[Al_U_Card]

 mike777, on 2017-February-05, 15:35, said:

Regarding the Press the issue is often the bias they show in the editorial decisions they make in reporting the news or not reporting something. One recent example is Lemon on cnn comparing the recent firing to the Nixon firing, they are not morally or otherwise equivalent

In general they do a pretty darn good job in reporting what they want to report, the problem often comes in what they decide to leave out which can slant the report. Over the decades I can recall countless things in the press regarding finance stuff. The problem being what they leave out of the story really slants it.


I don't have a solution except to allow more news sites.

Partisan press and yellow journalism is a function of corporate influence on government. Encouraging an independant "press" is not a corporate option BUT bloggers are taking up the slack. Censorship of the internet ( as in China) is potentially the greatest threat out there.

[mikeh]

 Trinidad, on 2017-February-05, 02:55, said:

I was aware that you are not from the USA, but I wasn't aware that you considered yourself "not American".

Rik

I follow US politics in part because it is one of the most important topics om today's world, in part because Canada is so affected by US decision making and in part because much of our media and entertainment comes from the US. For example, I listen to NPR in my car, along with the CBC, about 60-40 NPR.

I would never live in the US. There are some fundamental disconnects between how I see people should function as part of a society and how many Americans appear to think. Too many Americans, in my view, see the notion of government as bad, and that civil life is all about protecting oneself, as an individual, against the demands of society....it is all rights-driven with little acknowledgement that with rights come, or imo should come, responsibilities.

[Winstonm]

 mike777, on 2017-February-05, 15:35, said:

Regarding the Press the issue is often the bias they show in the editorial decisions they make in reporting the news or not reporting something. One recent example is Lemon on cnn comparing the recent firing to the Nixon firing, they are not morally or otherwise equivalent

In general they do a pretty darn good job in reporting what they want to report, the problem often comes in what they decide to leave out which can slant the report. Over the decades I can recall countless things in the press regarding finance stuff. The problem being what they leave out of the story really slants it.


I don't have a solution except to allow more news sites.

The following is from Glenn Greenwald, who I think most eloquently describes the proper role of journalism: (emphasis added)

Quote

There’s no question that journalists at establishment media venues, certainly including The New York Times, have produced some superb reporting over the last couple of decades. I don’t think anyone contends that what has become (rather recently) the standard model for a reporter — concealing one’s subjective perspectives or what appears to be “opinions” — precludes good journalism.

But this model has also produced lots of atrocious journalism and some toxic habits that are weakening the profession. A journalist who is petrified of appearing to express any opinions will often steer clear of declarative sentences about what is true, opting instead for a cowardly and unhelpful “here’s-what-both-sides-say-and-I-won’t-resolve-the-conflicts” formulation. That rewards dishonesty on the part of political and corporate officials who know they can rely on “objective” reporters to amplify their falsehoods without challenge (i.e., reporting is reduced to “X says Y” rather than “X says Y and that’s false”).


Worse still, this suffocating constraint on how reporters are permitted to express themselves produces a self-neutering form of journalism that becomes as ineffectual as it is boring. A failure to call torture “torture” because government officials demand that a more pleasant euphemism be used, or lazily equating a demonstrably true assertion with a demonstrably false one, drains journalism of its passion, vibrancy, vitality and soul.

Worst of all, this model rests on a false conceit. Human beings are not objectivity-driven machines. We all intrinsically perceive and process the world through subjective prisms. What is the value in pretending otherwise?

The relevant distinction is not between journalists who have opinions and those who do not, because the latter category is mythical. The relevant distinction is between journalists who honestly disclose their subjective assumptions and political values and those who dishonestly pretend they have none or conceal them from their readers.

Moreover, all journalism is a form of activism. Every journalistic choice necessarily embraces highly subjective assumptions — cultural, political or nationalistic — and serves the interests of one faction or another. Former Bush D.O.J. lawyer Jack Goldsmith in 2011 praised what he called “the patriotism of the American press,” meaning their allegiance to protecting the interests and policies of the U.S. government. That may (or may not) be a noble thing to do, but it most definitely is not objective: it is quite subjective and classically “activist.”

