.... that Paul Harvey could somehow defy the odds and be immortal.

RIP.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

In article , "Swingman" wrote:
.... that Paul Harvey could somehow defy the odds and be immortal.

RIP.

Amen.

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
... that Paul Harvey could somehow defy the odds and be immortal.

RIP.


90 years old, I remember listening to him in ummmm, 1968, in Jr. High. It's
a shame that more "journalists" have not taken the same methods of
reporting.

Leon wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message
...
... that Paul Harvey could somehow defy the odds and be immortal.

RIP.


90 years old, I remember listening to him in ummmm, 1968, in Jr.
High. It's a shame that more "journalists" have not taken the same
methods of reporting.

Given that Harvey was known to sometimes report things that turned out to be
total hogwash and was also adept at sliding from reporting supposed news to
persuading us to buy his sponsors' products, I'd like to see fewer
journalists following his example.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
Leon wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message
...
... that Paul Harvey could somehow defy the odds and be immortal.

RIP.


90 years old, I remember listening to him in ummmm, 1968, in Jr.
High. It's a shame that more "journalists" have not taken the same
methods of reporting.

Given that Harvey was known to sometimes report things that turned out to
be total hogwash and was also adept at sliding from reporting supposed
news to persuading us to buy his sponsors' products, I'd like to see fewer
journalists following his example.

Yep, Paul Harvey was indeed human ... and a pretty decent one at that by all
counts. Not much sense in attempting to hold him to higher standards than
rest of us are capable of.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
Leon wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message
...
... that Paul Harvey could somehow defy the odds and be immortal.

RIP.


90 years old, I remember listening to him in ummmm, 1968, in Jr.
High. It's a shame that more "journalists" have not taken the same
methods of reporting.

Given that Harvey was known to sometimes report things that turned out to
be total hogwash and was also adept at sliding from reporting supposed
news to persuading us to buy his sponsors' products, I'd like to see fewer
journalists following his example.


I think the key word you mention her is "sometimes" reports things that turn
out to be total hogwash. There are darn few now, if any, that don't always
report hogwash. Last week the local NBC affiliate morning news team was
running a clip about a reporter in Fredericksburg VA. She was covering the
Chic'fil A cow being mugged. The local news team just laughed and laughed
and stated more than once that you can't make news like that up. Then
suddenly one of the morning anchors just blurted it out, "not this time but
usually we are pretty good at making stuff up". That was not news to me but
I was rather shocked that
he actually admitted that they make up the news.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...

Given that Harvey was known to sometimes report things that turned out to
be total hogwash


His "rest of the story" was a good example of that.

Swingman wrote:

Given that Harvey was known to sometimes report things that turned
out to be total hogwash and was also adept at sliding from reporting
supposed news to persuading us to buy his sponsors' products, I'd
like to see fewer journalists following his example.

Yep, Paul Harvey was indeed human ... and a pretty decent one at that
by all counts. Not much sense in attempting to hold him to higher
standards than rest of us are capable of.

You might say the same of a surgeon who botched your operation, he was only
human and we all make mistakes, until you find out it wasn't the first time
he'd done so. Surely the point is that Harvey made a lot of similar
mistakes over the years, in that he put stories on the air as factual
because they would amuse his listeners but without bothering to check too
closely (if at all) to find out if they were true. The broadcaster Harvey
lifted his act from, a fellow named Bill Stern, used to warn his listeners
some of the stories he would amuse them with might be made up; Harvey didn't
bother to copy that part of Stern's show.

I remember reading about one story good ol' Harv put on the air, some woman
had taken her car in to have the oil checked and the mechanic found a whole
bunch of marijuana hidden in the engine comparment and called the Sherrif.
When arrested the woman complained bitterly that the mechanic was just asked
to check the oil, not go poking around--yuk yuk, a knee-slapper of a tale.
Of course some killjoy reporter called the Sheriff and the newspaper in the
town where Harvey said this happened, they never heard of it, somebody
somewhere had just made it up and Mr. Harvey's organization wasn't in the
business of fact-checking.

