Pages: 1

 

2010-12-20 13:01:03
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina
NPR fired Juan Williams only a short while ago for some comments regarding his feelings around Muslims while on a plane.

Despite a history of much more abrasive comments, Nina Totenberg still works for NPR.

MSNBC fired right-wing talk host Michael Savage in July [of 2003], and rightly so, when he told a gay caller to "get AIDS and die, you pig." The liberal Nina Totenberg, on the other hand, suffered no ill effects for saying, during the flap over General Jerry Boykin's views of Islam and the war on terrorism, "I hope he's not long for this world." When the startled host asked if she were "putting a hit out on this guy," Totenberg backtracked and said she only wanted to see him expire "in his job."

But this isn't the first time the NPR diva has publicly wished death on a conservative. "I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind," she said of Senator Jesse Helms in 1995, "because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor … _the_left/

Now, I personally hated Jesse Helms, but it seems odd to me that someone working for NPR saying much more offensive things than what Williams did is still working for a news organization that claims to support objectivity.
2010-12-20 19:35:08
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6356
I hated Jesse Helms for getting Stacey Donovan Banned, other than that no real problems with the guy.

                                  /\
                                   l

                        some cant read that

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-12-20 19:35:30)

2010-12-20 19:39:10
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5261|foggy bottom
oh no! not Jafar Panahi!!
Tu Stultus Es
2010-12-22 09:12:57
Ticia
Member
+73|5337
I can see a huge difference between criticising/offending a specific Senator or military General and making bigoted remarks about Muslims in general.

But I'll give you one thing NPR calls this woman their legal affairs correspondent while Juan Williams was supposed to be just a news analyst, maybe all media should just shut up about objectivity
2010-12-22 09:24:01
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina
Well, if nothing else, I can't really say I hate Fox News anymore.   I actually agree with them on certain things -- like this census issue.

I think the point of media really isn't objectivity anyway.  Cross referencing is what every viewer should do, and so expecting a single source to be objective is kind of naive.

Edward R. Murrow wasn't exactly objective in his view of McCarthy, but what he did still garners respect among journalists because of the importance of fighting the police state antics that McCarthy supported.

So honestly, maybe journalism is actually best off as an activist tool.  There are left wingers and right wingers in media, but what matters is that consumers cross reference their sources to determine the truth of what they are being told.

Personally, I still don't think Williams should have been fired, and honestly, I'm not sure if Totenberg should be either.

The one thing you have to give Fox credit for is that they are honest about their bias.  They make it pretty obvious what side they favor, whereas NPR pretends to be objective.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-12-22 09:25:11)

2010-12-22 09:28:43
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6651

Ticia wrote:

I can see a huge difference between criticising/offending a specific Senator or military General and making bigoted remarks about Muslims in general.

But I'll give you one thing NPR calls this woman their legal affairs correspondent while Juan Williams was supposed to be just a news analyst, maybe all media should just shut up about objectivity
Yeah I kind of agree. I mean, obviously it's not acceptable that she says that, but if I were running the station, I'd much rather the reporters said inflammatory things about individuals than an entire religious group. And negative comments against a non-Christian religion are always going to be viewed as a racial issue. I doubt Williams would have been fired if he'd said he hoped Obama would die.
2010-12-22 09:33:47
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

ghettoperson wrote:

Ticia wrote:

I can see a huge difference between criticising/offending a specific Senator or military General and making bigoted remarks about Muslims in general.

But I'll give you one thing NPR calls this woman their legal affairs correspondent while Juan Williams was supposed to be just a news analyst, maybe all media should just shut up about objectivity
Yeah I kind of agree. I mean, obviously it's not acceptable that she says that, but if I were running the station, I'd much rather the reporters said inflammatory things about individuals than an entire religious group. And negative comments against a non-Christian religion are always going to be viewed as a racial issue. I doubt Williams would have been fired if he'd said he hoped Obama would die.
If Williams was white, I'm sure that would've gotten him fired.