But ultimately, the only real metric of journalism that should matter is accuracy and reliability. I personally think honestly disclosing rather than hiding one’s subjective values makes for more honest and trustworthy journalism. But no journalism — from the most stylistically “objective” to the most brazenly opinionated — has any real value unless it is grounded in facts, evidence, and verifiable data. The claim that overtly opinionated journalists cannot produce good journalism is every bit as invalid as the claim that the contrived form of perspective-free journalism cannot

.

[Zelandakh]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-February-05, 09:39, said:

Presuming to know my worldview is to assume that you include my experience within your own.

I know your worldview because you wrote it a few posts back:

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-February-04, 10:28, said:

A free press, as you imply, MUST contain all viewpoints if it is to be of value.

And I tell you that that is false. There are thousands, perhaps millions of worldviews. Not all of them are going to be aired in a free press. Not all of them should be! The value of a free press is not its ability to air viewpoints based on lies and hatred. The value lies rather in the freedom itself, in particular the freedom to expose lies and propaganda. The idea that if a free press does not give the views of The State even when these are patently false, it should be subject to censorship and forced to (because otherwise such a free press is worthless) is patently ridiculous and more than a little dangerous.

[nige1]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-February-05, 04:30, said:

Censorship in this context is where the press is not allowed to provide a specific viewpoint for some reason. But this is not what we are talking about here. This discussion is about a free press that chooses not to provide a specific viewpoint because that point of view is so extreme or ridiculous as not to be worth offering. Instead, the press reports on the issues showing just why the viewpoint is a lie/based on hatred/impossible/stupid/etc* (* delete as appropriate). In AIU's world, such a free press is worthless, in mine it is doing its job. True censorship would bring a completely different dynamic into play but then we are not really talking about a free press any more so the discussion has to go in a somewhat different direction.

We would like to be free not only to hold an opinion -- but also to argue for it, publicly. We shouldn't incite crime and we can't force a media-controller to provide a platform for views that he dislikes. Hence, in practice, the "right" to freedom of expression depended heavily on the good-will of fair-minded newspaper-editors/college-principals/etc to provide us with a platform for radical views. Traditionally, the US has taken this "right" quite seriously. Here, in the UK, however, we were gagged by draconian libel laws, megalomanic press Barons, BBC self-censorship, the Official secrets act, D-notices, and so on. In the past, Hyde-park Corner was a safety-valve for fringe opinions. More recently, the magazine "Private Eye" was an outlet for whistle-blowers -- and often the only source of reliable news. Now, we are blessed with internet-access and it's harder for big business and government to con and gag us. We might still be vulnerable to venomous bigots although there's no obligation for them to read our views.

[jogs]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-February-05, 04:30, said:

Censorship in this context is where the press is not allowed to provide a specific viewpoint for some reason.

The press IS allowed a point-of-view on its editorial pages. The complaint from the right is the left-wing media slants the news on its coverage in the front pages.

[Zelandakh]

 jogs, on 2017-February-05, 20:32, said:

The press IS allowed a point-of-view on its editorial pages.

That rather depends on which country's press you are talking about

 jogs, on 2017-February-05, 20:32, said:

The complaint from the right is the left-wing media slants the news on its coverage in the front pages.

I am British. On that side of The Pond the more common criticism is that the right-wing media slants the news on its coverage. By the standards of the rest of the world, there is not really a left-wing media in the USA at all, only a centre-right media and a far-right media. I suppose left and right is relative though. The main issue here is that I do not know of a media source you would consider right-winged that gives any sort of news coverage based on fact. There are several neutral sources but these seem to be complained about by "the right" almost as much as true centre-right media (you would say liberal) outlets. When a person considers "balanced" to be news based on half-truths, speculation and outright lies, they are not really someone to be taken seriously. Pitied perhaps but mostly to be blended out except to laugh at them occasionally.

