What's new
By:
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.

Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

5mn_Major said:
Largely valid

I might add that hope that news should just present all the core relevant facts. Every major detail as the goal should be to accurately inform. In your scenario, you would report all of the above...without appeal to emotion (ie without positioning of the baby). Heaven forbid, there might be conflicting and complex information by which the event could be interpreted different ways.

Again IMO, the opinion of where this story goes is left out...ie, inferring that babies being killed is bad or that killing terrorists is great should be left off the news stands...and not be branded as news. That's where news changes to opinion...and if you don't stop there, its primary purpose shifts from informing to delivering propaganda.

Yes, I do think there's a best way to do news.
Click to expand...

I think the issue is magnified with the digital age and this internet thing they keep talking about...not only does info move more quickly but it is condensed into brief packets of 'info' that people routinely take as gospel. Add our previous discussions about how people gravitate towards certain sources and how they are unlikely to cast a questioning eye towards what they 'know' and the whole "when did you stop beating your wife?" concept goes into hyperdrive.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

5mn_Major said:
Interesting points with which I would say would benefit from clarification...

First, News is what we say it is...not really, news is factual information on events that have occured.

Second, although it is true that we can't report on every story every day...I would say that the news if anything gives a slant towards alarmism. Whether its terror attack in Bangladesh or a murder in Jacksonville or a thunderstorm coming your way...stories that get reported are by definition set to alarm folks. So news whether its slanted left or right...is definitely slanted towards danger and violence...and away from normal life and kindness. This does not hurt what has often been the GOP platform.

Lastly, IMO with news...there should be nothing to decide. It should be about facts that have occurred. Conclusions that we reach about the implications should be way outside of the realm of news.
Click to expand...

You really ought to try to avoid broadcasting your total ignorance to the world. You haven't got even a tiny clue of what you're talking about.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Kepler said:
News outlets should try to stick to reporting facts, but I think the point Old Pio was making was the choice itself of the facts you select to report on, or even notice, is editorial -- possibly deliberate, possibly unconscious.

A drone attack knocks out a building in Pakistan. US media reports the US air force claimed the target was killed. Insurgent media reports that AQ leaders escaped and have regrouped. Local Pakistani media reports a baby had its skin burned off. All are, presumably, facts, but the mention-worthiness of each is conditioned by whether your worldview sees the event as a military tactic, a strategic development, or a human tragedy. The fact-choices also change if it was a suicide bomber in Tel Aviv.

There's no such thing as a clean lens. Kantian categories, and all that.
Click to expand...

Yes. And I was further making the obvious point that what is news, on this outlet, today, is what we in this room decide. These decisions are made on the fly, change from day to day, based on variables over which we have no control. We have deadlines and no time for g.d. high tone discussions about "journalism"and all the rest of that crap. We've got a job to do and not much time to do it.

In the news business there are A stories, B stories and C stories.
A's make the cut all the time, everytime. B's might make the cut, depending on what else is going on that day and whether you've got good sound or pictures to give your audience. C's are fill, or feel good, or slice of iife stories you work in as you can.

A's are always A's. But sometimes a B becomes an A and is treated as such.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

sagard said:
I am I seriously to understand you are part of the !%$!#$% liberal media?
Click to expand...

What about that obviously true statement prompts you to ask that question? Some days you have to "promote" a B story to an A. It's considered poor form to leave the first 90 seconds of a newscast blank, because you don't really have a "lead story."
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Old Pio said:
What about that obviously true statement prompts you to ask that question? Some days you have to "promote" a B story to an A. It's considered poor form to leave the first 90 seconds of a newscast blank, because you don't really have a "lead story."
Click to expand...

Relax. I haven't been following along. You clearly know the business from being part of it. I just find it funny when so many of my colleagues complain so mightily about the liberal media, and to think Old Pio is part of it is a bit of a shock to my system.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Does anyone else find irony in this website put up by Senator Reid?

http://democrats.senate.gov/leak.html

Also, even though it cost a mere couple dollars in time, and only pennies to keep it running each day, you'd think they could find a better use of the taxpayers' money.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

sagard said:
Relax. I haven't been following along. You clearly know the business from being part of it. I just find it funny when so many of my colleagues complain so mightily about the liberal media, and to think Old Pio is part of it is a bit of a shock to my system.
Click to expand...

Well, being "part of the media" is not the same as being "part of the liberal media." it's a generalization, but largely true that local media are more conservative than the elite media (networks, nyt, wapo, latimes etc).

Let's try to avoid that McCarthyite "guilt by association" shall we? :)
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

marijuana_31-3.jpg

roots-thumb-250x325-thumb-250x325.jpg


Lol you got to love liberal media and movies from the 30-40's.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Old Pio said:
You really ought to try to avoid broadcasting your total ignorance to the world. You haven't got even a tiny clue of what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Other posters understand the topic.

But why is it some feel a need to post even when they don't have anything to say?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top