4 ms·

I disagree. It's not about whether CNN and other outlets are "objective". It's about scapegoating an enemy. Beating on the "liberal media" has been a cartoon vi

by beat 10y ago

I disagree. It's not about whether CNN and other outlets are "objective". It's about scapegoating an enemy. Beating on the "liberal media" has been a cartoon villain from the GOP ever since the rise of FOX News and right-wing talk radio two decades ago, but this is a new level. They can discourage even believing in facts, and focus supporters on "alt" media that isn't impeded by inconveniences like having to report the actual truth. CNN may be kinda dumb, but at least they have a bedrock of journalistic integrity. Heck, I've started crediting FOX as a "legitimate" news source, if only to counter arguments that the "liberal media" isn't covering whatever crazy fantasy is floating through the "alt-right" at the time. If even FOX isn't covering it, it's fake news, people! (And honestly, FOX has gotten a lot better over the past year or so.) This isn't about objectivity. It's about turning any journalistic outfit with a shred of integrity into an Enemy of the People. This sort of nonsense is exactly what makes Trump/Bannon different, and dangerous.

VLM 10y ago
"CNN may be kinda dumb, but at least they have a bedrock of journalistic integrity." You seem to have missed the email leaks. They cooperate exclusively behind the scenes with the Democratic party to ensure the defeat of Republicans. They have the journalistic integrity of cold war era "Pravda".
- beat 10y ago
  If that's the case, then they're not doing a very good job of it, huh?
  - VLM 10y ago
    They seem to work really hard. Every obsolete / dead political movement in history (religion, too) was staffed primarily by honest and genuine true believers. I don't think they're lazy or stupid or unmotivated. They just hitched their carriage to a dead horse, that's all. People involved in current day ascendant political movements and modern religions like to think they're somehow different than the dead past, but sooner or later they find out the hard way they're not. (edited to add, in my study of history I've never found an aspect of human nature quite as cross cultural and universal as this, nothing, nothing comes close, not monotheism or the golden rule or dualism or progressivism, nothing so universally human)
    - beat 10y ago
      See, when you start saying CNN (and every other major outlet, by extension) is basically Pravda, devoted to carrying the water for the Democratic Party at the expense of the GOP, I kind of assume you're totally blinded by partisanship and incapable of rational discussion of the subject.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        See, when you say that CNN has journalistic integrity, and ignore VLM's counterexample, where they in fact were carrying water for Hillary, you seem to be incapable of rational discussion on the subject. They objectively did that. Whether they did "a good job" of it or not is completely not the point. [Edit: I saw your parallel post where your definition of "journalistic integrity" is "don't make up facts, even if you report them in a biased manner". First, I think that's way too low of a bar. Strive for objectivity, even if you can't perfectly achieve it. Second, though, what CNN did is like a sideline reporter jumping on the field and tackling someone. It's totally inappropriate, well outside of what is acceptable for journalists, even if it's not creating "false facts".]
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Link to your favorite smoking gun email?
MrZongle2 10y ago
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree (especially about CNN's journalistic integrity). But I appreciate you taking the time to respond, as opposed to those users who simply abuse the downvote button.
- beat 10y ago
  Partisan bias and journalistic integrity are separate issues. Whether or not CNN has a partisan bias (I think their "liberal bias" is a fantasy, but that's me), they have journalistic integrity. They don't knowingly publish outright falsehoods. A news organization can be highly partisan and still have excellent integrity.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Beating on the "liberal media" has been a cartoon villain from the GOP ever since the rise of FOX News and right-wing talk radio two decades ago, but this is a new level. No, it's been that way at least two decades longer than that.

by beat 10y ago

VLM 10y ago

"CNN may be kinda dumb, but at least they have a bedrock of journalistic integrity." You seem to have missed the email leaks. They cooperate exclusively behind the scenes with the Democratic party to ensure the defeat of Republicans. They have the journalistic integrity of cold war era "Pravda".

beat 10y ago
If that's the case, then they're not doing a very good job of it, huh?
- VLM 10y ago
  They seem to work really hard. Every obsolete / dead political movement in history (religion, too) was staffed primarily by honest and genuine true believers. I don't think they're lazy or stupid or unmotivated. They just hitched their carriage to a dead horse, that's all. People involved in current day ascendant political movements and modern religions like to think they're somehow different than the dead past, but sooner or later they find out the hard way they're not. (edited to add, in my study of history I've never found an aspect of human nature quite as cross cultural and universal as this, nothing, nothing comes close, not monotheism or the golden rule or dualism or progressivism, nothing so universally human)
  - beat 10y ago
    See, when you start saying CNN (and every other major outlet, by extension) is basically Pravda, devoted to carrying the water for the Democratic Party at the expense of the GOP, I kind of assume you're totally blinded by partisanship and incapable of rational discussion of the subject.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      See, when you say that CNN has journalistic integrity, and ignore VLM's counterexample, where they in fact were carrying water for Hillary, you seem to be incapable of rational discussion on the subject. They objectively did that. Whether they did "a good job" of it or not is completely not the point. [Edit: I saw your parallel post where your definition of "journalistic integrity" is "don't make up facts, even if you report them in a biased manner". First, I think that's way too low of a bar. Strive for objectivity, even if you can't perfectly achieve it. Second, though, what CNN did is like a sideline reporter jumping on the field and tackling someone. It's totally inappropriate, well outside of what is acceptable for journalists, even if it's not creating "false facts".]
maxerickson 10y ago
Link to your favorite smoking gun email?

MrZongle2 10y ago

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree (especially about CNN's journalistic integrity). But I appreciate you taking the time to respond, as opposed to those users who simply abuse the downvote button.

beat 10y ago
Partisan bias and journalistic integrity are separate issues. Whether or not CNN has a partisan bias (I think their "liberal bias" is a fantasy, but that's me), they have journalistic integrity. They don't knowingly publish outright falsehoods. A news organization can be highly partisan and still have excellent integrity.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Beating on the "liberal media" has been a cartoon villain from the GOP ever since the rise of FOX News and right-wing talk radio two decades ago, but this is a new level. No, it's been that way at least two decades longer than that.