I think you're right about how things are viewed, but it's still hypocritical.  Williams wasn't even being abrasive about it.   Hell, I even somewhat agree with what he said.
2010-12-22 09:34:52
Ticia
Member
+73|5337

Turquoise wrote:

Well, if nothing else, I can't really say I hate Fox News anymore.   I actually agree with them on certain things -- like this census issue.

I think the point of media really isn't objectivity anyway.  Cross referencing is what every viewer should do, and so expecting a single source to be objective is kind of naive.

Edward R. Murrow wasn't exactly objective in his view of McCarthy, but what he did still garners respect among journalists because of the importance of fighting the police state antics that McCarthy supported.

So honestly, maybe journalism is actually best off as an activist tool.  There are left wingers and right wingers in media, but what matters is that consumers cross reference their sources to determine the truth of what they are being told.

Personally, I still don't think Williams should have been fired, and honestly, I'm not sure if Totenberg should be either.

The one thing you have to give Fox credit for is that they are honest about their bias.  They make it pretty obvious what side they favor, whereas NPR pretends to be objective.
If is true that today every single one of us can be a journalist we all know TV news specially are aimed to audiences who do not cross reference, by opinionating the news they're basically telling people what to think. Nothing can be done about it but calling it acceptable is a stretch.
2010-12-22 09:48:04
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

If is true that today every single one of us can be a journalist we all know TV news specially are aimed to audiences who do not cross reference, by opinionating the news they're basically telling people what to think. Nothing can be done about it but calling it acceptable is a stretch.
Most people don't think for themselves anyway.  Can we really blame media outlets for doing it for them?
2010-12-22 10:05:28
Ticia
Member
+73|5337

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

If is true that today every single one of us can be a journalist we all know TV news specially are aimed to audiences who do not cross reference, by opinionating the news they're basically telling people what to think. Nothing can be done about it but calling it acceptable is a stretch.
Most people don't think for themselves anyway.  Can we really blame media outlets for doing it for them?
Guess not.

But if you keep being treated like an idiot, you become an idiot.
2010-12-22 10:10:45
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

If is true that today every single one of us can be a journalist we all know TV news specially are aimed to audiences who do not cross reference, by opinionating the news they're basically telling people what to think. Nothing can be done about it but calling it acceptable is a stretch.
Most people don't think for themselves anyway.  Can we really blame media outlets for doing it for them?
Guess not.

But if you keep being treated like an idiot, you become an idiot.
Fair point, but well...   My argument is that a significant portion of the population has little potential beyond being useful idiots.  You basically need at least an IQ of 110 or 120 to be more than just one of those.

It's not that people below that IQ are useless, but you can't really expect them to be more than just a cog in a very large wheel.  They're going to be swayed by all of the shit they hear and see, and you can't really legislate content without mostly ending the notion of a free press.

I'd rather live in a country where media is free to propagandize than in one where the only propagandist is the government.

This is part of why democracy is flawed, however.  Ideally, only the intelligent would vote, but there's really no accurate or constitutional way to setup a system that manages that.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-12-22 10:14:24)

2010-12-23 08:20:01
Ticia
Member
+73|5337

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Most people don't think for themselves anyway.  Can we really blame media outlets for doing it for them?
Guess not.

But if you keep being treated like an idiot, you become an idiot.
Fair point, but well...   My argument is that a significant portion of the population has little potential beyond being useful idiots.  You basically need at least an IQ of 110 or 120 to be more than just one of those.

It's not that people below that IQ are useless, but you can't really expect them to be more than just a cog in a very large wheel.  They're going to be swayed by all of the shit they hear and see, and you can't really legislate content without mostly ending the notion of a free press.

I'd rather live in a country where media is free to propagandize than in one where the only propagandist is the government.

This is part of why democracy is flawed, however.  Ideally, only the intelligent would vote, but there's really no accurate or constitutional way to setup a system that manages that.
And my argument is that a significant part of the population aren't really that dumb.
Just like with the body...if you don't exercise and eat junk all day long your body resents it. With your mind if you don't use it enough and keep filling it with the crap most Media feeds you then stupidity takes over you.

