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.

(Washington Post)   Along with electronic media and declining revenues, journalists are struggling to deal with politicians who lie compulsively in an age where "lie" is a dirty word   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 37
    More: Silly, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Gulf of Oman, direct access, journalists, Loop, politicos  
•       •       •

1016 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Oct 2012 at 11:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-25 10:26:14 AM
Here's the thing, you don't get to call yourself a journalist if you're too frightened to correctly label empirical reality. Call yourself a stenographer, because that's what you are.
 
2012-10-25 11:00:58 AM
But both sides do it, so vote Republican.
 
2012-10-25 11:36:56 AM
Start farking calling it like it is. Journalists scared of a word? farking worthless.
 
2012-10-25 11:38:18 AM
Struggling? Oh yes yes, the media are the real victims here. Here's a simple solution: act like a journalist or stop calling yourself one and instead substitute the term "infotainment specialist".
 
2012-10-25 11:39:07 AM
Poor babes. I weep for them.
 
2012-10-25 11:40:16 AM
journalists are struggling to deal with politicians Republicans who lie compulsively in an age where "lie" is a dirty word

Edited for accuracy. Dems will tendentiously stretch the truth a bit but they don't invent realities out of whole cloth.
 
2012-10-25 11:42:24 AM
In their defense, actually calling the Republicans on their derp means you a) will be used as evidence of "the liberal media" and b) won't get any more interviews with Republicans, thus wrecking your own career.

I mean, they're still gutless cowards for not doing it anyway, but I understand why they're so scared.
 
2012-10-25 11:42:49 AM
wonkette.com
 
2012-10-25 11:43:37 AM
They're not real journalists if they won't call out lies.
 
2012-10-25 11:44:56 AM
Along with electronic media and declining revenues, journalists are struggling to deal with politicians who lie compulsively in an age where "lie" is a dirty wordplatform

FTFY
 
2012-10-25 11:46:34 AM
Oh is this one of those "Obama lied too alongside Romney" kind of articles?

Because if it is, it's full of shiat.
 
2012-10-25 11:46:34 AM
Violence, as always, is the only practical solution to this problem. Hit a politician in the head with a crowbar everytime they lie to you during an interview.
 
2012-10-25 11:47:50 AM
Maybe if we took some of the money out of it.
 
2012-10-25 11:48:51 AM

Lost Thought 00: Violence, as always, is the only practical solution to this problem. Hit a politician in the head with a crowbar everytime they lie to you during an interview.


If you try to dodge the truth, you can try to dodge a bat!

Now THAT would have been an awesome debate.
 
2012-10-25 11:50:05 AM

Gunther: In their defense, actually calling the Republicans on their derp means you a) will be used as evidence of "the liberal media" and b) won't get any more interviews with Republicans, thus wrecking your own career.

I mean, they're still gutless cowards for not doing it anyway, but I understand why they're so scared.


If journalists did start calling out politicians, it'd have to be a prisoner's dilemma to keep it that way. A politician would either risk total media blackout (which, for the GOP, may not be a bad thing), or find the one or two people/publications willing to lie for them. Or (scarier and scarier) simply hire their own.

As soon as one or two backed off and found they suddenly got more calls, the rest would follow suit. You know, like has already happened.

So let the people asking the actual questions have a break. Make the publications they work for start fact-checking a whole lot more - maybe a line-by-line fact check of every stump speech. And I don't mean wussy-assed fact-checks that hinge on a single word or phrase (like "Governor Romney said he's never asked the rich to pay more, but we found a note in a legal pad stored by his former assistant's accountant purportedly written by Romney in which he says a nominal $10 fee could be tacked on to a millionaire's tax bill"), I mean "The President said he created 6 million jobs. We can only find statistics on 4-4.5 million jobs added since the lowest point in the unemployment numbers".
 
2012-10-25 11:51:57 AM

Dr Dreidel: Gunther: In their defense, actually calling the Republicans on their derp means you a) will be used as evidence of "the liberal media" and b) won't get any more interviews with Republicans, thus wrecking your own career.

I mean, they're still gutless cowards for not doing it anyway, but I understand why they're so scared.

If journalists did start calling out politicians, it'd have to be a prisoner's dilemma to keep it that way. A politician would either risk total media blackout (which, for the GOP, may not be a bad thing), or find the one or two people/publications willing to lie for them. Or (scarier and scarier) simply hire their own.

As soon as one or two backed off and found they suddenly got more calls, the rest would follow suit. You know, like has already happened.

