It seems to me that a lot of people are really confused about the role of the media in this election cycle.
Somehow, we have come to believe that media-types, and talk show hosts are to lead and the rest follow. Nothing could be more of an insult to the people than this kind of thinking.
Thomas Sowell wrote a recent piece in which he described the role of the public:
It is the public that reads newspapers and magazines, that listens to radio or watches television. They are depending on journalists to tell them the truth as they see it and to offer their honest opinion as to what it means.Link (via Townhall.com)
Journalists cannot serve two masters. To the extent that they take on the task of suppressing information or biting their tongue for the sake of some political agenda, they are betraying the trust of the public and corrupting their own profession.
19 comments:
I thought Sowell was describing more the responsibility of the journalists when he said.
"Journalists cannot serve two masters. To the extent that they take on the task
of suppressing information or biting their tongue for the sake of some political
agenda, they are betraying the trust of the public and
corrupting their own profession. "
BTW, I totally agree with Sewell -- Too many "tongue biters" as he calls them.
An opinion reinforced by another opinion is...what exactly.
Yeah! Someone agrees with you! Woo Hoo!
"Somehow, we have come to believe that media-types, and talk show hosts are to lead and the rest follow. Nothing could be more of an insult to the people than this kind of thinking."
Okay, Gary. So give us more than four options in the "Who would you vote for today" poll. ;)
You know, it is funny to hear talk show hosts proclaiming their impotence in the process at the during a low ebb in talk radio influence.
Lose influence, then proclaim you have no influence and that is the way it really is!
Quite a racket you've got going on there.
RB,
No "racket "or "low ebb" comments. I was simply giving an opinion. Yes, Thomas Sowell's piece was also an opinion, but since we don't have any authoritative voice on this, what is the problem. I would ask you what our role is since you feel mine lacks credibility somehow. Please let me know where you think talk radio should be and where it is right at this moment. I look forward to your response. GS
Gary,
My comment about opinions is nothing new. Surely you should have predicted I would write it. My basic point here is that reinforcing one's opinion with someone else's opinion doesn't move the conversation forward. All it does is say "hey, look, I'm not the only one who thinks this." Your opinion is fully credible when it stands on its own or, if the case warrants, is backed up by reason and fact.
And please don't take the talk radio comment personally. The 'you' there is the royal 'you' meaning the vast majority of talk radio hosts who have had their day and influence. I think that time has past. Look at how talk radio (in general...I don't know how much you have or have not talked about it) has down virtually zilch to slow down the McCain train.
I was reflecting more on the Thomas Sowell quote than anything. Talking heads and opinionators of his ilk have been touting their brilliance and individual 'straight shooting' ad nauseum for many, many years. As a full fledged member of the media I find it more than a little disingenuous for him to turn around and suggest that there are journalistic evildoers in our midst...one of which would never, ever be him.
Talk radio in particular? Talk radio should be more interested in forming and relaying opinions based on fact and reason. Years and years of inflaming passion based on partial information or outright lies has, perhaps, finally run its course.
"An opinion reinforced by another opinion is...what exactly."
The Judicial Branch of government and those in the legal profession call it a VERDICT.
The Judicial Branch of government and those in the legal profession call it a VERDICT.
Um, because facts and evidence don't play any role in court cases?
Yes, precedent plays a huge role in determining existing law, but opinions are not the determining factor in delivering a verdict. Or at least one hopes not.
Perhaps the post I presented about the two Fox investigative journalists was overlooked.
(I only posted it 2X.
It speaks volumes to what Gary's writing about.)
All the data they accumulated, all the empirical evidence, pointed to the consumer dangers of using stimulating hormones in dairy stock, a practice that has been increasing grandly in the USA.
Before the piece could be aired the corporate sponsor took exception to the facts.
The facts.
And decided to do something to change them.
Talk about betraying public trust!!!---yet this is the same Fox that Gary has upheld as bastion of complete and informed news. If I am misreading what you've said in the past, G, correct me. I know that you at least stand behind your own WSBA news team, yet they are also being denied the same information the rest of us are if this story is any indication. They can choose from B, C, and D stories--but A and E and F are not presented to them for selection.
