If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Hey, remember the bad old days of "yellow journalism" when ultra-rich robber barons owned almost all the newspapers and openly slanted the news to advance their ideological agendas? Good thing those days are long gone and never coming back right?   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 114
    More: Scary, San Diego, John Lynch, media proprietor, William Randolph Hearst, office complex, legal separation, U.S. currency, political agenda  
•       •       •

13954 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Oct 2012 at 4:42 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



114 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-22 12:54:41 PM
Not sure when the whole myth of "objective journalism" started.

Sure, individual journalists can choose to subscribe to some kind of ethics, but it's not as though there are any laws that regulate journalism.

And the news media is a business. Plain and simple. If objective coverage sells, that's what you'll get. If setting puppies on fire would give them more business that's what they'll do.

/journalism major
//industry was so incredibly foul that I ended up in corporate law instead
 
2012-10-22 12:58:07 PM

Freudian_slipknot: //industry was so incredibly foul that I ended up in corporate law instead


haha, funniest thing I've read all day.
 
2012-10-22 12:58:58 PM
Gordon Bennett!
 
2012-10-22 01:08:31 PM
I don't think it ever went away, Subby.
 
2012-10-22 01:20:22 PM
William Randolf Hearst agrees.
 
2012-10-22 01:33:39 PM
The myth of journalistic objectivism was started when the Democrats and Republicans got together (that was a long, long, time, ago, before I was born, let alone you, my child) and decided that from then on, every story would have exactly two sides, Democratic and Republican, neither more nor less, and that consequently they must be given equal emphasis, time, and credibility.

This was actually enshrined in law by the three networks of the day, but it all went to Hell immediately.

For one thing, objectivism is nothing like honesty, or accuracy, or truth. It is more like a kind of perverse blinkers that objectify truthiness by treating every statement, proposition, opinion, or ideology as equally valid and equally trivial.

As practiced during my youth, objectivity was a kind of consensual reality or conventional wisdom which could not be criticized or doubted by journalists, at least in public, or editors who disagreed with their publisher's editorial policy.

It was one of the stupidest things ever done and thus a vital part of American politics, media and journalism. It even worked its way into the media practices of other countries to some extent, but not so much that you couldn't tell an American news report from a Canadian, Australian or British one.

Now it has been replaced with Fox News, a viciously opiniated, ideologically-blinkered, ultra-partisan anti-objectivity where truthiness totally replaces even a passing acquaintance with truth, on one side, and every body else (which is to say the Main Stream Media, a Liberal Conspiracy that almost totally agrees with Fox News except on minor details, such as facts) on the other side. Outside of this pseudo-dichotomy is everybody who does not make over $1,000,000 a year for appearing on TV, minus the experts, who appear on TV for the Hell of it.

Clearly the requirement that "journalists" and "news" be objective, which is to say two-sided and perfectly balanced, has been lost. At Fox News (by which we almost always mean the Op Ed Pages of the Fox News Network, which actually still does fairly informative and accurate news reports BUT NOT ON TV OR CABLE, they have decided to take one side only and to do it to death, in a giant reductio ad absurdum et credo quia absurdum est. This side fits in nicely with Murdoch's policy of keeping his hands off of any editor or property who is just exactly like him in the minutest detail. Self-censorship is obligatory, all else is free because Murdoch is not paying for it.

This seems like rank hypocrisy since Murdoch is a vile little poisonous toad who will happily bite the hand that feeds him if he is feeling the least bit peckesh, but in reality, it is pretty much the way all the Evil Press Overlords have always acted. Murdoch is old school. By which I mean a Luciferian purveyor of Dark Satanic News Mills.

No wait, I'm wrong. The myth of journalistic objectivity was actually the journalistic face of the Nineteenth Century trend known as logical positivism. This was supposedly the ideological underpinning of scientific rigour. It was resolutely reductionist, phenominal and materialist, rational and fact-based. Except that it was no such thing.

Like Ayn Rand's Objectivism, logical positivism and journalistic objectivity are complete and utter bullshiat which are scientist, not scientific, objectifying not objective, and full of shiat.

My love of satire and humour (Mark Twain, Ambroise Bierce, Charles Hoy Fort, H.L. Mencken, MAD magazine, Steve Colbert, etc.) has led me to be extremely suspicious and derisive of claims of objectivity and to suspect any belief held in common by Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, the Government and the Opposition, or any two persons whom you would not trust separately and individually. All is Maya, Delusion. Especially the news. The Buddha taught us that, or perhaps he meant to, but forgot because he had a lot of nothing on his mind.

