Regardless of what we think of bias, all journalism has become a useless combination of power, influence, money, and incompetence.
James o’Keefe nails it.
- Thread starter CO. Hoosier
- Start date
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Interesting, although I think he's wrong that an investigative reporter need deceive his interview subject in order to tell the truth to his audience. I don't recall Mike Wallace doing that.
I don't think good lawyers do that either, and yet they interview subjects all the time and then tell the truth to their audience (judges and juries).
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
By the way CoH, are you aware of who this guy is and what he has done in the past? Sounds like a pretty unsavory character:
en.wikipedia.org
James O'Keefe - Wikipedia
Editing video is a necessity. Whether editing is deceptive depends on whose ox is getting gored. Editing to advance the story narrative seems to be an industry standard and is done by all.By the way CoH, are you aware of who this guy is and what he has done in the past? Sounds like a pretty unsavory character:
James O'Keefe - Wikipedia
Im not sure of the difference between deceiving a subject and just being clever. I often attempted to hide the purpose of a line questioning, particularly in expert depositions. Some might call that deception. I think it’s a way to advance honesty.
I stoped with Wiki after the first sentence. Of course I don’t condone criminal conduct, but I don’t see a problem with reporter deception when asking questions. Courts approve cops lying to a subject in order to gain the truth during an investigation. Lawyers are held to a different standard as we should be.
In any event, I think the linked video as a stand alone view is pretty good.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
the issue was him misrepresenting the conversation with his editing in order to make the person look bad. Hardly the same and there is no excuse for it. Not surprising that you tried to come up with one though.
O'Keefe comparing himself to Upton Sinclair is like Lucy comparing herself to George Will.
News reporters and editorialists are different jobs, but in most places the editorialists have taken over. They get better ratings.
The best we can hope for, unfortunately it seems, is some editorializing with cited sources (doubled up) and in general good factual support.
Think Chris Wallace, whose facts made Fox too uncomfortable.
Those types of journalists are few and far between
The best we can hope for, unfortunately it seems, is some editorializing with cited sources (doubled up) and in general good factual support.
Think Chris Wallace, whose facts made Fox too uncomfortable.
Those types of journalists are few and far between
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Read how he edited the videos. It is not within the realm of reasonableness and any court would find it sanctionable--you'd be disbarred if you did with video testimony what he did with his recordings. Comparing what he did to not telling an expert witness exactly why you are asking a question is a poor analogy. And I bet you do, in fact, know the difference between outright deception and being clever.
I can't make you read about what all he did. But your choice to remain ignorant does not make his conduct go away.
They are a business, they sell what the public clicks on. So, it's the public with a majority of the fault. Not the media ..
McDonalds will not force you to eat salad just because it's healthy for you. They will though sell you ass cancer, smothered in obesity, with a supersized cup of diabetes to wash it down.
Demand = what is supplied.
A majority don't want to read a boring informative report. TLDR. They want to be angry or want validation for their opinion instead. Condensed into as few words as possible.
The best we can do is not click on click bait and not use news aggregators, because we the consumer have that choice and could drive demand. That won't happen, we live in an anti science, anti expert, anti intellectual, lazy minded society ..
false choice.
beyond ridiculous assertion by the guest that has zero basis in fact or logic, with no push back from Slen.
one does not have to deceive their subject to be journalist, and to state they do is just lying or stupidity.
and one can quote someone telling lies, without endorsing or promoting said lies, just by adding other background and data, and pointing out what could be untrue or misleading in the quote, and why.
that said, all journalism of any reach has become based in money and nothing else, because all journalism of reach today is corporate, and a corporation does not have the freedom to serve any interest other than itself and and it's owners.
if the CEO, the editor, and every employee of the corporation wanted to serve journalism first, and not it's corporate ownership, it still wouldn't be able to for any length of time, because the corporation itself will never allow that, just because of what a corporation is..
no exceptions, and to think there are is just deceiving yourself, and not grasping what a corporation is.
doesn't make the corporation bad or good, as a corporation can be neither, as it's an inanimate thing with only one prime objective, and literally no ability to alter that primary objective.
and truth, or the whole truth, is not that objective, nor can it ever be, just due to what a corporation, any corporation, is and isn't.
gone are the days of where a newspaper or radio or tv station or network is privately owned and operated, and can serve the interests, or even try to serve the interests, of the reader, listener, viewer, truth, first.
and while we like to think of CSpan as something it actually isn't, let's not forget that CSpan is both completely funded and distributed primarily by AT&T and Comcast, and to lesser degree by other telecom corps with the same interests as AT&T and Comcast, both domestic and foreign, and all multinational.
