CBS Anchor: 'We Are Getting Big Stories Wrong, Over and Over Again' (Video)

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I can't believe this guy can say all of this with a straight face while defending the MSM. First he says he was at fault for reporting BS on NewTown but then turns around and attacks the internet for reporting on the events. "The internet is not Journalism".


The rest is just too ridiculous to post. Watch it see what I mean. This guy is just incredible in his BS.

"America is strong because its journalism is strong"...




Peace


edit on 11-5-2013 by jude11 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Condemning people for admitting their mistakes? Condemning them for talking about how to fix them or what to consider when enacting your duties as a journalist?

I don't find anything wrong with this. You have to give people a way to fix things or nothing will ever be fixed.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
The 4th estate aint what she used to be...

Blame the 24 hour news cycle, blame ad revenues, but integrity has gone out of the business.

Its sad when the most trusted news man in America is a comedian doing satire on news organizations, who tends to get it right far more often than the actual news.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
The 4th estate aint what she used to be...

Blame the 24 hour news cycle, blame ad revenues, but integrity has gone out of the business.

Its sad when the most trusted news man in America is a comedian doing satire on news organizations, who tends to get it right far more often than the actual news.


That's why you should check out the fifth estate


Hard hitting news program in Canada that covers some topics people are not will to go near with a ten foot pole. Granted, if it's self criticisms, don't expect them to be all over it, but they do a good job nonetheless.

Heres a link



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by jude11
 


Condemning people for admitting their mistakes? Condemning them for talking about how to fix them or what to consider when enacting your duties as a journalist?

I don't find anything wrong with this. You have to give people a way to fix things or nothing will ever be fixed.


The thing I caught was that he admits his mistake reporting in the MSM (kinda hard to hide it) and then goes on to blame the internet for doing the same thing. Not admitting that a lot of the real news gets uncovered by people that dig deeper than he does.

Admitting he is wrong is one thing but immediately shifting focus isn't an apology at all IMO.

That's the ridiculous part.


Peace



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


I think blaming other bad behavior to justify, explain or mitigate your own is the way of things these days. Nothing good about it and it shows all the character of a wharf rat. It seems to be the choice of a good many people facing the need to take ownership for what they do, or what those they like do. Far too many.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I guess they must be teaching people to blame others in Journalism in college nowadays. The guy should get a job in politics, he already possesses the required skills.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Yellow journalism is the only Journalism alive today.

Sad, but true.

And when you do find something that is worthy of the name Journalism, its treated with hesitation, and attacked by other so called "Journalists" or news agencies.

S&F



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I do agree with your assessment about blame... but I have to disagree a bit with the "these days" aspect. It is a weakness in human nature that has been going on a long time. It takes strength to admit when you are wrong and be sincere about it. I would wager that it is rare.

It is just more human flaws put on display. I really don't think it is going to change outside of an evolutionary shift. IMHO imperfect people expecting perfection from other imperfect people is more the issue.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Terminal1
 


I suppose you're right. I guess we all like to imagine better times "before"...when it's also human nature to forget most of the bad and have the brightest memories of the good with anything.

It's depressing to think it's always been the same crappy ball of wax in some fundamental ways. That doesn't bode well for change anytime we'll be around to see, does it?



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Nope and yea... it is sad.

So just throw some more burgers on the grill... if we were perfect things would be sooo boring and I would wager ATS itself wouldn't exsist


Life is fun and frightening...

Want a beer with that burger?



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Terminal1
 


I suppose you're right. I guess we all like to imagine better times "before"...when it's also human nature to forget most of the bad and have the brightest memories of the good with anything.

It's depressing to think it's always been the same crappy ball of wax in some fundamental ways. That doesn't bode well for change anytime we'll be around to see, does it?


I remember when I was younger and watching the old stoic new anchors with a clock in the background and a pen and pad on the desk. I used to think they were the authority on everything.

There has to be a time when news was honorable doesn't there?

Peace



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
You guys remember when journalists used to call out administrations in a way that wasn't based in obvious political bias? People like Edward R. Murrow?

I don't, it was well before my time. I'm just curious.

Nowadays the people that own all of the network news organizations also happen to be the biggest political campaign contributors for their respective political parties. They are lobbyists. It is a damn shame, but it is how it is.

Broadcasters that speak truth to power are yanked from the air and the media is nothing more than mouthpieces of American Propaganda.

This dude's words are meaningless. He can say whatever he wants talking to university journalism majors. Get him in front of CBS cameras and he toes the script handed to him by the Gov.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Maybe we go back to the days of the Old West when the local Newsman just had people come down the street and shoot him when he got it too badly wrong?