So let the people asking the actual questions have a break. Make the publications they work for start fact-checking a whole lot more - maybe a line-by-line fact check of every stump speech. And I don't mean wussy-assed fact-checks that hinge on a single word or phrase (like "Governor Romney said he's never asked the rich to pay more, but we found a note in a legal pad stored by his former assistant's accountant purportedly written by Romney in which he says a nominal $10 fee could be tacked on to a millionaire's tax bill"), I mean "The President said he created 6 million jobs. We can only find statistics on 4-4.5 million jobs added since the lowest point in the unemployment numbers".


Probably because after-the-fact verification is largely useless. People will see the initial interview but won't read the followup.
 
2012-10-25 11:53:17 AM
So quit NBC or CBS or FOX or CNN and go work for a news organization where you can actually call out lies. Like, say, the BBC, CBC or even go whole hog and get a gig at Al Jazeera. Plenty have.

Oh, it's a drop in pay? Then just keep cashing your paychecks and stop calling yourself a journalist. Problem solved.
 
2012-10-25 11:53:51 AM
The DoD budget is around 1/2 of all expenditures.....guess what, most of it is government waste given to corporations with non-competitive grants. Also, be sure to blame the anyone but the GOP when you leave the service and need to find employment, buy a house, receive medical care, or any other services that were available prior to the budget cuts (that the liberals are fighting to keep for you)
 
2012-10-25 11:56:43 AM

qorkfiend: Probably because after-the-fact verification is largely useless. People will see the initial interview but won't read the followup.


Yup; look at the first debate. Romney lied at a breathtaking rate, yet still "won" because he was more charismatic/presidential/assertive than his opponent.
 
2012-10-25 11:57:49 AM
I have five words for the liars.

i301.photobucket.com

And it's a bipartisan thing, too. Hillary says there was a Bosnian sniper and she had to run for cover? Twenty years ago, you'd need a library of newspaper microfiche or an extensive VHS library of news broadcasts and one hell of a filing system to say otherwise. Now? iPhone on the crapper with a quick Google search, and the link goes out. As does the touchscreen of my phone if i don't wipe properly, but I digress. Republican like John McCain keeps saying "the system is broken" since the 1980s, a system he helped to build? Found thanks to a bit of The daily Show. "Doubt" surrounding global warming a Fox News strategy with no basis in science? Found, with further linked proof and video goodness.

People that haven't cottoned onto The Information Age are like unsuccessful career criminals a hundred years ago that couldn't quite get their heads around the whole "fingerprint" concept, or modern schleps that don't understand how forensics collars them time and time again.

I have no sympathy for them.
 
2012-10-25 12:00:47 PM

qorkfiend: Dr Dreidel: So let the people asking the actual questions have a break. Make the publications they work for start fact-checking a whole lot more - maybe a line-by-line fact check of every stump speech. And I don't mean wussy-assed fact-checks that hinge on a single word or phrase (like "Governor Romney said he's never asked the rich to pay more, but we found a note in a legal pad stored by his former assistant's accountant purportedly written by Romney in which he says a nominal $10 fee could be tacked on to a millionaire's tax bill"), I mean "The President said he created 6 million jobs. We can only find statistics on 4-4.5 million jobs added since the lowest point in the unemployment numbers".

Probably because after-the-fact verification is largely useless. People will see the initial interview but won't read the followup.


I get that, but I feel it's becoming less and less true. (viz. Jackpot777's post).
 
2012-10-25 12:04:24 PM
"But I was just reading the weekly talking points provided to me by my masters at the RNC and Fox News - how was I supposed to know it wasn't true?"
 
2012-10-25 12:14:25 PM
It's an odd culture where calling someone out as a liar makes you morally inferior to the person actually making the lies.
 
2012-10-25 12:20:52 PM

coco ebert: Here's the thing, you don't get to call yourself a journalist if you're too frightened to correctly label empirical reality. Call yourself a stenographer, because that's what you are.


And we're done here.
 
2012-10-25 12:24:37 PM

born_yesterday: Lost Thought 00: Violence, as always, is the only practical solution to this problem. Hit a politician in the head with a crowbar everytime they lie to you during an interview.

If you try to dodge the truth, you can try to dodge a bat!


I support this 100%.
 
2012-10-25 12:25:06 PM
The problem with using the L-word is it's a high hurdle to clear. If you repeat Republican talking points that are false, but you yourself believe that they are true, you are repeating falsehoods, but you're not lying, per se - you're too ignorant to do that. To lie is to deceive intentionally.

I think it's reprehensible, however, that journalists so rarely even label statements falsehoods.

"It's not a lie... if you believe it." - George Costanza
 
2012-10-25 12:34:03 PM
This is total crap. Bill O'Reilly, a registered independent, calls out both sides on the issue.
 