CSpan likes to give out the illusion it's unbiased, but no 100% multinational corporate conglomerate controlled entity so much as has the ability to be unbiased, or serve any interest other than the corporation and it's ownership first.
we would all like to believe otherwise, but that would just be deceiving ourselves as to what large multinational conglomerate corporations actually are, and the only rules and end objectives they can pursue.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Too unsavory for me. Just like the progressive usage of/links to Business Insider.By the way CoH, are you aware of who this guy is and what he has done in the past? Sounds like a pretty unsavory character:
James O'Keefe - Wikipedia
Is James O'Keefe an example of the very thing about which he complains ?
My cursory investigative study tells me he might be.
My cursory investigative study tells me he might be.
liars lie, cheaters cheat, deceivers deceive.
that CO and conservatives regularly back liars, cheaters, and deceivers, is revealing to their character as well..
liberals who back liars, cheaters, and deceivers, is a black mark on them as well, but i see that far less often from liberals.
and i emphasize "conservative" and "liberal", not Pub or Dem.
many Dems are conservative, at least in part, while few to no Pubs are liberal.
I was gonna comment on CoH's choice of messenger when he first started the thread, but figured that would earn me the label of hyper-partisan. So I decided to just sit back and see if others called him out. Your analysis pretty much nails it. But I doubt his choice of O'Keefe was unintentional...
Are you characterizing Insider as "progressive"? I could see it if you were talking about Daily Beast as a link to progressive writing, but I don't see it with Insider. They seem to be basically a conduit for hosting articles originally posted in NYT,WAPO,WSJ etc...but I don't see Insider as anything close to "progressive" in their own articles...
I know I'm personally guilty of posting a lot of links to them, but that's because they seem to be one of the yahoo news page's most utilized second hand host for articles which originally appeared in major media like NYT or WAPO. And unlike those original NYT or WAPO articles, the BI hosted versions aren't usually behind a paywall. But with Blodget's history at Oppenheimer and Merrill Lynch I don't see a background that screams "progressive"...
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Business Insider is a Gawker-type zine that crafts narratives and forwards articles that fit that narrative. It also writes hit pieces on people it doesn’t like to get clicks. We should all stop using it and driving ad revenues to them.
Blodgett is forbidden from working in securities so this is his new grift. It’s a joke.
The self righteous indignation for about O’Keefe’s editing is hilarious. The most famous segment ever on 60 Minutes is the rigged truck explosion. NBC falsely edited George Zimmerma’s phone call with cops. DeSantis was falsely edited with Publix. The fake Russia involvement with Hunter’s laptop affected a campaign. . White House even deceptively edits the official transcripts of Biden numerous faux pas‘. And Dan Rather. This is just off the top of my head. Big media alters interviews and disseminates deceptions every single day. If I had the time and interest I could spend hours showing more. This is the context of O’Keefe. The problem with O’Keefe isn’t that he uses editing to advance a story, it’s all about the sacred cows he nails. The cows are so sacred that the FBI raided his residence and office and took journalistic material that had nothing to do With Ashley’s Biden’s diary. If you wanna feel the outrage, try that.
Dems and Pubs are both dishonest.
Pubs are just far far more so, and dishonest about far more important issues, other than war, which they both lie their asses off about..
i hate all the liars and cheats, and unlike everyone else here, have called out both sides..
you and many others here on both sides are more than fine with "your side" doing it.
that's a you and an us problem the whole nation is struggling because of.
be a better person in the future, and don't set such a really low bar for yourself.