(Thinks back to the penny books that passed as in-depth reporting)

Nawww.... They probably just had more than a few dead reporters. Nothing changed.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
He does make a good point, though, about democratic process only being as good as its peoples knowledge. This is true.
But I disagree with his assertion, "America is strong because its journalism is strong."
In truth, America's journalism is crap. Draw your own conclusions what that means for the rest of the nation. But the way I see it is America is waging illegal wars and has been for a decade. America's economy is crap. Americans feel disenfranchised by their own Government. A government that seeks to further erode the peoples' constitution on a daily basis.
"America is strong."


Only in the sense that we have the most bombs and coolest jets.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
I remember years back listening to Rush Limbaugh (I loathe this man) give a speech to some journalism majors.
He basically said the exact same stuff as this Yahoo.
Next day? Back on the air spewing biased hatred at "liberals". I mean, it was a 180 flip in the matter of 12 hours.

Point? These people are not paid to be objective. They are paid to push an agenda.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





Condemning people for admitting their mistakes? Condemning them for talking about how to fix them or what to consider when enacting your duties as a journalist?


As if lies and flat out betrayal of first a people and second an audience can be considered mistakes.
The main reason they get the story wrong is because the story is usually fabricated from the
get go.
edit on 11-5-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by jude11
 


Condemning people for admitting their mistakes? Condemning them for talking about how to fix them or what to consider when enacting your duties as a journalist?

I don't find anything wrong with this. You have to give people a way to fix things or nothing will ever be fixed.


I go somewhere with that, This man has said stuff like this before, However he is also in an invidious situation if he still does both anchor and editor in chief where he may make a wrong decision based on his own bias consciously or not. That should not be one position, he should be one or the other.
I don't agree though he can criticize the 'net per se, but he can criticize the content.
But there is something new going et al re the mainstream media, and that is of the disclaimer, especially in the breaking news, like "not yet verified by our own sources" blah blah. When they say that, it means they ain't got much in the way of sources that they can rely on, either on the ground or are not likely to have immediately, and so it is much the same as the 'net from that point of view, just rumour.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Or, more to the point, their "sources" are us on the net.
The very people he is criticising here.


ETA: You know, a lot of people seem to think that once they have "woken up" that they are wide awake.
It may be true for some, but it sure isn't for me. I am CONSTANTLY stunned by how the media handles stuff. The latest case for me was the Boston Bombings and eventual capture of the brothers "responsible."

For the first time, that night when the chase started, I monitored multiple sources for news simultaneously. It was an illuminating experience. Initially I was flipping through the network news channels while reading a thread here about the hunt. Someone broke it here that shots had been fired at MIT and pretty soon I was watching, reading here AND listening to the scanners.

The media is constantly 45 minutes behind us here and picks and chooses what to report on. They are fed a script and this was EVIDENT that night.
edit on 11-5-2013 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jude11

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by jude11
 


Condemning people for admitting their mistakes? Condemning them for talking about how to fix them or what to consider when enacting your duties as a journalist?

I don't find anything wrong with this. You have to give people a way to fix things or nothing will ever be fixed.


The thing I caught was that he admits his mistake reporting in the MSM (kinda hard to hide it) and then goes on to blame the internet for doing the same thing. Not admitting that a lot of the real news gets uncovered by people that dig deeper than he does.

Admitting he is wrong is one thing but immediately shifting focus isn't an apology at all IMO.

That's the ridiculous part.


Peace


Well, the internet does carry blame though. The internet crowd source and general BS "reporting" is a disservice to the truth. Everyone knows there is money and influence pushing certain stories and hiding certain stories in the MSM. They will all acknowledge that themselves... What he is trying to do, is tell journalists to get their head out their asses, stop making the MSM no better than crap posted on reddit.

There may be money and power that tries to control the MSM, but at the end of the day, a journalist is a journalist. And in many cases, as long as they hold true to their task, they will overcome the powers pushing them in a linear path. This is where they earn Pulitzers. This is where they earn reputations of being a hard hitting pain in some rich guy's ass.

Yes, most of them will sell out or protect someone in their career so they can move up the ranks. But as long as there are a few that even just 'sometimes' go outside the linear path, the public will get truth on important matters. The journalists are meant to be an army with their own convictions. The army is run by the enemy, but, it doesn't mean there has to be 100% cooperation.

If a journalist holds true to their conviction, it can make the landscape one of hard hitting truths and not one of nipple sucking nancies that have no character whatsoever.

Some countries the journalist murder rates are exceptionally high. Others are non-existent because the press is 100% compliant and complacent.

Even if the quid pro quo is to sell out to your money handlers, it doesn't mean you can't make a difference one in awhile as a journalist. And if just one, on every news story does this. It means that every news story out there will have at least one source of unaltered opinion on the matter. Meaning people will be able to get the truth by looking in the right places.

-B





new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join