Quote:Much of what you read in the newspaper is from the Associated Press and they function pretty much as you desire.
And while we are on the subject of media bashing - so what sources do you use? Where are these perfect entities that are run by people who never make mistakes, either in fact or in judgement?
Everything has been politicized. If it doesn't fit a worldview it must be slanted. And someone must be intentionally slanting it. It has to be a conspiracy. Otherwise the "facts" would confirm my world view.
And that's the way it is (RIP, Walter)
Cronkite bald faced lied to the American people on broadcast tv in '68, this nothing new.
Quote:Cronkite bald faced lied to the American people on broadcast tv in '68, this nothing new.
Way to prove my point - your politics are showing. He was lied to and he reported what he was told. Only later did he find out he was misled. And he reported
that as well.
And nice avoidance of the question of what you read for your info.
MAD Magazine?
Quote:Way to prove my point - your politics are showing. He was lied to and he reported what he was told. Only later did he find out he was misled. And he reported that as well.
And nice avoidance of the question of what you read for your info.
MAD Magazine?
Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, Huffington...you know, the usual.
Quote:Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, Huffington...you know, the usual.
oh this has devolved from discussion to mud slinging. Am I to late to join the closed minded slug fest?
We are in an age much like the turn of the century (the 19th/20th)(Eric must love it) in which you can pick your source to fit your political leanings. Except now instead of newspapers you can choose among many "networks" or internet sites.
Somewhat scary as there seems to be less professionalism and a lot less editing than in the past.
There seems to be some law of physics, so to speak, that the amount of knowledge is in inverse proportion to the amount of data available.
flsprtsgod - you may want to stick to offering opinions on the Jags/football, as this seems to be out of your depth.
Quote:We are in an age much like the turn of the century (the 19th/20th)(Eric must love it) in which you can pick your source to fit your political leanings. Except now instead of newspapers you can choose among many "networks" or internet sites.
Somewhat scary as there seems to be less professionalism and a lot less editing than in the past.
There seems to be some law of physics, so to speak, that the amount of knowledge is in inverse proportion to the amount of data available.
flsprtsgod - you may want to stick to offering opinions on the Jags/football, as this seems to be out of your depth.
Have you ever read the newspapers from the 17th century? They make today's news look truly fair and balanced. The idea that news reporting has ever been anything more than agenda pushing is unrealistic.
Quote:Cronkite bald faced lied to the American people on broadcast tv in '68, this nothing new.
If Walter Cronkite told a bald faced lie, then you just did the same.
The fact is that Cronkite reported what he was told, much the same as what you just did. That's not lying, it's repeating a lie. There's a difference.
Walter Cronkite recanted when he learned the facts. Will you?
Quote:If Walter Cronkite told a bald faced lie, then you just did the same.
The fact is that Cronkite reported what he was told, much the same as what you just did. That's not lying, it's repeating a lie. There's a difference.
Walter Cronkite recanted when he learned the facts. Will you?
Cronkite was on the ground in South Viet Nam, he wasnt repeating anything, he was the primary reporter. He also said in 2006 that his Viet Nam lie was his proudest achievement.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cronkites-vietnam-moment-us-must-leave-iraq-523345.html'>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cronkites-vietnam-moment-us-must-leave-iraq-523345.html</a>
I can find no record of him recanting, if you'd provide a source I will certainly read it.
He's stepping aside momentarily, I guess for it to blow over.
Quote:Cronkite was on the ground in South Viet Nam, he wasnt repeating anything, he was the primary reporter. He also said in 2006 that his Viet Nam lie was his proudest achievement.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cronkites-vietnam-moment-us-must-leave-iraq-523345.html'>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cronkites-vietnam-moment-us-must-leave-iraq-523345.html</a>
I can find no record of him recanting, if you'd provide a source I will certainly read it.
What was the lie there? That Vietnam was a quagmire?
Quote:What was the lie there? That Vietnam was a quagmire?
He intentionally misreported the facts on the ground of the Tet Offensive. He reported that the American Embassy was captured and held for six hours. It was not. He reported that the offensive lasted for 2 months. It did not. He reported that the Viet Cong defeated the US military and ARVN. The truth is that we kicked so much [BLEEP] out of the Viet Cong that they were never again a useful tool for the North. He then came back with his "I don't know" editorial when he knew damn well the truth and CHOSE to report it as such to support his personal beliefs on the matter.
And everyone seems to agree that this was the political turning point of the Viet Nam war. The military won the fight, but Walter Cronkite surrendered the war.
And his false narratives underscored by his Leftist positions continued throughout the Cold War and the rest of his career.
(BTW, did you move the goal posts? I thought you said he recanted?)
Quote:He's stepping aside momentarily, I guess for it to blow over.
His creditability is gone, don't see any other option for him or NBC at this point.
What about the guys who lied to get us into the war in the first place?
Quote:He intentionally misreported the facts on the ground of the Tet Offensive. He reported that the American Embassy was captured and held for six hours. It was not. He reported that the offensive lasted for 2 months. It did not. He reported that the Viet Cong defeated the US military and ARVN. The truth is that we kicked so much [BLEEP] out of the Viet Cong that they were never again a useful tool for the North. He then came back with his "I don't know" editorial when he knew damn well the truth and CHOSE to report it as such to support his personal beliefs on the matter.
And everyone seems to agree that this was the political turning point of the Viet Nam war. The military won the fight, but Walter Cronkite surrendered the war.
And his false narratives underscored by his Leftist positions continued throughout the Cold War and the rest of his career.
(BTW, did you move the goal posts? I thought you said he recanted?)
No, I owe you an apology. I was thinking of a completely different situation, and a different person. I posted from memory, not research. In fact, you were correct, Cronkite intentionally misled his viewers about the Tet offensive, as well as the situation on the ground at that point of the Vietnam War.
My apologies.
Quote:No, I owe you an apology. I was thinking of a completely different situation, and a different person. I posted from memory, not research. In fact, you were correct, Cronkite intentionally misled his viewers about the Tet offensive, as well as the situation on the ground at that point of the Vietnam War.
My apologies.
Wow, no problem man.
Quote:Wow, no problem man.
Lol, there are very few people on this board that will admit they are wrong. Typically if someone is wrong they will spin their story to save face.
Props rj.
NBC suspended him for 6 months no pay.
Quote:NBC suspended him for 6 months no pay.
We should hold politicians to the same standard. As should the media backlash but no that wouldn't be proper would it?
Quote:We should hold politicians to the same standard. As should the media backlash but no that wouldn't be proper would it?
If we suspend politicians 6 months every time they lie, then we're going to finally find some numbers higher than Googolplex.
So.... Pitchforks over O'Reilly?