Forums | MacLife

Tallgeese wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Yes. I can not waste bandwidth on these endless, pointless debates.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I'm enjoying this thread far more than I expected.

Cyberpawz wrote:

Go to the link and read it, either that or pick up your local newspapers... either way I'm done... people here are hypocrites when it comes to proving thing...

They show links, polls and quotes and everyone says "yeah look at that, there is the proof"... I show it, and people say, show me more proof... double standards aside I've done my bit, now show me it's that journalists don't have the ability to influence things.

Demonstrate one example of such hypocrisy on this board.  You won't be able to find one because it doesn't exist.

You presented a poll concerning the OPINION of the public.  "Proof" of the public's OPINION concerning bias in the media is NOT "proof" of bias itself.

bratboy wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

Go to the link and read it, either that or pick up your local newspapers... either way I'm done... people here are hypocrites when it comes to proving thing...

They show links, polls and quotes and everyone says "yeah look at that, there is the proof"... I show it, and people say, show me more proof... double standards aside I've done my bit, now show me it's that journalists don't have the ability to influence things.

Demonstrate one example of such hypocrisy on this board.  You won't be able to find one because it doesn't exist.

You presented a poll concerning the OPINION of the public.  "Proof" of the public's OPINION concerning bias in the media is NOT "proof" of bias itself.

Most polls that newspapers do are opinion polls.  And I already provided a link to a poll that wasn't opinion... but based off of 10 years of documentation...

And as for the double standard, all you need to do is look at this topic and then start looking at any other posted by others on this forum and you'll see the double standard.

I think what pawz is trying to say is there is a difference between a journalist and a reporter. Today, anyone who writes for a newspaper, magazine, TV anchor, pundit, editorial, etc. is called a "journalist." Someone who is a 'reporter' for say the AP is expected to give an eye-witness report.

2 entries found for journalist.

jour·nal·ist     P   Pronunciation Key  (jûrn-lst)
n.
One whose occupation is journalism.
One who keeps a journal.

journalist

n 1: a writer for newspapers and magazines 2: someone who keeps a diary or journal [syn: diarist, diary keeper]

I don't think of these people as "reporters" because a reporter is the on-the-scene eyewitness of an incident; s/he is reporting the facts -- as they see it.

Somehow, 'journalist' has become a status word, one that carries more 'weight' than a mere reporter. IMO, I think of a journalist as being closer to that of 'columnist' because s/he describes a situation they may not have witnessed but adds to that situation extraneous information to show a point of view which is close to personal opinion/conclusion. Posters here do that all the time. We all do that to color the 'facts' such that it agrees with a conclusion. Acceptable in debate. Not acceptable for a reporter. OK for an op ed piece, an editorial, a politician, the President, et. al. not for the reporter who is there to see what is going on an why it is happening.

re·port·er 
A writer, investigator, or presenter of news stories.
Law. A person who is authorized to write and issue official accounts of judicial or legislative proceedings.

Main Entry: re·port·er
Function: noun
: one that reports: as a : one who makes authorized statements and publications of court decisions or legislative proceedings; also : a publication in which such reports are reproduced —see also CITATION —compare ADVANCE SHEET b : one who makes a shorthand record of a speech or proceeding; specifically : COURT REPORTER

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

reporter

n : a person who investigates and reports or edits news stories [syn: newsman, newsperson]

Note that in this definition, there is no mention of the word "journalist" because a reporter is not a journalist. A reporter makes a report of proceedings. A journalist may be a reporter, but a reporter is not expected to be a journalist.

sturner wrote:

What Styer appears to say is that because he doesn't agree with how the news is presented (in his viewpoint) it is biased. If it were presented in his viewpoint, it would not be biased. This, however begs the question.

No thats not what Steyr Appears to say

Reading for Comprehension wrote:

Print media seems to slip in quite a bit of bias, some of it pretty well hidden. A clearer than usual case is articles about a controversial issue where they have 5 quotes/experts/cites from side X and one from side Y. Usually the paragraph structure goes the same way with the majority of the article talking about side X with a passing mention of Y's take on the issue.

bratboy wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

Most polls that newspapers do are opinion polls.  And I already provided a link to a poll that wasn't opinion... but based off of 10 years of documentation...

You said that the opinion poll was proof of bias.  It isn't.

And as for the double standard, all you need to do is look at this topic and then start looking at any other posted by others on this forum and you'll see the double standard.

You'll have to be more specific.

No you have to be less obtuse.

bratboy wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

No you have to be less obtuse.

Weren't you leaving?

Only after you do.

Tallgeese wrote:

I don't suppose you have any link for that.

I tried that already. No dice.

Steyr AUG wrote:

It might have something to do with the fact that I havent been in the US for several months.

Just a thought.

Your ability to form coherent arguments is in inverse proportion to your distance from your mother country?

Steyr AUG wrote:

Well it does hamper my ability to tell you about current examples of bias in US print media.

Ah, here we go again. I'm not asking for examples, I'm asking for data of some kind. That's when you invalidate your argument by saying it's all subjective.

And round and round we go!

yet another useless thread