Thank goodness you didn’t comment then, I‘d hate to see you sully your reputation as fair & objective & get labeled as hyper-partisan…🤣🤣🤣
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Don't worry. Anyone that doesn't name a bad dem for every mention of a bad gop is hyper partisan according to some.
Basically we are all hyper partisan already
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
No.
You just listed a bunch of instances YOU DON'T AGREE WITH. YOU think they are bad and "deceptions"--your words. OTHER instances of deception do not justify O'Keefe's deception. Period.
If you want to end deception, you don't complain about it when the other team does it, but defend it when your team does it or call it "clever." I think you are more principled than this. Would you teach your grandchildren this lesson: "Oh, your peers are cheating? Then that makes it OK for you to do so too. They lie? OK, then you should lie also to advance your agenda." No, you would not.
As for the FBI raid, that's something worth talking about. It doesn't excuse OKeefe's long history of bad acts. And of course, OKeefe's history of bad acts don't affect the ideas you want to talk about that he brought up (and I am happy to; in fact that's how I started the response to your initial post).
The government can do bad things to people, and those people can still be bad. A person's enemies or opponents can do bad things, but that doesn't forgive that person from doing the same things. I know you know this.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
"Unlike everyone else here?"
O’Keefe didn’t establish the journalist standard of care. It’s a crappy standard as I think we agree. But so long as journalists have permission to lie about public figures and events of public interest, they will lie. So long as journalists have permission to use false quotes so long as the false quote is something the public figure might have said, we will have false quotes.
realizing the lies are one thing.
embracing and promoting them as you do, is another.
your goal seems to be to lower the standard enough to justify your own actions.
embracing and promoting lies by either side, can't be justified.
be better, and stop trying to lower the bar as a way of justifying your own behavior.
It was Dateline and not 60 Minutes, three producers were fired. The talent, who has raised complaints about the explosion, was demoted.
Dan Rather lost his job.
Two people who were involved in the Zimmerman edit lost their jobs.
Thanks. I thought it was 60m. Ya hafta wonder why all the people involved thought deceptions are okay. I also wonder how many don’t ever get caught. Even the deceptions that are exposed get a pass when Trump is a target or wen they suppress negative Biden news.
For his part O’Keefe also paid a price with criminal charges. As far as I know, there have never been criminal charges brought for other journalistic fraud. Someday I’d like to read his book about how he and his staff pull off all these often embarrassing recordings.
Most journalists do their job. Some bad ones don't. You want to compare it to the lawyering profession?
Then you are a fool. BI is basically TMZ..... zero standards. You see life through a very foggy lens.
Imagine a world where we had only prosecutors and no defense attorneys. And those prosecutors consistently picked a defined segment of the population to prosecute. That is the world of journalism.
Oh come one. Gawker was fun til is wasn't. I still miss old Deadspin.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
The sense in which this analogy is true only highlights why it is so important for journalists to abide by a code of journalistic ethics that includes (1) not actively deceiving your subjects, and (2) not actively deceiving your audience by editing material to create intentionally false context or impressions.
Where the analogy fails is that we have many options for news. News should lose credibility when these happen and we consume other news. I would think we are seeing that with CNN as they are rebranding who they are.
All media can make mistakes, like everyone else. It would seem what has happened in the cases I listed of people being fired should reduce the incidents of downright fraud. I would think cleaning up after itself is the best we can hope for.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Writing half baked hit pieces isn’t a sustainable business model. Hogan did the right thing.
Yeah, probably. Like Icarus they flew too close to the sun.
Deadspin is a shell of itself. Many of the online outfits have them to thank though (thinking the Athletic, etc.)
By the way CoH, are you aware of who this guy is and what he has done in the past? Sounds like a pretty unsavory character:
James O'Keefe - Wikipedia
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything. It can be revised by users at any time and cannot be trusted. If this is where you get your information you have no clue what's going on in the world. Schools won't let it be used for citations and no legit professional would rely on it for anything.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Deadspin died when they hired a bunch of incel nerds that simply talk about how smart they are. Even Drew Magary became unreadable before his medical incident.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
IUBB Postgame Q&A: Head coach Mike Woodson, center Oumar Ballo- Latest: ZachBrowning
-
-
-