The sad thing is that even good journalists are still taught, and still believe in, journalistic objectivity as a good, if not real, thing, as much as engineers and other jerks of that sort believe their professors on the first day of classes when the lying farkers tell them that they will be taught to think.

Teaching engineers that they are logical, rational, sane, etc., is a crime, very akin to telling them that they are consequently infallible and better than other people. Which is the lesson they really learn, the bastards.

FARK JOURNALISM, FARK POLITICS, FARK OBJECTIVITY, FARK OBJECTIVISM, AND FARK ENGINEERS.

These are just lies that professionals tell themselves and their clients. They sadly tend to believe them.

A complete contempt for journalists and editors plus connections and a certain ability to kiss ass will get you a job as publisher on any organ in Murdoch's God's Creation.

For example, the one thing I like about Lord Conrad Flack of Hackfarbour is his uttter seething hatred and contempt of journalists except for those who kiss his ass and hew to his party line, such as his lovely wife Babs did for 15 years before landing her trout.

In other words, Evil Press Overlords hate all journalists except dishonest, corrupt, and bad ones that agree with them.
 
2012-10-22 01:38:53 PM
If you don't know the story of Gordon Bennett, you should look it up.

He was one of the greatest jerks that America and the Anglo-American Empire have ever produced.

He was a drunk and was once observed pissing into a potted palm behind the door in the salon of one of America's great society hostesses. (I would say that Lyndon B. Johnson, who pissed on the leg of a Secret Service agent, has him beat there, but this is the least of his social faux pas, which were often intentional insults rather than mere conveniences.)

I am not sure he is the same Gordon Bennett that people swear by, but he could be!

After all we swear by God, the Devil and shiat, and Gordon Bennett was close to being all three.
 
2012-10-22 02:11:27 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-22 02:26:07 PM

brantgoose: My love of satire and humour (Mark Twain, Ambroise Bierce, Charles Hoy Fort, H.L. Mencken, MAD magazine, Steve Colbert, etc.) has led me to be extremely suspicious and derisive of claims of objectivity and to suspect any belief held in common by Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, the Government and the Opposition, or any two persons whom you would not trust separately and individually. All is Maya, Delusion. Especially the news. The Buddha taught us that, or perhaps he meant to, but forgot because he had a lot of nothing on his mind.


Fear and Loathing in Fark's Politics Tab.

/be careful
//this is bat country
 
2012-10-22 02:44:10 PM
Yellow journalism is dead

www.aceweekly.com

Long live "greenlight" journalism
 
2012-10-22 03:24:16 PM
Don't make Richard Mellon Scaife chortle, his monocle might pop out.
 
2012-10-22 03:28:23 PM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Don't make Richard Mellon Scaife chortle, his monocle might pop out.


The big difference, it seems to me anyway, is the RMS owned a small and widely disrepected newspaper in a larger market that was served by other papers. Much like the Rev. Moon's Washington Times was the laughed-at also ran in a market dominated by the Washington Post. But in this case, one guy owns two rival newspapers, the ONLY two in the media market. that's ..not good.
 
2012-10-22 04:09:52 PM

Freudian_slipknot: Not sure when the whole myth of "objective journalism" started.


With Walter Cronkite.
 
2012-10-22 04:46:21 PM
Yeah, it isn't like CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS, etc all have agendas. Oh, wait...
 
2012-10-22 04:46:32 PM
TFH: Hey, remember the bad old days of "yellow journalism" when ultra-rich robber barons owned almost all the newspapers and openly slanted the news to advance their ideological agendas? Good thing those days are long gone and never coming back right?

No, they never were "long gone." It's always been that way. Bad headline, bad subby!

"Freedom of the press exists for those who own one." - Anon.
 
2012-10-22 04:48:13 PM

Amos Quito: Yellow journalism is dead

[www.aceweekly.com image 416x234]

Long live "greenlight" journalism


Are you suggesting that this site's owner has become the very type of person that he vilified in his much promoted book? If only there were some sort of tag that could fully describe that type of ironic situation....
 
2012-10-22 04:48:42 PM
I thought this type of crankery was limited to blogs and youtube comments.

The editorial page named Obama the worst U.S. president and predicted a second term will result in "Arab terror states" attacking Israel, "death panels" rationing health care, income tax rates between 60 and 70 percent for many Californians and an attempt to get taxpayers to pay for late-term abortions. It warned of an effort to erase "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency.
 
2012-10-22 04:49:40 PM
And thankfully there's no left wing bias working to distort the facts in the main stream media or in the presidential debates.

www.globalpost.com
 
2012-10-22 04:51:06 PM
I Am Curious, Yellow?
 