2012-10-25 12:41:32 PM

Ricardo Klement: It's an odd culture where calling someone out as a liar makes you morally inferior to the person actually making the lies.


From the same school of duckthink that brought you "blaming killers makes you bad too"...

i301.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-25 12:44:52 PM
I propose we rerun every speech and debate 24 hours later, fact checked, with Pop-Up Video captions and Snopes traffic-light truth meters. Then at the end we total up the lies and half-truths like Olympic medals.
 
2012-10-25 12:53:52 PM

Jackpot777: Ricardo Klement: It's an odd culture where calling someone out as a liar makes you morally inferior to the person actually making the lies.

From the same school of duckthink that brought you "blaming killers makes you bad too"...

[i301.photobucket.com image 198x266]


This is hardly a partisan problem. If it makes you feel better, think of it this way: even as a lie, Romney won't call Obama a liar either.
 
2012-10-25 01:05:32 PM

Jackpot777: Welcometotheinformationage.jpg


The options may be there, but I'm actually quite disappointed in the amount of lying that has been going on despite the abundance of access to information we have. I somebody had told me 25 years ago how many people today would have an internet connection, I'd expect a different world than we have. It would have become impossible for politicians to utter an untruth without ruining their careers. All news websites would compete in exposing the lies as fast as possible. Public scorn. Political leaders would be humbled. The people would laugh.
 
2012-10-25 01:59:23 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: journalists are struggling to deal with politicians Republicans who lie compulsively in an age where "lie" is a dirty word

Edited for accuracy. Dems will tendentiously stretch the truth a bit but they don't invent realities out of whole cloth.


Obama told a couple outright whoppers during the debates, mostly about education.

But yeah, the first couple outright lies deserve the benefit of the doubt (maybe whoever's saying it is just incorrect or lost track of the spinning), and most Dems are still in the level of untruth that merits said doubt, where the majority of the GOP not so much anymore.

Ilmarinen: I[f] somebody had told me 25 years ago how many people today would have an internet connection, I'd expect a different world than we have. It would have become impossible for politicians to utter an untruth without ruining their careers.


If you've ever done anything even as mildly political as holding an impromptu meeting at work to decide where to have lunch, then you already know that setting the bar that high means that you couldn't get over it with a Saturn 5 rocket and soon we'd have no politicians whatsoever.

We can laugh at them and use the lies to contrast them unfavorably with opponents... and we do. Chasing everyone that bent the truth a little to far and accidentally broke it out of office would mean absolutely no government-based infrastructure. Like, your school's crossing-guard would be out of a job and kids would have to take a guess at running across the highway, which would be filled with speeding cars going over potholes because the DoT would be gone and the dudes doing the maintenance work would be kicked out even faster than Romney.

What I'm saying here is that your idea isn't, and never could have been considered practical. I assume because back in the time you're talking about you were, I dunno, under ten years old.
 
2012-10-25 02:02:47 PM
Ilmarinen
The options may be there, but I'm actually quite disappointed in the amount of lying that has been going on despite the abundance of access to information we have.

It's disappointing, but not all that surprising. In the US, we've had a literate population for quite some time, yet most people are content to believe whatever they are told. The idea that you could actually open a book, written by authorities on a subject, and verify such claims... is a foreign concept to many people. It doesn't matter how easily you can verify things if you never bother to.

I do, however, share your optimism in the long term. Things were certainly better after the popularization of movable type printing. Things will certainly be better now that the internet is ubiquitous. It will just take some time.
 
2012-10-25 02:06:45 PM

coco ebert: Here's the thing, you don't get to call yourself a journalist if you're too frightened to correctly label empirical reality. Call yourself a stenographer, because that's what you are.


Chris Matthews aptly called it parade commentary on NPR after one of the debates. "Oh, this just happened... and that, that just happened", providing no analysis or checks against reality.
 
2012-10-25 02:19:24 PM
This nothing new. I'm always running into people who consider an accusation of lying is worse than the lie itself. How many times have you encountered this:

You: "You told me something that is obviously not true."
Liar: "You calling me a liar?!?"
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-25 02:40:56 PM

Ricardo Klement: Jackpot777: Ricardo Klement: It's an odd culture where calling someone out as a liar makes you morally inferior to the person actually making the lies.

From the same school of duckthink that brought you "blaming killers makes you bad too"...

[i301.photobucket.com image 198x266]

This is hardly a partisan problem. If it makes you feel better, think of it this way: even as a lie, Romney won't call Obama a liar either.


You have a point. It's Obama's fault that he doesn't take advantage of this by lying. That's his decision and his alone.
 
2012-10-25 04:20:18 PM
My advice to those poor widdle "journalists" is...

peggyoberlininteriors.com

...grow a pear.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report