Is "infotainment" a crime? No, but it would be nice if everyone who offers
it for sale would make it clear not to take their product too seriously, and
Harvey didn't do that.

And now you know the rest of the story.

Leon wrote:

Given that Harvey was known to sometimes report things that turned
out to be total hogwash and was also adept at sliding from reporting
supposed news to persuading us to buy his sponsors' products, I'd
like to see fewer journalists following his example.


I think the key word you mention her is "sometimes" reports things
that turn out to be total hogwash. There are darn few now, if any,
that don't always report hogwash. Last week the local NBC affiliate
morning news team was running a clip about a reporter in
Fredericksburg VA. She was covering the Chic'fil A cow being mugged.
The local news team just laughed and laughed and stated more than
once that you can't make news like that up. Then suddenly one of the
morning anchors just blurted it out, "not this time but usually we
are pretty good at making stuff up". That was not news to me but I
was rather shocked that he actually admitted that they make up the news.

Well that's it then, proof positive that the entire profession of journalism
is rotten to the core, thanks for sharing that. Who could predicted your
local NBC affiliate's morning news team would be the smoking gun to bring
down an industry?

BTW, do you know where Harvey got much of the content of his show? Straight
off the wire, the same source your NBC affiliate gets much of its news from.
Harvey also got material from "stringers," freelance reporters who get paid
by the piece, in other words people without the resources or perhaps the
inclination to put a lot of time into exhaustive research and confirmation.
But then exhaustive research and confirmation wasn't what Harvey was buying,
he wanted stories--sometimes funny, sometimes outrageous--that he could
deliver with his folksy charm for his huge radio audience. The problem is
that a lot of folks apparently thought they could believe what Harvey said,
that they were listening to a journalist rather than an entertainer, and
that just wasn't the case.

"DGDevin" wrote

deliver with his folksy charm for his huge radio audience. The problem is
that a lot of folks apparently thought they could believe what Harvey
said, that they were listening to a journalist rather than an entertainer,
and that just wasn't the case.

Two questions ... when did he **** in your wheaties, and what is it that
don't you understand about the word "Commentary"?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:

deliver with his folksy charm for his huge radio audience. The
problem is that a lot of folks apparently thought they could believe
what Harvey said, that they were listening to a journalist rather
than an entertainer, and that just wasn't the case.

Two questions ... when did he **** in your wheaties, and what is it
that don't you understand about the word "Commentary"?

Two questions: How did Paul Harvey become one of your holy icons? And what
part of relating a story as factual that in reality is either made-up or
mangled out of recognition from the original facts doesn't qualify as
bull**** in your universe?

If the issue was Michael Moore's legendary willingness to take liberties
with the facts would we be having this conversation?

On my last job I demand my lunch hour to start a 11:30 so I could sit
in my car and hear him on the radio.I did that for many years. After I
retired three years ago ,I didn't take the time to listen anymore ,now
it's to late . Some times you just loose out on the good stuff.
Jr


http://community.webtv.net/awoodbutc...oodWorkingPage


http://community.webtv.net/awoodbutcher/1974Tryke

"DGDevin" wrote in message
Two questions: How did Paul Harvey become one of your holy icons? And
what
part of relating a story as factual that in reality is either made-up or
mangled out of recognition from the original facts doesn't qualify as
bull**** in your universe?

Vilify him as much as you want, but the times I listened to him, he was
entertaining if not as factual as you're claiming. And, he dedicated himself
to doing it for a long, long time, something that is lost on many of the
current generation. For that, I can't fault him at all.

I don't consider myself all that old, (almost 55), but it sure appears that
people close to me and people I know of that weren't close to me are dying
and dropping like flies all over the place. I guess that's a part of getting
older, but it sure sucks!

"Upscale" wrote

I don't consider myself all that old, (almost 55), but it sure appears
that
people close to me and people I know of that weren't close to me are dying
and dropping like flies all over the place. I guess that's a part of
getting
older, but it sure sucks!

I hear ya.

Everybody who had a significant POSITIVE impact in my life while young is
now dead. That totally sucks.