2012-10-22 04:51:18 PM

OscarTamerz: And thankfully there's no left wing bias working to distort the facts in the main stream media or in the presidential debates.

[www.globalpost.com image 360x240]


What facts did she distort? Unless you're going to try to convince me that "act of terror" does not mean "terrorism", in which case go put Rush's balls back in your mouth.
 
2012-10-22 04:51:19 PM
Wait, we're supposed to care about newspapers now?
 
2012-10-22 04:51:27 PM

OscarTamerz: And thankfully there's no left wing bias working to distort the facts in the main stream media or in the presidential debates.

[www.globalpost.com image 360x240]


Hush your mouth. The right has taken over a newspaper in San Diego, all is lost!
 
2012-10-22 04:52:58 PM

Baryogenesis: I thought this type of crankery was limited to blogs and youtube comments.

The editorial page named Obama the worst U.S. president and predicted a second term will result in "Arab terror states" attacking Israel, "death panels" rationing health care, income tax rates between 60 and 70 percent for many Californians and an attempt to get taxpayers to pay for late-term abortions. It warned of an effort to erase "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency.


I think you really need to work to be worse than Buchanan. The highlight of his presidency was his lame-duck period, when shiat sort of started to work again because Lincoln was covertly running things through proxies.
 
2012-10-22 04:53:30 PM
If you really want to get permanently depressed listen to some c-span. You see both sides are equally idiotic and grandstanding. And the call in portion proves that the average voter can't be trusted to do anything as trivial as change their own tire much less form a rational opinion on the issues and candidates.
 
2012-10-22 04:55:09 PM

Baryogenesis: I thought this type of crankery was limited to blogs and youtube comments.

The editorial page named Obama the worst U.S. president and predicted a second term will result in "Arab terror states" attacking Israel, "death panels" rationing health care, income tax rates between 60 and 70 percent for many Californians and an attempt to get taxpayers to pay for late-term abortions. It warned of an effort to erase "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency.


Given the incredible accuracy of the far-right's predictions of Obama's first term, I have no reason to think that every single one of these things won't happen.
 
2012-10-22 04:55:34 PM
Whargarbbble: Its not making false news when you leave out important parts of what the fark happened. /Wharrragrblee

/So tired of seeing news articles that leave out the reason for the why the horrible horrible guy 'had' to kill them poor teenagers or bicyclists.
//hint: Self defense.
///but spectacular headlines and missing information sells more news to R-etards.
 
2012-10-22 04:56:53 PM

OscarTamerz: And thankfully there's no left wing bias working to distort the facts in the main stream media or in the presidential debates.

[www.globalpost.com image 360x240]


The Republican and Democratic parties have directly controlled the presidential debates since 1987 and agree on moderators together. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

Back in the 90s they allowed Perot to participate, but since then quickly realized that it was in their best interest to never acknowledge a 3rd party candidate again.
 
2012-10-22 04:57:13 PM
Damn posting rules and the "unlabeled NSFW links" restriction. I was going to post just the following.

Against yellow journalism?

Find out more at lemonparty.org
 
2012-10-22 05:00:52 PM
OLD MAN buys newspaper to yell at clouds.

Funny thing is these old guys bought a dying medium, will pay through the nose so they can editorialize and then lose their shirts on their investments.

This is like a guy buying the buggy whip business so he can get his message out to the masses.
 
2012-10-22 05:01:21 PM
Is this the thread where we pretend that all of the media is involved in a left-wing conspiracy and only Fox News is honest or the thread where we pretend that Fox News is proof that all of the media is right-wing?
 
2012-10-22 05:02:53 PM
I want to stab anyone that claims the medias is liberal. They are biased, but it is not a liberal point of view. Look who owns the media, how liberal could any of them really be?
 
2012-10-22 05:05:16 PM
Old news is old.
 
2012-10-22 05:06:47 PM

Callous: Is this the thread where we pretend that all of the media is involved in a left-wing conspiracy and only Fox News is honest or the thread where we pretend that Fox News is proof that all of the media is right-wing?


The important thing is you've managed to appear superior to both. You are very revolutionary indeed.
 
2012-10-22 05:07:31 PM

birchman: Amos Quito: Yellow journalism is dead

[www.aceweekly.com image 416x234]

Long live "greenlight" journalism

Are you suggesting that this site's owner has become the very type of person that he vilified in his much promoted book? If only there were some sort of tag that could fully describe that type of ironic situation....