[mike777]

thanks Winston for posting that


Most if not all forget the senator was correct in that commies were in the govt.

as reported he was not wrong his methods were wrong.... horrible wrong and Truman was wrong in his response......thus Truman overratedgtru



Truman vastly overrated during this time

[mike777]

 mikeh, on 2017-February-05, 16:39, said:

I follow US politics in part because it is one of the most important topics om today's world, in part because Canada is so affected by US decision making and in part because much of our media and entertainment comes from the US. For example, I listen to NPR in my car, along with the CBC, about 60-40 NPR.

I would never live in the US. There are some fundamental disconnects between how I see people should function as part of a society and how many Americans appear to think. Too many Americans, in my view, see the notion of government as bad, and that civil life is all about protecting oneself, as an individual, against the demands of society....it is all rights-driven with little acknowledgement that with rights come, or imo should come, responsibilities.

mikeh as usual has a keen insight into the American psyche......we just disagree on what the usa objectives "should" be...and that is ok


Hopefully mikeh will be as critical when it comes to Canadian policy and room for improvements that he advocates for.

[mike777]

 Winstonm, on 2017-February-05, 16:45, said:

The following is from Glenn Greenwald, who I think most eloquently describes the proper role of journalism: (emphasis added)
.

as usual he is eloquent....wrong but eloquent


for starters note his lack of profit motive. no profit no anything


note how profit seems to equal evil in these rants

[mike777]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-February-05, 22:35, said:

That rather depends on which country's press you are talking about



I am British. On that side of The Pond the more common criticism is that the right-wing media slants the news on its coverage. By the standards of the rest of the world, there is not really a left-wing media in the USA at all, only a centre-right media and a far-right media. I suppose left and right is relative though. The main issue here is that I do not know of a media source you would consider right-winged that gives any sort of news coverage based on fact. There are several neutral sources but these seem to be complained about by "the right" almost as much as true centre-right media (you would say liberal) outlets. When a person considers "balanced" to be news based on half-truths, speculation and outright lies, they are not really someone to be taken seriously. Pitied perhaps but mostly to be blended out except to laugh at them occasionally.

zel you may be correct, very correct but it would help if you

define terms,,,for example I have seen many talk about right wing when in fact it is left wing very confusing
standard of measurement


all the rest is crap and rant

[mike777]

perplexing the so called ultra liberal 9th appeals court agrees with me.


They want to hear more, much more legal arguments, not crap not grandstanding or gaslighting


now if the 9th appeals wants to change the law because society has changed so the law needs to be changed....ok per many including Winston and barmar if they want to keep the law based on original intent ok

[kenberg]

With regard to objectivity of reporting, let me tell you about a recent bridge hand. Partner passed, rho bid 1H and I held a ten count with a good six card spade suit. Reasoning that partner is a passed hand, I bid 2S. Lho raised to 3H, rho bid 4, off 3, 150 our way. Good result? No, we can make 4S. Now how should I report this?

A. I could point out that 4S makes only because our hands fit perfectly including a well placed ten and both of the needed finesses worked. It is unlikely we would have bid 4S even if I had started with 1S.

B. I could observe that while A is true, we probably would have, if I had started with 1S, gotten to 3S for 170 and, had the opponents gone on to 4H, my partner would have been more likely to have doubled for our 500.

Both descriptions are factually accurate. One of them makes me look better than the other.

[y66]

 kenberg, on 2017-February-05, 12:16, said:

The problem in a nutshell: Democracy is based on the assumption that the answer to this question is yes. The reality is that the answer might be no.

A major related sub-problem: Many of the liberal persuasion believe, at the gut level, that those who disagree with their vision for the country are racist sexist morons or other undesirables. Some are, some aren't. Early in the campaign, early in the primary campaign, I suggested that this was not the best way to get votes. The general reaction was along the lines of "Well, they are bigoted morons, so we have to call them bigoted morons". And so we now have Trump. I am not suggesting concealing beliefs. I am suggesting that we allow for the possibility that some who think as a conservative and vote Republican might actually be intelligent decent people who would respond well to rational discussion. The thing is, if everyone who voted R is a bigoted moron then the country is lost no matter what we do, so maybe we should at least try to go forward with some hope.

