P
Priceless
Guest
Dirty just pawn in game of life.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
- Status
Dirty just pawn in game of life.
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here
http://m.comedycentral.com/tds_video.rbml?id=wrongnado
Stewart excoriated CNN last night.
http://m.comedycentral.com/tds_video.rbml?id=wrongnado
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here
"Experienced speculation", that's fantastic BS.
"Experienced speculation", that's fantastic BS.
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here
Yes, and in San Francisco, drag queens are officially referred to as "gender illusionists."
Yes, and in San Francisco, drag queens are officially referred to as "gender illusionists."
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here
Let me just offer a minor defense. When broadcast or cable TV goes "wall to wall," they are editing on the fly. Fast breaking events, often leave them in a position of putting incomplete or even erroneous information on the air. Producers try to eliminate the inaccurate or bogus information, but it's more difficult when they're live and events are unfolding. Recall that Headline News was going to report that Bush I had died in Japan and was stopped just seconds before they were going to make the announcement. As consumers, we should understand that and give them a little leeway. I've cited before the example of ABC News, while reporting on the assassination attempt on Reagan, announcing that press secretary Jim Brady had died of his wounds. They then showed WH staffers in tears gathered around a TV. Turns out they were reacting to the report they'd just heard on ABC. When it became clear that Brady had survived, anchorman Frank Reynolds exploded in rage that "we need to get this right."
It is much easier, hours after an event, to put together the story, either in print or video and to get it right. That doesn't excuse the willingness of talking heads to jump to conclusions (about AR-15s for example) and to offer their opinions as "news." Or the occasionally breath taking ignorance or lack of experience (not knowing the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, for instance). But breaking stories, by their nature, are difficult to get right instantly. When Bobby Kennedy was killed, there was a lot of talk about the "lady in the polka dot dress." And 50 years later, there are still crazy rumors and theories floating around about the JFK murder.
So understand that when you're watching live coverage of a big, breaking story, it's the first draft. And some "facts" will be discarded as the story develops. It's in the nature of the beast. One of the great stories of American journalism is New York Times editor Carr Van Anda. In the early morning hours of April 15, 1912, he had a decision to make: how would the Times cover the Titanic story? There were conflicting and in some cases bogus wireless reports (where they came from remains a mystery). Had the great liner gone down? Was there loss of life? Adding to the confusion, the White Star Line had even laid on a special train which would have taken family members to Nova Scotia to greet the passengers, because the ship was reportedly being towed there. Based on the sketchy information available to him, Van Anda decided the Titanic had gone down. And that there had been a great human tragedy as a result. That's the perspective the Times used in reporting the story. Van Anda was right, of course. Other papers were more cautious. As a consequence of its coverage of the disaster, the Times moved into a position of pre-eminence among NY papers, a position it has held for over a century now.
"Experienced speculation", that's fantastic BS.
Let me just offer a minor defense. When broadcast or cable TV goes "wall to wall," they are editing on the fly. Fast breaking events, often leave them in a position of putting incomplete or even erroneous information on the air. Producers try to eliminate the inaccurate or bogus information, but it's more difficult when they're live and events are unfolding. Recall that Headline News was going to report that Bush I had died in Japan and was stopped just seconds before they were going to make the announcement. As consumers, we should understand that and give them a little leeway. I've cited before the example of ABC News, while reporting on the assassination attempt on Reagan, announcing that press secretary Jim Brady had died of his wounds. They then showed WH staffers in tears gathered around a TV. Turns out they were reacting to the report they'd just heard on ABC. When it became clear that Brady had survived, anchorman Frank Reynolds exploded in rage that "we need to get this right."
It is much easier, hours after an event, to put together the story, either in print or video and to get it right. That doesn't excuse the willingness of talking heads to jump to conclusions (about AR-15s for example) and to offer their opinions as "news." Or the occasionally breath taking ignorance or lack of experience (not knowing the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, for instance). But breaking stories, by their nature, are difficult to get right instantly. When Bobby Kennedy was killed, there was a lot of talk about the "lady in the polka dot dress." And 50 years later, there are still crazy rumors and theories floating around about the JFK murder.
So understand that when you're watching live coverage of a big, breaking story, it's the first draft. And some "facts" will be discarded as the story develops. It's in the nature of the beast. One of the great stories of American journalism is New York Times editor Carr Van Anda. In the early morning hours of April 15, 1912, he had a decision to make: how would the Times cover the Titanic story? There were conflicting and in some cases bogus wireless reports (where they came from remains a mystery). Had the great liner gone down? Was there loss of life? Adding to the confusion, the White Star Line had even laid on a special train which would have taken family members to Nova Scotia to greet the passengers, because the ship was reportedly being towed there. Based on the sketchy information available to him, Van Anda decided the Titanic had gone down. And that there had been a great human tragedy as a result. That's the perspective the Times used in reporting the story. Van Anda was right, of course. Other papers were more cautious. As a consequence of its coverage of the disaster, the Times moved into a position of pre-eminence among NY papers, a position it has held for over a century now.