And it's not just Fox.
It's all of them.
Including NPR.
Some news is considered too close to the truth is my guess.
You'd think that the revelation that 937 lies of the Bush administration lead to US war involvement in Iraq ---lies well-documented and observable for all to see---- would be headliner in every news organization in America.
This is by deduction impeachable offense, criminal behavior, and direct call for removal from office------------------BUT, virtually nothing came of it.
The news the journalists present is almost ALWAYS sanitized to greater or lesser degree . . . it is the "News print to fit" ...and if anyone doesn't believe that, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell to them cheap.
Here is that link again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trWcqxrQgcc&NR=1
LagerLad, I see you're still able to sit up and peck at a keyboard. Where the hell were you!!!???!?
Nice to hear from you again!
Reality_based. My previous comments were short and to the point. My comment was in response to your attempt to trivialize the opinion of justmyopinion. My response only gave an example of an opinion that is reinforced by another opinion, since that seemed to cause you a bit of confusion.
A legal decision in the Judicial Branch, a co-sponsor to a bill in the Legislative Branch, or a Aunt Bea’s blue ribbon for her apple pie at the County Fair are all based on an OPINION that has been reinforced by another OPINION. Evidence, precedent or a flaky brown crust may all be factors relevant to arriving at a particular opinion, but they do not change the fact that they are still an opinion. My comment made no reference to the method, means, or factors considered resulting in an opinion being formed.
Your response to justmyopinion, really show your inability to comprehend how so many things in life are opinions reinforced by another opinion. Rather than respond with an opposing opinion, you chose to trivialize justmyopinion’s opinion. This usually indicates an opposing point of view by someone who lacks the ability to make and defend their position in a comprehendible manner. It may be a good idea learn to make and defend your own position before attempting to discourage and trivialize the opinion of others.
eric,
where on earth did you get the idea that I was responding to JMO? If I was responding to him I would have addressed him as I did to open this post.
As to your 'opinion' definition..a legal opinion has as much similarity to Thomas Sowell's opinion as a scientific theory is to a theory about why Aunt Bea made that pie today instead of yesterday.
But...Happy condescending, anyway!
Okay, I've contacted everyones' pharmacists and no one is getting their refills of Grumpy Pills.
And no fair ordering knock-offs from Mexico on some skeevy website. The FDA says they aren't safe anyway.
Reality_Based: "where on earth did you get the idea that I was responding to JMO?"
Based on the order of the comments on this thread.
Reality_Based: "If I was responding to him I would have addressed him as I did to open this post."
Sorry, my mistake. Who were you addressing?
Reality_Based: "As to your 'opinion' definition..a legal opinion has as much similarity to Thomas Sowell's opinion as a scientific theory is to a theory about why Aunt Bea made that pie today instead of yesterday."
My comments had nothing to do with opinions having "similarity," but in the fact that what is being stated in an opinion reinforced by another opinion. You are free to seek other similarities where you wish. The fact that they are all opinions illustrates my point.
Reality_Based: "But...Happy condescending, anyway!"
My apologizes. At times confidence and conviction comes across as being condescending. There is absolutely no malicious intent on my part.
See you down the blog.
Jacque,
With regard to your statement,
"Talk about betraying public trust!!!---yet this is the same Fox that Gary has upheld as bastion of complete and informed news. If I am misreading what you've said in the past, G, correct me. I know that you at least stand behind your own WSBA news team, yet they are also being denied the same information the rest of us are if this story is any indication. They can choose from B, C, and D stories--but A and E and F are not presented to them for selection.
And it's not just Fox.
It's all of them.
Including NPR."
