On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:43:38 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:31:02 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:14:02 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:
snip
No, like the Internet as it is. Like the stories we see pasted here from
the
partisan "news" sites. If a commercial news organization tried those
stunts
they'd be crucified and probably would be run out of business. On a
website,
they just ignore it and then do it again. You've seen it; we've all seen
it.

They do pull -exactly- those same stunts, only they're a bit more
subtle about it.

No, they don't. Not without being excoriated, like Dan Rather and some staff
at CBS.

Yes they do. Two blatant examples are gun control and global
warming(kumbaya). Anything said by anyone who fears global
warming(kumbaya) or guns is accepted as truth, and tons of things
which aren't even remotely related are being blamed on one or the
other. The "gun nuts" and "warming denialists" are seldom if ever
heard from. Some half-associate professor from the worst college in
some unheard of 3rd world country says "Orgasm may be linked with
cancer." and the media spouts headlines like "ORGASM CAUSES CANCER!"

Come on, Ed. Don't tell me that you buy the media's whole line. ****,
Rather's stunt was one of 1,000 others which went unnoticed by the
powers that be. Can you say "scapegoating"? I knew you could.


I'm still clapping with one hand. But it's true that news is what the
newspapers say it is, and they have a limited field of attention and a mob
mentality about it.

Yup. sigh


Is the Internet any different, other than our being able to actually
find all that crap so quickly?

Yeah, it's a lot different, and a lot worse. It's so consistently bad, in
fact, that we're becoming numb to it. It seems to be a new standard to
expect bull****, and to be surprised when you see something that isn't.

Whaddya mean "new"? I've felt that way so long it seems normal to me.
sigh

That's you. I don't know how much direct experience with the media and news

Very little, and from small towns.


people, but remember that I used to have lunch and go on PR junkets with
guys from TIME and the NYT when I worked as an editor in midtown Manhatten.
They have plenty of faults but making stuff up out of thin air is very rare.

No, they just accept statements from nobodies who appeared out of thin
air. "I didn't make it up. HE said it!" They're lazy (or budgeted) and
probably aren't checking their sources nearly as closely as they used
to.


On the Internet, they seem to see it as their primary challenge, to do it
without getting caught. And that's pretty easy.

There are surely some folks like that, but...Whatever.

--
Jewish Zen:
Be here now. Be someplace else later. Is that so complicated, already?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com - Uncomplicated Website Design, here and now.