Last edited:
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here
Remembering the JFK assassination from 50 years of (fading) memories. No live video, no breathless announcements over the phones. Were there some mistakes? I think there was a report that LBJ was seen holding his arm (shot? heart attack?), but for the most part it was Uncle Walter and the rest of the news crews reporting off the AP Wire until the Flash announcement that President Kennedy had died.
The coverage of his funeral was, IMO, TV's finest hour (3 days) in my lifetime.
Remembering the JFK assassination from 50 years of (fading) memories. No live video, no breathless announcements over the phones. Were there some mistakes? I think there was a report that LBJ was seen holding his arm (shot? heart attack?), but for the most part it was Uncle Walter and the rest of the news crews reporting off the AP Wire until the Flash announcement that President Kennedy had died.
The coverage of his funeral was, IMO, TV's finest hour (3 days) in my lifetime.
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here
I was a slower process, but functionally just the same. The shooting of Oswald occurred on live TV. Jim McNeil (of the McNeil Lehrer report) was reporting for NBC. He was in the motorcade. And because cell phones hadn't been invented yet, needed to get to a pay phone to call New York. In the lobby of the school book depository he asked a guy where the pay phones were. The guy pointed down the hall and then headed out the door. It was Lee Harvey Oswald (the only employee who left early). Dan Rather was reporting from Dallas that day, as well. What we didn't have was live video capabilities. Film needed to be processed and edited, which slowed down the speed by which the images could make it to TV.
The product was unbelievably unsophisticated by today's standards. NBC couldn't figure out how to put a 'phone report on the air. So they had Frank McGee repeating what the reporter was saying--reading back his reports line by line. Halfway through, the audio came up, so you could hear the reporter followed by McGee's repetition of what the guy just said. Took 'em what seemed like forever to get that all straightened out. One guy from NBC was interviewing Abraham Zapruder, and never could get his name right. "Zapoodah."
Certainly everyone recalls Cronkite reading the wire flash, looking at the clock, to get the time of death correct, his voice breaking, then moving on. Walter had had prior reports about the death. But he deemed the wire report as "apparently official." In my career, I've only seen one "flash" on the wires. On the day Reagan was inaugurated, two words: "Hostages freed."
I was a slower process, but functionally just the same. The shooting of Oswald occurred on live TV. Jim McNeil (of the McNeil Lehrer report) was reporting for NBC. He was in the motorcade. And because cell phones hadn't been invented yet, needed to get to a pay phone to call New York. In the lobby of the school book depository he asked a guy where the pay phones were. The guy pointed down the hall and then headed out the door. It was Lee Harvey Oswald (the only employee who left early). Dan Rather was reporting from Dallas that day, as well. What we didn't have was live video capabilities. Film needed to be processed and edited, which slowed down the speed by which the images could make it to TV.
The product was unbelievably unsophisticated by today's standards. NBC couldn't figure out how to put a 'phone report on the air. So they had Frank McGee repeating what the reporter was saying--reading back his reports line by line. Halfway through, the audio came up, so you could hear the reporter followed by McGee's repetition of what the guy just said. Took 'em what seemed like forever to get that all straightened out. One guy from NBC was interviewing Abraham Zapruder, and never could get his name right. "Zapoodah."
Certainly everyone recalls Cronkite reading the wire flash, looking at the clock, to get the time of death correct, his voice breaking, then moving on. Walter had had prior reports about the death. But he deemed the wire report as "apparently official." In my career, I've only seen one "flash" on the wires. On the day Reagan was inaugurated, two words: "Hostages freed."
Last edited:
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here
That's the problem; today's media has surrendered all semblance of integrity. They don't even pretend anymore.
That's the problem; today's media has surrendered all semblance of integrity. They don't even pretend anymore.
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here
In a lot of cases, you're right. That's why I don't watch any of the cable outlets, except for "wall to wall," and I switch back and forth frequently, trying to keep up. In my mind, "wall to wall" answers a couple of the basic journalistic questions: "what" and "where" sometimes "who" and occasionally "how." Although we've seen that in this week's shooting many of 'em got "how" wrong, over and over and over again. "Why" generally trails behind and is the one most frequently misreported or misunderstood.
