• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On chiding the press for doing what it's supposed to do

Xelor said:
Any inferences about "prestige and respect" is coming from your mind, not my keyboard. That's you inserting something into my remarks that is not what I presented tacitly or explicitly.
Click to expand...

Please. Your entire OP was about the essential nature of the press and how it should be respected. You even took it over the top when you said:

Xelor said:
Themedia is the fourth arm of Government performing the duty of society’swatchdog and ensuring the government’s accountability to the people and also at the same timeensuring the participation of the governed in the process of governance. It is downright undemocratic to ridicule it for doing precisely what it exists to do.
Click to expand...

To you, "the media" should not be chided, ridiculed, criticized. To do so, you say, is an affront to "democracy" itself.

Yet you don't want to be taken as saying that the "media" should be held in a position of "prestige and respect."

You simply don't want to take responsibility for what you say.


My remarks have only to do with the function of the press and its obligation to obtain information, report that information, analyze that information and share both the information and its sound/cogent analysis (as contrasted with abductive analysis) of the information.
Click to expand...

Ah, but you say it's entirely the reader's or viewer's responsibility to determine the truth, and you said so exonerating the "media" from the responsibility of presenting it fairly.

You say so again here . . .

As for what is and isn't the news consumer's responsibility, yes, it's one's responsibility to use one's cognition to formulate questions about the veracity of what one is told and, in turn, use the high quality information sources at one's disposal to arrive at a sound/cogent conclusion about that information's contextual and factual accuracy. It's also the audience's responsibility to do the same with regard to the analysis the press presents.

Take a simple Trump statement reported by CNBC: "In light of China's unfair retaliation, I have instructed the USTR to consider whether $100 billion of additional tariffs would be appropriate under section 301 and, if so, to identify the products upon which to impose such tariffs." What do ask myself about that remark? This:

{. . . . snip for space . . . . }

I can list additional questions I ask myself upon consuming any piece of information. The point is that a news outlet can say whatever the heck it wants about public policy; I can, to the extent I give a damn about the topic, verify the veracity of what the journalist says. That's what it takes to become informed about a matter. Fortunately, having learned in school how to quickly perform research and adroitly analyze the information my research obtains, and having done it daily for the better part of 40 years, it's neither hard nor time consuming to do. That's just one of the upsides of being a fully-fledged adult (over 35 years-old).
Click to expand...

. . . in which you present all of the responsibility of the reader, but NO responsibility on the part of the media for what they present.

So, indeed -- according to you, it's "undemocratic" to criticize the media, but they also don't have any responsibility -- that's all on the reader/viewer.

That's a ridiculous position.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I am a strong believer that the relationship between a free press and a democratic government should be an adversarial one. My only problem with how aggressive the media has been with Trump is that they weren’t as aggressive with his predecessors.

I don’t want the media to let up on Trump. I am just afraid that once Trump is out of office the media will go back to kissing ass in exchange for access.
Click to expand...

That, and the idea that anyone is above criticism, especially to the point of it being "undemocratic" to do so, is just whackadoodle.
 
Xelor said:
...

Themedia is the fourth arm of Government performing the duty of society’swatchdog and ensuring the government’s accountability to the people and also at the same timeensuring the participation of the governed in the process of governance. It is downright undemocratic to ridicule it for doing precisely what it exists to do.
Click to expand...

The "media" you describe as the Fourth Estate has been drowned out by an infotainment complex that seeks primarily to make as much profit as possible, to disseminate propaganda on behalf of it's wealthy owners, or both. There is still good reporting out there, but pulling it out of the garbage that the "media" spews is work many aren't willing to do. Many just seek a bubble of confirmation bias to wallow in.

Seems to me this really took hold in the 1980's and the internet / cable has allowed it to feed itself steroids.
 
Kal'Stang said:
There is one other option that the media can do that you didn't list.

