Lancecastor
Lit's Most Beloved Poster
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 54,670
Two New York grifters in the middle of the nite...they're so alike.
Another sign of the times.
- Thread starter Ishmael
- Start date
Colonel Hogan
Madness
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Posts
- 18,372
In the immortal words of actor Strother Martin in the film Cool Hand Luke, "What we've got here is failure to communicate." Unfortunately, "communication" as practiced by almost everyone these days has become far less about sharing information and far more about wielding blunt instruments in a competition to persuade and mold public opinion.
Here are a few elements in the debate which most people don't seem to get.
Most folks suffer from the same complaint. When it comes to politicians, they typically don't like being criticized by the media. They tend to believe it "taints" their image. But the media have only marginally thicker skins than the subjects they cover. Their own personal investment in their credibility makes them no less sensitive to accusations of bias based on mere passions or pursuit of profits from advertisers.
Thus, among the frequent topics in the ongoing information stream is a steady diet of charges, counter-charges and "setting the record straight" about the "lies and distortions" supposedly being told about them by the other side. This isn't helped by a school of thought within the journalism community towards "adversarial journalism" with respect to established institutions of power. Not that the role of the counter-balancing "adversary" is wrong, but if you are largely about creating adversaries, what type of attitude would you expect from them in return? Especially if they are innocent of any wrongdoing?
It's a war out there to convert you and me to both a loyal political partisan foot soldier and equally loyal media consumer. Our hearts and minds are the prize vied for by two strong institutions.
"Just doing my job" or "Exactly what do you think I owe you?" The press has largely itself to blame for the expectation of objectivity that has come to be DEFINED AS A RESPONSIBILITY which has never been more than sporadically self-imposed. It certainly is not a tenet of Constitutional law nor (arguably) much of a question of "ethics." And the FIRST person who should understand that better than anyone is a politician. Most don't, and, of those who do, few are going to relinquish pressing their advantage just because of misplaced assumptions or expectations by the public.
But the point that is forever lost on politicians is that the First Amendment PROTECTS the right to hold and communicate personal biases short of the legal prohibitions of libel and defamation.
Is anyone really being fooled? When was the last time anyone outside of New York or Washington ever read a copy of the New York Times or the Washington Post? And if you are already apart of the constituency that believes they are lying (or telling the truth), who's left to be persuaded? If your mind is already made up, then it isn't up for grabs is it?
There is a difference between stupid and ignorant, however. As comedian Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid." Or at least it's damn hard. Ignorance is somewhat easier to address. Ignorance is largely born of laziness on the part of the deprived. And it's up to them -- not politicians or the press -- to take the necessary corrective action. “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
Whether you're a President or a peon, quit bitching about the alleged "lies" other people are telling. Find the truth through meticulous research, tell it and go on with life. Ultimately, your reputation is something you deserve, and it is rarely created by a couple of newspapers, malignant gossips, or even the calculated (or bumbling) missteps of the Director of the FBI.
Get. Over. It.
Here are a few elements in the debate which most people don't seem to get.
Most folks suffer from the same complaint. When it comes to politicians, they typically don't like being criticized by the media. They tend to believe it "taints" their image. But the media have only marginally thicker skins than the subjects they cover. Their own personal investment in their credibility makes them no less sensitive to accusations of bias based on mere passions or pursuit of profits from advertisers.
Thus, among the frequent topics in the ongoing information stream is a steady diet of charges, counter-charges and "setting the record straight" about the "lies and distortions" supposedly being told about them by the other side. This isn't helped by a school of thought within the journalism community towards "adversarial journalism" with respect to established institutions of power. Not that the role of the counter-balancing "adversary" is wrong, but if you are largely about creating adversaries, what type of attitude would you expect from them in return? Especially if they are innocent of any wrongdoing?
It's a war out there to convert you and me to both a loyal political partisan foot soldier and equally loyal media consumer. Our hearts and minds are the prize vied for by two strong institutions.
"Just doing my job" or "Exactly what do you think I owe you?" The press has largely itself to blame for the expectation of objectivity that has come to be DEFINED AS A RESPONSIBILITY which has never been more than sporadically self-imposed. It certainly is not a tenet of Constitutional law nor (arguably) much of a question of "ethics." And the FIRST person who should understand that better than anyone is a politician. Most don't, and, of those who do, few are going to relinquish pressing their advantage just because of misplaced assumptions or expectations by the public.
But the point that is forever lost on politicians is that the First Amendment PROTECTS the right to hold and communicate personal biases short of the legal prohibitions of libel and defamation.
Is anyone really being fooled? When was the last time anyone outside of New York or Washington ever read a copy of the New York Times or the Washington Post? And if you are already apart of the constituency that believes they are lying (or telling the truth), who's left to be persuaded? If your mind is already made up, then it isn't up for grabs is it?
There is a difference between stupid and ignorant, however. As comedian Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid." Or at least it's damn hard. Ignorance is somewhat easier to address. Ignorance is largely born of laziness on the part of the deprived. And it's up to them -- not politicians or the press -- to take the necessary corrective action. “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
Whether you're a President or a peon, quit bitching about the alleged "lies" other people are telling. Find the truth through meticulous research, tell it and go on with life. Ultimately, your reputation is something you deserve, and it is rarely created by a couple of newspapers, malignant gossips, or even the calculated (or bumbling) missteps of the Director of the FBI.
Get. Over. It.
In a year or so we'll see a picture of her at the beach wrapped up in layers of blankets and an attendant by her side maintaining the IV.
I'm guessing the deal was between Trump and Obama...he wouldn't pardon her if Trump promised not to prosecute her.
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
They just can't help themselves it seems.
Media spins Trump climate change statements
The article attributes the 'spin' to trying to undermine Trump's base, and in that the NYT has openly declared itself "the opposition media," I'm forced to concur.
Yet another case of the media telling us what they want us to believe, not what the actual facts were.
Ishmael
Media spins Trump climate change statements
The article attributes the 'spin' to trying to undermine Trump's base, and in that the NYT has openly declared itself "the opposition media," I'm forced to concur.
Yet another case of the media telling us what they want us to believe, not what the actual facts were.
Ishmael
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
On that point we can agree. I'm not exactly sure when the press started morphing itself into purveyors of 'facts, and just the facts', but that seems to have started sometime in the 1950's. And they actually did a fairly decent job..........for awhile anyway. And the problem is that due to their own marketing job there are generations of people out there that can't discern the difference between facts and opinions. Pick up any newspaper, or tune in any news program, and try to objectively sift through the information separating the 'news' from the 'opinion.' In many cases you'll find opinion posing as news.
This isn't something new, as you have mentioned, it's been going on since before the nation was founded. There is a book out there, "Infamous Scribblers" that chronicles the nature of US "journalism" from before the Revolutionary War. Very little of what was written was entirely 'factual' and in many cases out and out fabrications.
People here seem to have a serious problem with discriminating news from opinion. Many consistently vilify FOX News. But when queried as to why they cite Hannity, O'Reilly, or one of the other prime time OPINION programs as the reason. I've asked them if they've ever watched the FOX hard news programs and the answer is virtually always, "No." The fact is that the hard news broadcasts on FOX actually do a decent job.
If you are unable to discriminate the facts from the opinions then you will be forever subject to being led around by the nose, no matter which side of the political spectrum you happen to abide in.
Ishmael
Adre
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2012
- Posts
- 23,913
And in many cases you'll find opinion posing as facts.
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