I do believe that we are in search of A, E, and F, and try not to be afraid when we find them. I will correct you regarding the "holding up fox" statement. Though my station is a fox affiliate, I continuously have asked people to check out all sites and stations, especially those with which they disagree. I do not think that we should fear finding the truth, but that should include all of us. There seems to be some hippocracy in thinking that B,C, and D have no relevance, whereas I would offer that they all offer pieces to the puzzle of truth. (Sorry to make that sound so dramatic--must be the medications I'm on.) One of the purposes of revising this blog is to expand the places all of us can go , especially newcomers here, in finding all of the information that help construct a well-informed position. Thank you for raising some thought-provoking points on this subject. GS
RB--Thank you for the clarification on what you think a talkshow should be. It was , and I mean this seriously, enlightening. GS
I'm just testing the site. I've had trouble logging in.
Blinders.
That's what the horse folks call them.
They narrow the field of vision, to reduce distraction-----or to avoid seeing what someone doesn't want them to see.
When it comes to our awareness, we are all consciously or unconsciously wearing blinders.
We're constantly filtering what we see or hear . . . and the older we get ( as a common generality, not applicable to individuals ) the more filtered we tend to be.
Look at 9/11.
It is by all account the defining event for America for the last 35 years, the single most traumatizing and emotionally charged thing that has happened to America and the event that gave rise to the current military occupation in Iraq which has cost the US more than 1.5 trillion$, and killed directly or indirectly approximately 1,000,000 people in Iraq, tripled the price of oil and so ultimately has cost the people of the USA a recession.
Would the Afghan/Iraq war have had the traction with the American people or Congress had the 9/11 attacks not happpened?
No way.
The war fervor wasn't there.
The militarists still might have proceeded with their plans to commence fun n' games in the MidEast theater (OIL=OperationIraqiLiberation) but US and world resistance would have thwarted full-scale hostilities.
9/11 legitimized US military actions. That was its utility.
But when you review the evidence about what happened that day in NYC, the inevitable conclusion is that this was a faux event.
Staged.
Someone took the time to plant charges well before 9/11 to guarantee a successful outcome.
Look at any of the videos of Bldg #7, and you can derive no other conclusion but implosion---------unless you're wearing the blinders that block your ability to see with unbiased eyes what happened.
"Inconceivable that someone in our government would do this sort of thing, No, it's not possible. No way. Impossible. Never in a million years. How sacrilegious to even suggest that this was done by Americans!!! All I see is buildings falling down after we were attacked by crazed IslamoFascists. No way were any Americans involved--NO way!!! How dare you suggest such a thing!!----you must really hate America, etc, etc etc..."
Yet there is the evidence in all its glory---a perfect implosion such as can only happen with careful placement of explosives and sequencing timers. Look at any of the videos of Bldg7.
Realize that no building on its own can fall that perfectly into its own footprint, at freefall speed. Physics doesn't support it.
Our opinions are constantly biased by the blinders we wear.
. . . the blinders we deny we are wearing.
Eric,
Unless you lurked in on Gary's old blog you are short of a little context here. My comment is a continuation of my beef (which I did not make explicit here) that we seem to live in an era that deems all opinions as equal when they clearly are not. Some opinions are based on reasoned judgment and fact, while others are mere speculation (not to mention other things labeled as 'opinion' which fit into an entirely different category like a 'legal opinion').
Also, I would challenge your assertion that it is your 'confidence and conviction' that is showing when you tell someone that they have an 'inability' to comprehend something or "make and defend their position in a comprehendible (sic) manner".
But if that's the way you see it, I really can't change that.
Reality_Based: "I would challenge your assertion that it is your 'confidence and conviction' that is showing when you tell someone that they have an 'inability' to comprehend something or "make and defend their position in a comprehendible (sic) manner"."
Regardless of the reason, the tone of my comments was inappropiate. I apologize and will try to be more conscious of this in the future.
"Regardless of the reason, the tone of my comments was inappropiate."
What the hell? I thought people on the internet are supposed to be jerks and never, ever say you made a mistake.
Anyway, high-five to eric for restoring my confidence in humanity for the day.
I say "for the day" because I'm a miserable person and need such a reassurance every single day to get by.
Post a Comment