Probably irrelevant: Last night I saw Catch me if you can. The "hero" is a young con man and at his engagement party while the police are closing in he explains to his fiancee, a young nurse he met while pretending to be a doctor, that he is not a doctor, nor is he a lawyer as he is currently pretending, he is not 28 rather he is 17, he ran away from home and did not finish high school, and he is not Lutheran. She says "You aren't Lutheran?".
Morale: You don't know what is important to someone unless you ask and listen.
Yes, I expect Spielberg made that part up.

From Carly Knight and Vanessa Williamson's post-mortem (November 16, 2016):

Quote

Partisanship remained a powerful predictor of voting patterns, even in a year that many expected to be exceptional. In addition, the demography and stated motivations of Trump’s supporters suggest that, particularly in times of frustration with the economic and political status quo, appeals to xenophobia, racial resentment and sexism continue to be formidable force in American politics.

If someone has done a more rigorous analysis since November, I would be interested in reading it. I like the authors' "particularly in times of frustration with the economic and political status quo" distinction which accounts for the appeals to racism and sexism for getting out the base (which did not suddenly became more racist or more moronic in 2016 or more likely to be persuaded by the Dems' labeling strategy) and also for winning over undecided voters whose lives and family member's lives have been turned upside down by the loss of 5 million jobs in the manufacturing sector since 2000 which are NOT coming back including, I suspect, more than a few Lutherans whose ranks include 3.7 million baptized members in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America + 2.1 million in the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod + 370,000 in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.

[kenberg]

 y66, on 2017-February-06, 08:50, said:

From Carly Knight and Vanessa Williamson's post-mortem (November 16, 2016):


If someone has done a more rigorous analysis since November, I would be interested in reading it.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

Quote

I like the authors' "particularly in times of frustration with the economic and political status quo" distinction which accounts for the appeals to racism and sexism for getting out the base (which did not suddenly became more racist or more moronic in 2016 or more likely to be persuaded by the Dems' labeling strategy) and also for winning over undecided voters whose lives and family member's lives have been turned upside down by the loss of 5 million jobs in the manufacturing sector since 2000 which are NOT coming back including, I suspect, more than a few Lutherans whose ranks include 3.7 million baptized members in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America + 2.1 million in the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod + 370,000 in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.

Emotions and pre-set ideas will always play a role. However. Democracy hinges on the possibility of people, a decent sized number of them, being willing and able to at least partially get past that. How to make this most likely t occur is a problem for our time. but really it is a problem for all time. We are not purely rational beings, none of us. Nor would we wish to be. But facts and logic are a very useful tool. Most everyone agrees with that in the abstract, the difficulty is in putting this into practice.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2017-February-06, 07:08, said:

With regard to objectivity of reporting, let me tell you about a recent bridge hand. Partner passed, rho bid 1H and I held a ten count with a good six card spade suit. Reasoning that partner is a passed hand, I bid 2S. Lho raised to 3H, rho bid 4, off 3, 150 our way. Good result? No, we can make 4S. Now how should I report this?

A. I could point out that 4S makes only because our hands fit perfectly including a well placed ten and both of the needed finesses worked. It is unlikely we would have bid 4S even if I had started with 1S.

B. I could observe that while A is true, we probably would have, if I had started with 1S, gotten to 3S for 170 and, had the opponents gone on to 4H, my partner would have been more likely to have doubled for our 500.

Both descriptions are factually accurate. One of them makes me look better than the other.

Sorry, but the only factual accuracy is that you bid 2S and had the chance to bid 1S. What would have happened after a 1S call is subjective. Is it likely you would have reached 3S? Of course. And that is where reporting and subjectivity collide - whose subjective claims to report and what weight to given those claims is the job of the reporter, not simply reporting he says/she says.

[Winstonm]

 mike777, on 2017-February-05, 22:46, said:

as usual he is eloquent....wrong but eloquent


for starters note his lack of profit motive. no profit no anything


note how profit seems to equal evil in these rants

As much as I respect your opinions, I have to disagree somewhat that no profit/no motivation. Most of the great discoveries of our lives have been the result of curiosity, not a desire for profits. The profit motive is mostly found in the financial industry. In news, it wasn't until the advent of cable news that the drive for profits in television news organizations began.