Obvious?
Amusing?

Not sure what you're going for here...

=^D
 
2012-10-22 05:08:51 PM
There may have never been any real objectivity, but years ago at least, people knew that they were supposed to try. Now, nobody even hides their bias. It's like ethics, at least people used to realize that they were a good thing.
 
2012-10-22 05:09:26 PM

manimal2878: I want to stab anyone that claims the medias is liberal. They are biased, but it is not a liberal point of view. Look who owns the media, how liberal could any of them really be?


QFT

On average, US journalists may lean a little left. On average, it really is just a little. Remember, a US Democrat would be a conservative in most of the rest of the developed world. If you think US Democrats are liberal, you don't know what a liberal is.

The bosses of those journalists? The owners of their news organizations? Overwhelmingly conservative, overwhelmingly right of center. They keep their employees on a pretty short leash.
 
2012-10-22 05:10:49 PM
What's a newspaper?
 
2012-10-22 05:11:08 PM
Q: Why do we have biased media?
A: People want news that agrees with their own ideologies.
 
2012-10-22 05:11:12 PM
www.bloggernews.net
 
2012-10-22 05:12:12 PM

manimal2878: I want to stab anyone that claims the medias is liberal. They are biased, but it is not a liberal point of view. Look who owns the media, how liberal could any of them really be?


Little or none.
But, sounding/appearing like it is quite obviously profitable.
Paradox? Naa, just the same ole' chit.

/high time to slap the orderlies back a few steps
 
2012-10-22 05:12:33 PM

exick: Freudian_slipknot: //industry was so incredibly foul that I ended up in corporate law instead

haha, funniest thing I've read all day.


Funny and sad.
 
2012-10-22 05:13:57 PM

RembrandtQEinstein: If you really want to get permanently depressed listen to some c-span. You see both sides are equally idiotic and grandstanding. And the call in portion proves that the average voter can't be trusted to do anything as trivial as change their own tire socks much less form a rational opinion on the issues and candidates.


You give the average voter way too much credit by assuming they're almost competent enough to change a tire.
 
2012-10-22 05:15:34 PM

OscarTamerz: And thankfully there's no left wing bias working to distort the facts in the main stream media or in the presidential debates.

[www.globalpost.com image 360x240]


This sh*t, still?
 
2012-10-22 05:16:24 PM
Living in San Diego I'm glad I can get the Multiple Award Winning L. A. Times delivered to my door every morning.

The S.D. Union/Tribune has been a right wing mouth piece for far longer than I've been around in San Diego, and that is a lot more than 40 years.

/Remember San Diego is a very conservative area of the nation.
//People around here think Rush is a liberal commie and Daryl Issa is someone to be trusted.
 
2012-10-22 05:16:27 PM
Manchester, 70, is likened to a smaller market version of Rupert Murdoch

Yeah, except Murdoch is backing Obama.


rico567: TFH: Hey, remember the bad old days of "yellow journalism" when ultra-rich robber barons owned almost all the newspapers and openly slanted the news to advance their ideological agendas? Good thing those days are long gone and never coming back right?

No, they never were "long gone." It's always been that way. Bad headline, bad subby!

"Freedom of the press exists for those who own one." - Anon.


Actually I think that's A. J. Liebling.

"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."
 
2012-10-22 05:19:25 PM
Do you think it's just a coincidence that "news" and "Jews" rhyme?

/wait...
 
2012-10-22 05:19:33 PM
Remember the #1 rule of armchair media analysis: If the news source doesn't specifically promote conservative ideas or people , it's "liberal."
 
2012-10-22 05:20:10 PM

RandomRandom: Remember, a US Democrat would be a conservative in most of the rest of the developed world. If you think US Democrats are liberal, you don't know what a liberal is.


Let's turn that around, though. Remember, a European politician would be a liberal in most of the rest of the developed world. What we consider the developed world is basically the US and Europe. (And Japan and South Korea, but only god knows how their politics work) If you eliminate half that equation, you get a remarkably biased remaining sample.
 
2012-10-22 05:20:21 PM

OscarTamerz: And thankfully there's no left wing bias working to distort the facts in the main stream media or in the presidential debates.

[www.globalpost.com image 360x240]


Congratulations. You're officially too stupid for the internet. Few can achieve this, but by dammit you succeeded.
 
2012-10-22 05:21:11 PM
Reporting the truth takes courage.

Reporting the party line is easy.

Remember the White Rose.

/The paper's new owners already are ignoring the truth.
//Farking "death panels" lies, geez.
 
Displayed 50 of 114 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report