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

Originally posted by JayinAR
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)

Yes, I understand that you only need to look at a browser front page and see where a lot of stories are lifted from. But it is the same can of worms, you only need to look at some homegrown ATS threads where there is no need to use the often sensationalistic headline from a MSM link, to see the same MO applied to what is often rubbish and misleading. The good stuff lies along with the crap.

Originally posted by randyvs
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)

Okay Randy, everything is made up and a lie. Nothing is real. You win. Want a cookie?

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.

You find nothing wrong with the group that believes they are the stalwarts of "democracy" proclaiming they have been giving false information?! Okay..

reply to post by JayinAR

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

That was exactly what he was speaking out against though. It doesn't take much for someone to start an elaborate hoax on twitter, et al.

Look at the twitter account hacking a week ago and it sent the DOW spiralling downwards. Actually costing the shift of millions of dollars. (Through the false claim of a white house attack.)

Now, on one hand, some news does get broken from sources on twitter. (Official accounts usually).

But he is speaking out AGAINST that... He wants journalists to be on the ball, to not be reposting "information" from reddit and the like.

Journalists need to get back to their roots. They need to be out making and handling sources so they are getting earlier and more reliable breaks on stories.

The truth is though, is the internet is so good at dissemination and nearly everyone is a blogger/poster/information disseminator, that the number of people throwing "news" out to the masses is ridiculously high.

The problem, is news agencies are being pushed and pulled by partisan backings, and corporate backings (ownership) and the truth isn't a profitable game.

So....

It makes it hard to have one agency out there disseminating news, sticking the truth of the matter. It just aint worth the digital platform it's typed on. Truth break money, not makes it. Sure if the story is damaging to an opponent, expect an agency to splatter the truth EVERYWHERE! But if it aint, then it's just standard lackluster cover-up or spin control.

And this goes for AJ and the like too. Don't think cause AJ and RT are not your normal sources you are getting any truthier information.

You get the standard truthiness. Kinda "truth" but its gotta fit into "our NWO/Illuminati evil angle", or it aint worth posting.

You dont think people are gonna buy bug out bags and colloidal silver from our advertisers if they don't believe they are days away from being shipped off to a FEMA extermination camp, do you?

I am not going to find it but there is a video on youtube showing several news channels repeating the opening news with the exact same words. "Were the talking points salted"...the only difference was where the announcers put the comas. Talk about reading from a handed down script. Ok look at who owns what and exactly how many owners are there...6?... Also if you look at CBS and NBC it might surprise who works where.

QUOTE: RICHARD GRENELL: I think the media's becoming the story, let's face it. CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both of them have siblings that not only work at the White House, that not only work for President Obama, but they work at the NSC on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi. Let's call a spade a spade.

Let's also show you why CNN did not go very far in covering these hearings because the CNN deputy bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is married to Hillary Clinton’s deputy, Tom Nides. It is time for the media to start asking questions why are they not covering this. It's a family matter for some of them.

JON SCOTT, HOST: So they don't want to bring embarrassment upon folks who, who they're close to?

GRENELL: Who directly are related to this story. Absolutely. They're covering for them. There's no question about it.

For the record, Ben Sherwood's sister, Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, is the Special Assistant to Barack Obama.

Virginia Moseley's husband, Tom Nides, is the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

As for David Rhodes' brother Ben, he is Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication.

As ABCNews.com reported Friday, Rhodes was a key player in revising the White House's Benghazi talking points last September: END QUOTE:

www.freerepublic.com...

Nothing to see here move along.

reply to post by boncho

Want a cookie?

Okay, you might be able to count on their asses for sports, but to believe anything else ?
They've proven themselves unreliable, biased and all about the money, the propaganda,
and to push the agenda towards the goals of their greedy cigar suck'in elitists owners.

Tell me I'm wrong !



What kind of cookies ? Home made peanut butter ?

Ah shucks, I forgot how many bastions of truth there are on here. Don't mind my ignorance can all the critical ones here post me links to the last hard hitting piece they did on twitter?

What ya going to do when you leave things to the media, this is what happens errors over errors.

lol that was pretty funny.

i like how he slowly turns it around.

He reminds me of Mr. Peterman on Seinfeld.