Stay neutral. Do not use the power of words to attempt to shape how people think/feel. Use neutral words. Let The People decide on whether it is something to be outraged about or not. Use full facts and context. Not cherry picked data points or single lines from a speech to either support or condemn the narrative that they want to push through. That is why people criticize the media. Because they refuse to stay neutral. Because they are pushing their own personal agenda's on people all while claiming that they're not as biased as the other side or claiming/implying that they're The Real Unbiased News that you should Trust!.....

And NO, it is not undemocratic to ridicule the media when they do wrong. Just like it is not undemocratic to criticize anyone in government or joe blow down the street. Just because YOU don't like your opposition criticizing those who say things you agree with does not mean its "undemocratic".
Click to expand...

All I can say to this is 'amen'!

Journalism was my primary college major and I was trained there and on the job, years ago, in the media. My job was to gather the information that would be published as news. The copy I wrote, and usually passed muster with the editor without edits, put the who, what, where, when, why, and how into the first two paragraphs of the news story. There would be not even a single adjective of bias in that anywhere. The rest of the story included additional information, background, or whatever, but there would be absolutely zero in the story to give the reader a clue of my personal opinions about it.

Sure the news could be slanted to indicate whether the newspaper considered it important or not. But the least suggestion of ideology, bias, or creative writing to produce a particular point of view would gain any reporter a rap on the knuckles and dressing down. If grievous enough, it could get a reporter fired.

We now have a media who are on definitive search and destroy to bring down a sitting President of the United States. You see it in how the stories are structured, what they include and what they leave out. You see it in the headlines they use, the placement of stories on a page or where it is included in a news cast. You see it in the photos and/or video they choose to accompany the story. And mostly you see it in the plethora of 'anonymous sources' cited in an attempt to give what is too often manufactured news some semblance of credibility.

If the media these days were putting out information in an objective who, what, where, when, why, and how form as they once did, we would have a far different political climate and would be a far better society than we are.
 
Harshaw said:
Please. Your entire OP was about the essential nature of the press and how it should be respected. You even took it over the top when you said:



To you, "the media" should not be chided, ridiculed, criticized. To do so, you say, is an affront to "democracy" itself.

Yet you don't want to be taken as saying that the "media" should be held in a position of "prestige and respect."

You simply don't want to take responsibility for what you say.




Ah, but you say it's entirely the reader's or viewer's responsibility to determine the truth, and you said so exonerating the "media" from the responsibility of presenting it fairly.

You say so again here . . .



. . . in which you present all of the responsibility of the reader, but NO responsibility on the part of the media for what they present.

So, indeed -- according to you, it's "undemocratic" to criticize the media, but they also don't have any responsibility -- that's all on the reader/viewer.

That's a ridiculous position.
Click to expand...

You seem to think that in a deliberately designed adversarial system that the press is supposed to present a sitting politician's, particularly a POTUS', side of a matter. The press' duty is the very opposite of that. The POTUS or other politician/policymaker, when s/he avails him-/herself of the opportunity to sit with the press or deliver a press conference, is already presenting their side of the matter and extolling the virtues of their proposal. Why the hell does the press also need to extol the virtues of what the politician promoted? Doing so, the press becomes an echo chamber, an advocate for the politician. There's no democratic value in the press doing that. Yet there is a loud outcry from a segment of the polity because the press isn't acting like an echo chamber.
 
Xelor said:
You seem to think that in a deliberately designed adversarial system that the press is supposed to present a sitting politician's, particularly a POTUS', side of a matter.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that I never said anything remotely like that . . .

The press' duty is the very opposite of that. The POTUS or other politician/policymaker, when s/he avails him-/herself of the opportunity to sit with the press or deliver a press conference, is already presenting their side of the matter and extolling the virtues of their proposal. Why the hell does the press also need to extol the virtues of what the politician promoted? Doing so, the press becomes an echo chamber, an advocate for the politician. There's no democratic value in the press doing that. Yet there is a loud outcry from a segment of the polity because the press isn't acting like an echo chamber.
Click to expand...