Of course ideally a good family environment and a superior education system would give you the tools to identify and reject idiocy but because those are usually privileges of the richer you end up with: poor equals stupid.
So your "only the intelligent should vote" becomes very quickly "only the wealthy should".
2010-12-23 08:26:33
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

And my argument is that a significant part of the population aren't really that dumb.
Just like with the body...if you don't exercise and eat junk all day long your body resents it. With your mind if you don't use it enough and keep filling it with the crap most Media feeds you then stupidity takes over you.

Of course ideally a good family environment and a superior education system would give you the tools to identify and reject idiocy but because those are usually privileges of the richer you end up with: poor equals stupid.
So your "only the intelligent should vote" becomes very quickly "only the wealthy should".
Fair points, but the wealthy already run everything anyway.  Aren't we kind of pretending that voting matters?  Before we even get to vote, special interests select who gets to run because the costs of running for higher offices are so high oftentimes.

So whether or not the public is informed only matters to a degree.  And as Uzique and I discussed in another thread, the media isn't really there to inform as much as it is to make a profit.
2010-12-23 08:34:02
Ticia
Member
+73|5337

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

And my argument is that a significant part of the population aren't really that dumb.
Just like with the body...if you don't exercise and eat junk all day long your body resents it. With your mind if you don't use it enough and keep filling it with the crap most Media feeds you then stupidity takes over you.

Of course ideally a good family environment and a superior education system would give you the tools to identify and reject idiocy but because those are usually privileges of the richer you end up with: poor equals stupid.
So your "only the intelligent should vote" becomes very quickly "only the wealthy should".
Fair points, but the wealthy already run everything anyway.  Aren't we kind of pretending that voting matters?  Before we even get to vote, special interests select who gets to run because the costs of running for higher offices are so high oftentimes.

So whether or not the public is informed only matters to a degree.  And as Uzique and I discussed in another thread, the media isn't really there to inform as much as it is to make a profit.
Then I would expect to be runned better since they're so intelligent
2010-12-23 08:39:24
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

And my argument is that a significant part of the population aren't really that dumb.
Just like with the body...if you don't exercise and eat junk all day long your body resents it. With your mind if you don't use it enough and keep filling it with the crap most Media feeds you then stupidity takes over you.

Of course ideally a good family environment and a superior education system would give you the tools to identify and reject idiocy but because those are usually privileges of the richer you end up with: poor equals stupid.
So your "only the intelligent should vote" becomes very quickly "only the wealthy should".
Fair points, but the wealthy already run everything anyway.  Aren't we kind of pretending that voting matters?  Before we even get to vote, special interests select who gets to run because the costs of running for higher offices are so high oftentimes.

So whether or not the public is informed only matters to a degree.  And as Uzique and I discussed in another thread, the media isn't really there to inform as much as it is to make a profit.
Then I would expect to be runned better since they're so intelligent
Haha...  well, that's the trick, isn't it?   Wealth doesn't equal intelligence.  Even education doesn't guarantee things like wisdom.

I guess if we really dig deep, nearly every society is the same.  It's just a matter of the wealthy few running things, but that wealth is gained by a myriad of ways.   The ratio of idiots to intelligent people is probably the same among the wealthy as everyone else, so that's why mediocrity and corruption are inevitable.
2010-12-23 08:42:26
Ticia
Member
+73|5337

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Fair points, but the wealthy already run everything anyway.  Aren't we kind of pretending that voting matters?  Before we even get to vote, special interests select who gets to run because the costs of running for higher offices are so high oftentimes.

So whether or not the public is informed only matters to a degree.  And as Uzique and I discussed in another thread, the media isn't really there to inform as much as it is to make a profit.
Then I would expect to be runned better since they're so intelligent
Haha...  well, that's the trick, isn't it?   Wealth doesn't equal intelligence.  Even education doesn't guarantee things like wisdom.

I guess if we really dig deep, nearly every society is the same.  It's just a matter of the wealthy few running things, but that wealth is gained by a myriad of ways.   The ratio of idiots to intelligent people is probably the same among the wealthy as everyone else, so that's why mediocrity and corruption are inevitable.
Nah... I would say is because even the rich and powerful watch too much Fox News   

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard