"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
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
m...
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).
Those are two issues on which you are an over-the-top partisan, and thus
unqualified to judge anyone for objectivity, including scientists who have
forgotten more about it than you'll ever learn. d8-)
Anything said by anyone who fears global
warming(kumbaya) or guns is accepted as truth...
By whom? Not by me, and not by most sensible people.
..., and tons of things
which aren't even remotely related are being blamed on one or the
other.
And the gun nutz blame most of the country's problems on gun control. What
else is new?
The "gun nuts" and "warming denialists" are seldom if ever
heard from.
Good grief. I hear from them all the time.
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!"
Yup, they do get carried away with headlines, and they're always ready to
treat some early-stage research as if it were a conclusive finding. But
that's a weakness, not deceit. The Internet chatterers are mostly about
getting away with outright lies disguised as expert opinion.
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.
Tell us about the other 999. Seriously. You've made quite an accusation
there. It sounds to me like a case of letting your emotions carry you away.
Look, here's one small comparison. Matt Drudge publishes more outright lies
in one day than the networks broadcast in a month. He doesn't care. He's not
about careful journalism or truth. He's all about getting the news out
first, mostly from unattributed rumors. If he gets one big story out ahead
of the mainstream media per month, he gets notoriety for it. He's
accomplished his goal. He doesn't care that he also published 2,000 lies in
the same time. That's not his concern. And he has legions of worshippers
because of it.
No legit mainstream newssource could get away with that, publishing
unchecked rumors, for more than a week. And the big guys are fierce
competitors who love nothing more than to catch one of the other ones
publishing things that aren't true. They're all over each other when it
happens. When Drudge does it, everyone just turns the page.
That's just one example, and Drudge is not even an intentional liar. He just
doesn't really care what's true. He's said as much, openly. That's for
someone else to figure out, and then to give him the credit when one big
story happens to be true. Imagine that, he gets some right.
Others, such as some of the gun sites, pretty obviously cover up the truth
to make their cases. For example, the drop in homicides that "followed
passage of the CCW law." It's virtually certain they drew their numbers from
a source similar to the one I saw, which makes it abundantly clear that the
drop in homicides was already happening before the law, and, in fact, that
the reduction slowed down once the law was passed. They don't want you to
know that.
There are plenty of legitimate things to complain about the mainstream media
without making things up. Comparing them to the Internet bloggers is like
comparing a guy who claims too many business miles on his tax returns with
Ken Lay.
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.
That's mostly true. And the big factor is that they're under pressure to
produce too much these days, with seriously reduced staffs. It's too much to
get it right all of the time. In the mainstream media today, the money has
been squeezed out of the business, mostly by Internet advertising, and the
old model of journalism is breaking down. That's what makes me angry about
it. I don't believe they're intentionally making stuff up like the Internet
pundits do.
--
Ed Huntress