On Mar 1, 4:11*pm, "Swingman" wrote:

Yep, Paul Harvey was indeed human ... and a pretty decent one at that by all
counts. Not much sense in attempting to hold him to higher standards than
rest of us are capable of.

Funny, I never really thought of him as a journalist or a hard core
news guy. I always understood his stuff was for entertainment
purposes.

I remember about 1,000 years ago going to the shop I worked at during
those years, and loading material and getting a big mug of coffee
before getting in the truck to drive to a job with the lead carpenter.

I remember... no talking while PH was on the air. He was like having
a neighbor lean over the fence to talk to you about something he had
heard lately, just a friendly voice to chew the fat with for a little
bit before getting to work.

And how many times did we sit in dead silence, waiting for "the rest
of the story"?

Robert

wrote in message
I remember about 1,000 years ago going to the shop I worked at during
those years, and loading material and getting a big mug of coffee
before getting in the truck to drive to a job with the lead carpenter.

I remember... no talking while PH was on the air. He was like having
a neighbor lean over the fence to talk to you about something he had
heard lately, just a friendly voice to chew the fat with for a little
bit before getting to work.

And how many times did we sit in dead silence, waiting for "the rest
of the story"?

Robert

************************************************** ******************

I first heard Paul when I was on the road in sales back in the early 80's.
I'd make it a point to be in the car at lunchtime so I could listen. There
were times I'd be going shopping with my wife and pull up to the store but
sit in the car until he was over. Her certainly had some good things to
say.
Good Day!

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
Swingman wrote:



If the issue was Michael Moore's legendary willingness to take liberties
with the facts would we be having this conversation?


Absolutely more and more and long before I knew who Michael Moore was I
noticed a lack of need to repeat the story correctly or embellish it so much
that is no longer factual. Just this morning on the CBS morning news the
reporter stated US markets are expect to open below 7000. The chart on the
screen indicated, Dow opening, some number above 7000.

And we wonder why we have problems understanding other people, we always get
conflicting information. It is only a matter of time before the media takes
complete control over the country. Already they are probably responsible
for half the drop in the markets. I think the Bible talks about this.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
Swingman wrote:

deliver with his folksy charm for his huge radio audience. The
problem is that a lot of folks apparently thought they could believe
what Harvey said, that they were listening to a journalist rather
than an entertainer, and that just wasn't the case.

Two questions ... when did he **** in your wheaties, and what is it
that don't you understand about the word "Commentary"?

Two questions: How did Paul Harvey become one of your holy icons?

Well over 50 years ago ... and way before TV made it on the scene. Too bad
you're too tight assed to have enjoyed the experience.

And what
part of relating a story as factual that in reality is either made-up or
mangled out of recognition from the original facts doesn't qualify as
bull**** in your universe?


Now, once again ,,, what part of COMMENTARY don't you understand?

If the issue was Michael Moore's legendary willingness to take liberties
with the facts would we be having this conversation?

Michael who?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Upscale wrote:

Vilify him as much as you want, but the times I listened to him, he
was entertaining if not as factual as you're claiming. And, he
dedicated himself to doing it for a long, long time, something that
is lost on many of the current generation. For that, I can't fault
him at all.

Good grief, I'm not vilifying him, I'm just pointing out the material he
used in his broadcasts was sometimes fictional. That he was highly
successful is both impressive and a little scary in that it points out how
many people don't question what the various media tell them.

I don't consider myself all that old, (almost 55), but it sure
appears that people close to me and people I know of that weren't
close to me are dying and dropping like flies all over the place. I
guess that's a part of getting older, but it sure sucks!

Getting old ain't for sissies, that's for damn sure.

Leon wrote:

Absolutely more and more and long before I knew who Michael Moore was
I noticed a lack of need to repeat the story correctly or embellish
it so much that is no longer factual. Just this morning on the CBS
morning news the reporter stated US markets are expect to open below
7000. The chart on the screen indicated, Dow opening, some number
above 7000.

