and PBS maintain high standards of journalism.
                              The Knight-Ridder organization reported before the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, that there was no evidence that Iraq possessed any WMDs or that Iraq had a nuclear program, they got that story fom their Pentagon sources. When "Mobile Bio-Logical Warfare Labs" were found in Iraq, I heard that they were just hydrogen generators for target balloons on NPR, and for 6 weeks after that I heard Cheney refer to them as "Mobile Bio-Logical Warfare Labs". Of course they were just hydrogen generators.
                              The polling that NPR reported turned out to extremely close to the actual results of the last election, where I believe FOX viewers were shocked by the results.

                              Journalism is consumer driven, if you want clear, accurate, well researched stories you can get it, if you want tripe delivered by bimbos, you can get that.
                              So if you want accurate reporting, you can watch PBS or listen to NPR.
                              If you want sexy news babes, telling you what you want to hear, you have FOX.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X