Context is frequently missing. Take, for example, the reporting on Alexis' record in the Navy. He'd had several Article 15s (which is non judicial punishment, for minor matters). Insubordination, AWOL, etc. Not a good sailor, to be sure. The Navy separated him from the service, but with an honorable discharge. Nothing in that record, however, is predictive in the slightest of a whacked out mass murderer. A little context on those factoids would have been helpful.
In a lot of cases, you're right. That's why I don't watch any of the cable outlets, except for "wall to wall," and I switch back and forth frequently, trying to keep up. In my mind, "wall to wall" answers a couple of the basic journalistic questions: "what" and "where" sometimes "who" and occasionally "how." Although we've seen that in this week's shooting many of 'em got "how" wrong, over and over and over again. "Why" generally trails behind and is the one most frequently misreported or misunderstood.
Context is frequently missing. Take, for example, the reporting on Alexis' record in the Navy. He'd had several Article 15s (which is non judicial punishment, for minor matters). Insubordination, AWOL, etc. Not a good sailor, to be sure. The Navy separated him from the service, but with an honorable discharge. Nothing in that record, however, is predictive in the slightest of a whacked out mass murderer. A little context on those factoids would have been helpful.
Last edited:
MissThundercat
Are the cis okay?
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here
Not that it's necessarily relevant to the circumstances, but I have to admit that I'm confused as to how multiple instances of insubordination, AWOL, etc. earn you an "honorable" discharge. Seems to me he should've fallen under the "general" category, at best.
Two less morons in the world, I should think.
Not that it's necessarily relevant to the circumstances, but I have to admit that I'm confused as to how multiple instances of insubordination, AWOL, etc. earn you an "honorable" discharge. Seems to me he should've fallen under the "general" category, at best.
Two less morons in the world, I should think.
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here
I guess you've really got to work at it. Some people just aren't cut out for the basic requirements of life in the military: be where you're supposed to be, when you're supposed to be and do what you're supposed to do, especially when told to. Not necessarily a bad person. Just a bad fit for the military. The standards are probably different these days. Article 15s are non judicial proceedings. You essentially plead out, take some minor punishment (reduction in rank, etc) and avoid a court martial, where there is a possibility of confinement.
You may recall (or have read in your history books) in the Vietnam days there were hundreds of legal cases brought to upgrade the discharges of various malcontents and derelicts and druggies. It became another of the boring "causes" for the anti-war crowd. Especially since most of the discharged were black and had been drafted.
I guess you've really got to work at it. Some people just aren't cut out for the basic requirements of life in the military: be where you're supposed to be, when you're supposed to be and do what you're supposed to do, especially when told to. Not necessarily a bad person. Just a bad fit for the military. The standards are probably different these days. Article 15s are non judicial proceedings. You essentially plead out, take some minor punishment (reduction in rank, etc) and avoid a court martial, where there is a possibility of confinement.
You may recall (or have read in your history books) in the Vietnam days there were hundreds of legal cases brought to upgrade the discharges of various malcontents and derelicts and druggies. It became another of the boring "causes" for the anti-war crowd. Especially since most of the discharged were black and had been drafted.
Last edited:
MinnesotaNorthStar
Minding the gap
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here
Ernst Rohm would be proud: the SA is alive and well at Temple.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/09/1...r-goes-vulgar-rant-college-republican-meeting
The final commandment in Orwell's Animal Farm comes to mind: "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Ernst Rohm would be proud: the SA is alive and well at Temple.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/09/1...r-goes-vulgar-rant-college-republican-meeting
The final commandment in Orwell's Animal Farm comes to mind: "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
MinnesotaNorthStar
Minding the gap
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here
Former NFL player watches his house get trashed on Twitter
Former NFL player watches his house get trashed on Twitter
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here
F-22 Raptor pilots mock, humiliate and scare the sh*t out of Iranian fighter pilots.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ab0dbf5707f
F-22 Raptor pilots mock, humiliate and scare the sh*t out of Iranian fighter pilots.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ab0dbf5707f
it had to be **** tempting to pull off the Maverick maneuver.
Re: Nice Planet 5: Insert Catchy Title Here
The F4 Phantom is supersonic and our front line fighter during the Vietnam days. It was the predecessor to the F-15 Eagle. Pilots used to say the Phantom was proof that if you put enough thrust behind it, you could make a brick fly. But if you're going up against a Raptor, you might as well be flying a Fokker tri-plane.
The F4 Phantom is supersonic and our front line fighter during the Vietnam days. It was the predecessor to the F-15 Eagle. Pilots used to say the Phantom was proof that if you put enough thrust behind it, you could make a brick fly. But if you're going up against a Raptor, you might as well be flying a Fokker tri-plane.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
- Status