. . . this flies in the face of what you said in your OP, in which, in which according to you, it's fitting that they "extol" said "virtues" when warranted:

When a politician or other policy maker submits an idea, what would one have the media do?
Advocate for it?
This is a fitting thing to do if the notion withstands rigorous analysis and is found sound/cogent.
Click to expand...

You seem to want things every which way, except in any sort of consistent way.
 
Harshaw said:
Aside from the fact that I never said anything remotely like that . . .



. . . this flies in the face of what you said in your OP, in which, in which according to you, it's fitting that they "extol" said "virtues" when warranted:



You seem to want things every which way, except in any sort of consistent way.
Click to expand...

What did I note that it takes for extolling virtues to be warranted? Soundness/cogency. Do you know what that means? Well, one thing it means is that one's argument extolling a politician's position must be 100% devoid of rational fallacies. It means too that the politician's argument must be soundly/cogently founded.
 
Last edited:
Xelor said:
What did I note that it takes for extolling virtues to be warranted? Soundness/cogency. Do you know what that means? Well, one thing it means is that one's argument extolling a politician's position must be 100% devoid of rational fallacies. It means too that the politician's argument must be soundly/cogently founded.
Click to expand...

Which is it? The absolutist "adversarial" position you took in post #30, or this? You really seem to be making this up as you go along.
 
Harshaw said:
Aside from the fact that I never said anything remotely like that . . .



. . . this flies in the face of what you said in your OP, in which, in which according to you, it's fitting that they "extol" said "virtues" when warranted:



You seem to want things every which way, except in any sort of consistent way.


Xelor said:
What did I note that it takes for extolling virtues to be warranted? Soundness/cogency. Do you know what that means? Well, one thing it means is that one's argument extolling a politician's position must be 100% devoid of rational fallacies. It means too that the politician's argument must be soundly/cogently founded.
Harshaw said:
Which is it? The absolutist "adversarial" position you took in post #30, or this? You really seem to be making this up as you go along.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

False dichotomy. -- see item 45 on the list to which I linked and with which you apparently are unfamiliar, or click the link in this sentence.
 
Last edited:
Xelor said:
False dichotomy. -- see item 45 on the list to which I linked and with which you apparently are unfamiliar, or click the link in this sentence.
Click to expand...

It's not a false dichotomy -- you said contradictory things. At the most charitable to you, bending over backwards to find NON-contradiction, you answered your own question, but I don't think that was your intent.

In any case, the premise of this thread is ridiculous. It's no wonder you're bouncing between arguments of the moment rather than maintain a consistent throughline.
 
Harshaw said:
It's not a false dichotomy -- you said contradictory things. At the most charitable to you, bending over backwards to find NON-contradiction, you answered your own question, but I don't think that was your intent.

In any case, the premise of this thread is ridiculous. It's no wonder you're bouncing between arguments of the moment rather than maintain a consistent throughline.
Click to expand...

The fact that you can make those remarks does not establish their accuracy. The fact that you errantly think I made contradictory remarks informs me that you and I need not keep having this discussion.
 
Xelor said:
The fact that you can make those remarks does not establish their accuracy. The fact that you errantly think I made contradictory remarks informs me that you and I need not keep having this discussion.
Click to expand...

I demonstrated your contradictory remarks. Saying "nuh-uh!" isn't an effective rebuttal.

But you're right; if this is where you are, then there's little left to be said. The premise of this thread was pretty silly from the get-go anyway.
 
Harshaw said:
I demonstrated your contradictory remarks. Saying "nuh-uh!" isn't an effective rebuttal.

But you're right; if this is where you are, then there's little left to be said. The premise of this thread was pretty silly from the get-go anyway.
Click to expand...


rotflmao.gif
 
Harshaw said:
You seem to be saying that The Press can present whatever it wants, however it wants, and it's entirely the responsibility of the reader to sift through bull**** and find the truth.

In other words, taken as a whole, you're arguing that The Press should have all the prestige and respect as the sacred Fourth Estate, to the point where it should not be "chided" (your word), but no responsibility for what it publishes; that lies entirely with the readership.
Click to expand...

Thus the basis for FNC and alt-right outlets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom