Journalistic Integrity Is Dead. Tucker Carlson Confronts NYT Public Editor

Tucker Carlson. LMAO!

 

Carlson is just the messenger. Discount this as you will, but understand that formerly well respected news institutions like the NYT, CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC are not just being highly suspected, but essentially ignored.

It doesn't matter what they print if half of america will never read it because of (rightfully) perceived bias. The NYT editor here didn't even try to dispute his comments. Such a shame to see such a once great bastion of publishing being laid low by its own hubris.

 

This. The NY Times and CNN (in particular) were huge losers in this year's campaign. Their coverage was so incredibly biased and they lost tremendous credibility.

 

I thought Tucker Carson was a cartoon character best known for wearing a bow tie. Why is he wearing a yellow dress now?

 

The exact type of snarkiness that caused Trump and will continue to insure liberal ideas will be ignored.

 

No, the media didn't create Trump. The ease at which people can be manipulated is what created Trump.

 

They aren't going to learn that lesson any time soon, they'd have to acknowledge some fault for that to happen and the left is REALLY against personal responsibility.

 

It is astonishing the way discourse in this country has devolved in the last ....say....15-20 years. Not necessarily political discourse (although it is manifest there daily) but in everyday life. It seems to correspond almost directly to the rise of the internet and it has had a profound affect on millenials especially. I don't know if that trend can ever be reversed and it is troubling to say the least.

 

Carlson made some good points, which the NYT editor for the most part agreed with.

He defended Fox News reporters as being "beyond reproach" in terms of impartiality compared to NYT reporters. Is that really true? I don't consume Fox News media, so I really just don't know.

 

Don't usually post in the Russian saboteur's threads, since his only goal is to ramp up discord in our country, but here goes.

1. Plenty of liberals are admitting fault in their smug ways. Of course, if it is easier for you to only reply to the snark and say no liberals will ever admit anything, yadda yadda yadda, then you just choose to continue and multiply the problem. Here's an especially good column which I found very thought provoking on smug politics and its wages:
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism
That's one of hundreds of columns and hand-wringing "we are idiots" sort of things going around right now, including those by Michael Moore, et multa alia.

2. This "journalistic integrity is dead" is hogwash. Take it everything you can and give it all a grain of salt. Find and support the deep-reporting outlets, not just the ones that agree with you. It is very difficult for any human to take in information that doesn't agree with their pre-conceived comfortable narrative, and the digital age is making that tendency worse than ever. I humbly don't know if our species can overcome it or not.
There's plenty of good reporting. We are not actually in a "post-fact" time, though I used to think we were entering one. As Dan Rather recently put it (and if you choose to dismiss everything that grizzled old-school journalist says, that's on you): if you go to a doctor, you don't accept him diagnosing your strep throat incorrectly as cancer and starting you on chemo; if you have an electrician come to your house and say "what you need is more batteries," you don't accept that. There are facts, and facts matter. If we ignore them, they will come back and bite us hard in the ass, liberals and conservatives alike.

there's the dagger, I agree the internet (the web actually), is an enormous problem for our species and our ability to listen to different people. We are of like mind there! But your list of outlets seems kind of random to me.

The worst offenders to me are: ABC (liberal, not on your list), CNN (liberal this year, pro-Clinton), MSNBC (by definition, incredible liberal bias), Fox (skipping tons of news and perspectives, just to a shocking degree; enormous GOP and now Trumpian bias), Breitbart (wish this went without saying), Mother Jones. NPR is seen as liberal, and I'd say they cater to the most smug clientele in their tone and non-news content for sure, but their actual news reporting (All Things Considered) pussyfoots around and constantly avoids rendering judgements even on obvious facts. But if you want to discount them, meh, okay. The NYT has been biased about Trump but only because they are, at a human level, horrified by what Trump is encouraging and exploiting. Only history can judge whether they were making a principled important stand or just falling into partisan quicksand. They feel he is objectively horrifying, and maybe that's just a liberal bubble talking, but they feel it would be dishonest and subjective to give false equivalence in their paper.

So what's left? CBS has actually been fairly balanced in basic news coverage. I'm enjoying the Wall Street Journal as always. Christian Science Monitor hardly strikes me as liberal and I'm learning things, on occasion, via reporting from the BBC. Love the Economist, but maybe that's too pointy headed for some. Trump hates the Washington Post, but that doesn't mean they haven't done some thorough and fact-based reporting (against both candidates) throughout the election. I know the right wants to discount them, but I don't see how that works, just based on objective merits. I think the rejection is based more on not liking the facts that are printed there.

3. I think unfortunately you have to expect media bias against Trump now. Don't see how it can be avoided, unless an outlet kowtows to him. He has threatened the existence of a free press that is not nice or flattering of him. It's hard to believe, but it's true. He's tried to bully the press, in his rallies and statements, and now in face-to-face closed door meetings. That's pretty galling when it comes to the 1st amendment. Here's Amanpour's recent take, as she took home another journalistic award. (And sure, ignore her if you want, but she speaks a lot of truth in this and expresses the worries of many good journalists.)


4. Why do I bother? I think it's worth trying to dialogue. I guess I think giving up now would be sinful. Also, when a white nationalist started ad homs against me recently, I thought... it's worth standing up to attempted bullying like that. I fully expect a couple of replies (if anyone replies), where one sentence, one outlet, or one phrase is quoted and everything I've said is thereby rejected out of hand. That will just be another poop log on our steaming pile of problem though, I think.

Everybody have a good Sunday. I've got to work most of the day, but I've promised Mrs. B-Bob we can go pick out a Christmas tree.

 

Tucker Carlson pontificating on journalistic integrity just blew up the irony meter...

 

LOL, watch out, you will be accused of creating Trump and the decline in political discourse that has happened since the election and while George Bush was President (but somehow missed the 8 years Obama was President).

 

All this is attributed to bias but the real answer is greed. There is money in divisive/opinionated commentary but not much in just stating the facts and letting people make up their own minds.

The media is definitely liberal biased but ultimately just greedy.

 

B-bob I've seen you respond quite reasonably to many threads. But among the liberals here, you are the exception, not the rule. Maybe its just the average age of the typical poster in a Rockets forum is lower than the norm but then again I would venture to say the left is made up of people who are generally younger than those on the right. That's not to say younger folks on the right don't also do some of the same things...its just there are fewer of them. I do of course recognize this forum does not speak for the entire left. But it's fairly representative of the loudest and most active on the left IMHO.

B-Bob journalistic integrity isn't dead. But its on life support. Compared to even 25 years ago it is horrendous and the outright ADMITTED bias by many "journalists" is staggering. Did you watch the video? The editor of the NYT didn't even try to excuse what the hard news people of her own paper are doing. Not the opinion people...THE HARD NEWS PEOPLE!!! That would have been unheard of 25 years ago.

My list was incomplete yes. I wasn't taking time to consider a more thorough list.

ABC -- Very left leaning by your own admission.
CNN --Colludes with DNC. Used to be more middle of the road but extremely left wing now.
MSNBC/NBC Lets be real....it doesn't get any further left on television...but CNN is giving it a hell of a try.
Fox -- Right leaning but insures its hard news people are news only. Also, to say there are no anti Trump people on Fox is ludicrous. Megan Kelly? Sheppard Smith? Greg Gutfeld? Charles Krauthammer?, Dana Perino? All of these folks have spoken out numerous times against Trump.
Breitbart -- Obvious right leaning although there were quite a few resignations from that place one the Trump bandwaggoning started.
Mother Jones -- Obvious left leaning although I NEVER read them.
NPR -- agree with your assessment
NYT -- Colludes with the DNC. Also, I'm sorry but I find your excuses for them as ridiculous. When did their "feelings" enter into the equation for fair and balanced"?

So of the above, there are 6 left leaning and 2 right leaning news sources. Of the 2 right leaning sources, one of the above (Fox) had many Trump critics and supporters, one had several of its contributors /staffers resign due to Trump leanings.

Meanwhile, of the other SIX liberal leaning publications there is very little self reflection going on and the band seems to roll on with regards to bashing conservatives and especially Trump as well as OUTRIGHT COLLUSION with the DNC.

CBS -- Colludes with the DNC on how best to present poll data. The organization was also called out by their former colleague Bernie Goldberg in his book Bias. They aksi edited Bill Clinton's remarks about Hillary's health back in September. Ask Sharyl Atkinson about CBS's "bias". Her book also exposed them pretty well. How about Dan Rather's false report President Bush deserted from the Texas Air National Guard? Only after being exposed so completely did they finally force him to resign.
Wall Street Journal -- I actually agree this is probably the best source listed here.
Christian Science Monitor -- Another good source but hardly one the majority of americans get their news from.
BBC -- What the big 3 USED to be...but are no longer. Hard news with no real hint of bias. Unfortunately, again...most americans don't see it.
Economist -- Again, most american's don't read it.
WaPo -- As biased as they come. Actually hosts joint fundraisers with the DNC.

Here's some more you didn't talk about.

Politico -- Colludes with the DNC
CNBC -- John Harwood colludes with the DNC
HuffPo -- Arriana Huffington colludes with the DNC

(I can present links attesting to the above if needed)

So of the above, only the WSJ, Economist, BBC, and the CSM are considered by both of us as being "fair". The VAST majority of the rest are extremely left leaning...to the point of actually colluding with the DNC according to the Wikileaks dump we have seen these past several months.

 

....Continued....had to do 2 posts to fit in all in!!!

I don't have to do anything of the sort. I EXPECT the media to be fair and honest in its reporting...even if it doesn't conform to their poltical leanings. I EXPECT them to avoid ANY hint of conflict of interest with political parties or their candidates. I EXPECT them to be our watchdogs, not propaganda machines.

Of course, I don't believe they will do any of that. And it is why I don't listen to most of what they report just like many other americans who pay attention either. As far as Amanpour....she's another idealogue that I stopped listening to years ago. She might be smart...but she's also incredibly biased and can't help her own inclinations. Why should I trust ANYTHING she has to say?

I appreciate your viewpoints B-bob. Sorry about any perceived or real bullying that occurred towards you. Not cool no matter who's doing it. And as far as I'm concerned, I'll happily respond to your thoughts in the most thoughtful way I can...just as you do in your respectful discourse with me.

 

I think this is a good point. IMO, the preponderance of content on cable news outlets is guilty of injecting an ever-increasing level of "bloodsport" politics into the national discourse. It seems like when anything from CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC gets any attention, it has to do with a talking head being put in their place or someone acting silly. That's a natural result of these network's profit-driven motives, I guess, but it doesn't exactly help the bottom line of journalism's ostensible goal of contributing to a more informed public. I understand this is where many of us get our news and it saddens me. It's just people yelling at each other most of the time.

This has forced me to retreat to places like the PBS news hour to retrieve any kind of sane TV journalism. I don't think it's perfect and I feel old watching it, but when they have conservatives on it doesn't feel like they're being mocked/being passively aggressively combative. I sincerely want to understand the legitimate points that conservatives have and it comes through so much more clearly. They also delve deeper into issues beyond left/right talking points. Many don't have the time or energy for an objective scouring of print journalism (although I contend NYT and WaPo did some necessary investigative journalism over the past year). It's heartening to witness many of the issues important to me and my family not be buried under the onerous one-upsmanship of the political rhetoric in this country.

 

Who are some of the hard news people on Fox News?

 

Brett Baier, Katheryn Herridge, Neil Cavuto, Chris Wallace, Jon Scott, Martha MacCallum, Jenna Lee

 

Thanks.