I don't take all of Greenwald's position at face value - but I do think he is right that the media has been co-opted by profits into caring more about access to power than reporting truthfully on power.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2017-February-06, 12:59, said:

Sorry, but the only factual accuracy is that you bid 2S and had the chance to bid 1S. What would have happened after a 1S call is subjective. Is it likely you would have reached 3S? Of course. And that is where reporting and subjectivity collide - whose subjective claims to report and what weight to given those claims is the job of the reporter, not simply reporting he says/she says.

Analogies often are a bad idea, perhaps I should have practiced restraint. This was an afternoon club game but imagine it as a consequential event, with CNN, FOX, MSNBC all covering the event. Surely more would be said than "Ken bid 2S". One of the five Ws is "Why?: And of course there certainly re other factual matters. The opponents went on to 4H, undoubled, off 3 for a bad result for the Ken pair. And "subjective" comes in different forms. I prefer Whoppers to Big Macs". Entirely subjective, I have no intention of arguing the point with someone who has the opposite preference. But what would have happened if i had bid 1S? This is speculative, sure, but not a crazy random guess. My partner, hearing a third hand weak jump overcall from me, is highly unlikely to double 4H. Had I bid 1S he might or might not have, but we could make reasonable speculations.

I am assuming that neither you nor greenwald nor much of anyone would insist on simple factual reporting. "Ken bid 2S. The opponents bid 4H. Off three." That's it. Improper to say more.

My thinking is that of course reporters are allowed to say more, and often they should. But when they do, they need to do more than say "Someone should have doubled".

That's what I had in mind with this analogy. I am not sure I have ever made an analogy that didn't cause more confusion than clarity.

And then there are the Patriots and the Falcons. No, I won't make any analogy. Hell of a game though.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2017-February-06, 14:56, said:

Analogies often are a bad idea, perhaps I should have practiced restraint. This was an afternoon club game but imagine it as a consequential event, with CNN, FOX, MSNBC all covering the event. Surely more would be said than "Ken bid 2S". One of the five Ws is "Why?: And of course there certainly re other factual matters. The opponents went on to 4H, undoubled, off 3 for a bad result for the Ken pair. And "subjective" comes in different forms. I prefer Whoppers to Big Macs". Entirely subjective, I have no intention of arguing the point with someone who has the opposite preference. But what would have happened if i had bid 1S? This is speculative, sure, but not a crazy random guess. My partner, hearing a third hand weak jump overcall from me, is highly unlikely to double 4H. Had I bid 1S he might or might not have, but we could make reasonable speculations.

I am assuming that neither you nor greenwald nor much of anyone would insist on simple factual reporting. "Ken bid 2S. The opponents bid 4H. Off three." That's it. Improper to say more.

My thinking is that of course reporters are allowed to say more, and often they should. But when they do, they need to do more than say "Someone should have doubled".

That's what I had in mind with this analogy. I am not sure I have ever made an analogy that didn't cause more confusion than clarity.

And then there are the Patriots and the Falcons. No, I won't make any analogy. Hell of a game though.

I hope you don't think I am criticizing you because I am not. My point is that good reporting does require some degree of subjective evaluation - it is not good journalism to simply report that, for example, Donald Trump wrote in a tweet "the so-called judge". It is good journalism to investigate and report on why it is so offensive and dangerous for the President to write that way publicly about the judiciary.

As for the game, note to self Atlanta Falcons: middle of the third quarter is not the time to relax and start having rings measured.

[Winstonm]

This is beyond troubling - outright scary. That the man in charge of nuclear codes believes a crackpot website's conspiracy theories are justified is a danger to mankind.

Quote

President Trump made a whopper of a claim on Monday, suggesting that the media is deliberately ignoring terrorist attacks.

"It’s gotten to a point where it’s not even being reported," he said to military leaders at U.S. Central Command. "And in many cases the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that."