Journalists are like most of us, some are better at their jobs than others,
and some work for companies that are less scrupulous than others. That's
why I think it's important to get news from a wide range of sources, that
way you have at least a chance of figuring out what might have happened,
maybe. But for sure you shouldn't put any faith at all in somebody who
doesn't mind using urban myths in his broadcasts for their amusement value
without bothering to admit it.

And we wonder why we have problems understanding other people, we
always get conflicting information. It is only a matter of time
before the media takes complete control over the country. Already
they are probably responsible for half the drop in the markets. I
think the Bible talks about this.

Say what?

Swingman wrote:

Two questions: How did Paul Harvey become one of your holy icons?

Well over 50 years ago ... and way before TV made it on the scene.
Too bad you're too tight assed to have enjoyed the experience.

Being lied to is supposed to be enjoyable?

And what
part of relating a story as factual that in reality is either
made-up or mangled out of recognition from the original facts
doesn't qualify as bull**** in your universe?


Now, once again ,,, what part of COMMENTARY don't you understand?

No sir, that dog won't hunt. If I tell you a story that is pure
fabrication, never really happened, but I present it as factual, how does
that qualify as "commentary?" Or if I tell you a story based on a real
incident but with important facts left out in a way that misleads you as to
what really happened, again, how does that qualify as "commentary?"

Hey, it's your dime, if you enjoyed this cracker-barrel philosopher then by
all means order the series of PH CDs that are probably already being
prepared for market (if they aren't already available). But maybe try to
remember in between chuckles that some of what you're hearing never really
happened, some writer cooked it up and sold it the Harvey organization, it's
fiction. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy it, just don't be so foolish as to
believe it.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
prepared for market (if they aren't already available). But maybe try to
remember in between chuckles that some of what you're hearing never really
happened, some writer cooked it up and sold it the Harvey organization,
it's
fiction. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy it, just don't be so foolish as to
believe it.

Despite your protestations that you bear him no ill will, you sure appear to
be going to the extra effort to prove him less a person than what many
believe. Or, is it just the argument itself that prompts you?

DGDevin wrote:
: Leon wrote:


It is only a matter of time
: before the media takes complete control over the country. Already
: they are probably responsible for half the drop in the markets. I
: think the Bible talks about this.

: Say what?

You know -- it's in the Parable of the Commie Liberal Media
Whore. Part of Corinthians, I think.

}--} Andy Barss

Upscale wrote:

: "DGDevin" wrote in message
: prepared for market (if they aren't already available). But maybe try to
: remember in between chuckles that some of what you're hearing never really
: happened, some writer cooked it up and sold it the Harvey organization,
: it's
: fiction. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy it, just don't be so foolish as to
: believe it.

: Despite your protestations that you bear him no ill will, you sure appear to
: be going to the extra effort to prove him less a person than what many
: believe.

Some people (I'm one of them) get annoyed when someone is held up as a
hero and an icon of character, when they're actually a huckster
(Jerry Lewis is another example). YMMV.

He presented many, many incorrect stories as fact, and a lot
of people -- I suspect most of his fans -- never thought to question
their veracity. The stories may have been harmless, but some people
care that a major radio personality was taken as presenting truthful behind
the scenes stuff as whole truth when a lot of what he said was wrong.
As in made up, urban legends, nonsense.

-- Andy Barss

DGDevin wrote:
Swingman wrote:

Two questions: How did Paul Harvey become one of your holy icons?

Well over 50 years ago ... and way before TV made it on the scene.
Too bad you're too tight assed to have enjoyed the experience.

Being lied to is supposed to be enjoyable?


The girls I dated seemed to enjoy it...

"DGDevin" wrote in message
Good grief, I'm not vilifying him, I'm just pointing out the material he
used in his broadcasts was sometimes fictional. That he was highly
successful is both impressive and a little scary in that it points out how
many people don't question what the various media tell them.



From Paulharvey.com:

Today, over 25 million people "stand by" for Paul Harvey. That’s the number
of loyal listeners who tune in every week to hear his skillful blend of news
and views.

• Paul Harvey is the most listened-to radio personality in America.

• Paul Harvey’s broadcasts rank among the top 10 of radio network programs.

• Paul Harvey is the number one personality in network radio.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

From Paulharvey.com:

Today, over 25 million people "stand by" for Paul Harvey. That’s the
number of loyal listeners who tune in every week to hear his skillful
blend of news and views.

• Paul Harvey is the most listened-to radio personality in America.

• Paul Harvey’s broadcasts rank among the top 10 of radio network
programs.
• Paul Harvey is the number one personality in network radio.

Millions of people listen to Howard Stern too, does that mean we should all
set our watches by what he has to say?

Andrew Barss wrote:

Leon wrote:


It is only a matter of time
before the media takes complete control over the country. Already
they are probably responsible for half the drop in the markets. I
think the Bible talks about this.

Say what?

You know -- it's in the Parable of the Commie Liberal Media
Whore. Part of Corinthians, I think.

}--} Andy Barss

Oh yeah, I remember now, there's also that parable that some of my relations
live by, you know, the one about the multitude that loafs and fishes.

Upscale wrote:

Despite your protestations that you bear him no ill will, you sure
appear to be going to the extra effort to prove him less a person
than what many believe. Or, is it just the argument itself that
prompts you?

It cracks me up that simply noting that Harvey sometimes used material that
was fictional has some of you guys waving torches and pitchforks. Look, if
you enjoyed his work, great, buy the whole collection on CD and listen to it
all over again. But if it upsets your digestion to know that Harvey used
fabricated stories on occasion, and was also know to take liberties with the
facts to suit his point of view, then I recommend you avoid web searches on
the subject because you might find specific examples where journalists
checked into some of his stories and found they were, shall we say,
factually challenged. Me, there are lots of people I admire despite their
character flaws, I'm not looking for heroes to put on pedestals, but you
suit yourself.

HeyBub wrote:

Being lied to is supposed to be enjoyable?


The girls I dated seemed to enjoy it...

Ummmm, speaking of lies, is the expression "faking it" one you're familiar
with...?

DGDevin wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:

Leon wrote:


It is only a matter of time
before the media takes complete control over the country. Already
they are probably responsible for half the drop in the markets. I
think the Bible talks about this.

Say what?

You know -- it's in the Parable of the Commie Liberal Media
Whore. Part of Corinthians, I think.

}--} Andy Barss

Oh yeah, I remember now, there's also that parable that some of my relations
live by, you know, the one about the multitude that loafs and fishes.


I love it! You learn so much by reading the Wreck. Even scripture.

--
Gerald Ross
Cochran, GA

Ambiguity is the first refuge of the wrong.

DGDevin wrote:

: Oh yeah, I remember now, there's also that parable that some of my relations
: live by, you know, the one about the multitude that loafs and fishes.

Excellent!


-- Andy Barss

"DGDevin" wrote in message
...
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

From Paulharvey.com:

Today, over 25 million people "stand by" for Paul Harvey. That’s the
number of loyal listeners who tune in every week to hear his skillful
blend of news and views.

• Paul Harvey is the most listened-to radio personality in America.

• Paul Harvey’s broadcasts rank among the top 10 of radio network
programs.
• Paul Harvey is the number one personality in network radio.

Millions of people listen to Howard Stern too, does that mean we should
all set our watches by what he has to say?


Of course not, but a lot of people enjoyed listening to Harvey. I did, but
I'm still capable of making up my own mind. I'll pass on Stern though.
Never could stand him.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Millions of people listen to Howard Stern too, does that mean we
should all set our watches by what he has to say?


Of course not, but a lot of people enjoyed listening to Harvey. I
did, but I'm still capable of making up my own mind. I'll pass on
Stern though. Never could stand him.

Stern is a good interviewer when he wants to be, but his instinct is always
to appeal to the drunk frat boys in his audience because they're the ones
who have made him a wealthy man. And I'm certainly not saying enjoying
Harvey's work was a bad thing, merely that some of his content was suspect
at best. I don't buy the line that it was just "commentary" and/or most of
his listeners knew it wasn't reliable journalism, the strong reactions from
some folks here suggests many people took him quite seriously.