Fair and Balanced
 

You must believe......


The New York Times Admits That Virtually Every Major News Organization Allows The News To Be Censored By Government Officials

Hasn't this happened throughout history right before the "Dark Knights" of the world took over the country;)?





JK ya'll.

No surprise here. Reality in America reads like a bad novel anymore:).

Interesting chart on the Board of Directors' overlap with all these corporations. Thank goodness President Romney will give these folks the tax breaks they deserve.

LOL

They had essentially the same article in the Charlotte Observer a few days ago - with the added content, from the owners of the Observer and several other papers, stating that they were not going to be dictated to by any pol's press office as to what they could print in their papers.

I am of two minds on this....
1) We all know how often the press gets it wrong. Almost anyone with any contact with the press complains that they are frequently mis-quoted. So, if this quote policy simply is insurance that they quotes are correct, it could be a good thing.

2) On the other hand, a candidate, or their press agent could use this as a way to sanitize, or even "walk back" comments that a candidate made, but now regrets.

That's cool but I think the MSM wonks in the WH pressroom and their editors at the major media sites are the issue with this story Comrade.

This has to do with what is 'allowed' to be reported.

Yep, that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they proposed Freedom of the Press.

Do you remember the press reaction to the Iraq invasion?
It was patriotic jingoism.
Anyone that said it was based on lies, the press tried to destroy.

True. The press was a cheerleading squad for the administration.

As if the press is an organized system that decides things en masse.

Correction. They were a cheerleading squad for America at that time. Shortly after that, the coming together of America faded away and everyone went back to the same old attack politics. Had B.O. been President at the time, it would have been much the same thing.


This brings to mind something that I experienced in 1997. At that time I was doing a lot of system work in North Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas. I spent lots of time with a firm in Little Rock and always stayed at a Double Tree downtown. I stayed there so much that when I walked through the door they started checking me in and put a key in front of me while calling me by name.

I strolled in there late one night, with only casual knowledge of the activity the next day in Little Rock, which was the 40th anniversary of the integration battle at a high school in Little Rock. Bill & Hillary were there along with about every news reporter in the US.

When I got to the desk they started apologizing because they had no rooms available. I went out on the Interstate and got a room at a Holiday Inn. The next morning there was no USA Today as I was used to, but a copy of the Arkansas Herald-Democrat (I think that is correct) was outside the door. As with many newspapers, two had merged and taken on both names.

As a commemorative of the occasion, the second page of the paper was a reprint of the Herald front page of 40 years earlier & page three was a reprint of the Democrat from 40 years earlier.

The most interesting and eye opening thing about this experience was that both of those 40 year old front pages contained almost nothing but WORD FOR WORD QUOTES of what the prominent figures of the day had said about the issue at the high school. There would be an entire column that started with a short sentence like "Governer Smith's response to the issue at Little Rock High Shool was:" THEN there was a quotation mark and an entire word for word column ended with another quotation mark.

There was no taking anything out of context. There was no comment to lead you to believe anything in particular, just WORD FOR WORD QUOTES.

As far as I'm concerned that is ALL that should be in such articles. People can say whatever they want on the editorial page, but news should be ACCURATE and should allow us all to read exactly what was said and draw our own conclusions from it.

Wouldn't this be refreshing?

BTW, I'm pretty sure that I still have that newspaper.

Fair and Balanced" hahaha
 

I think bitter invective and bilious calumny is more fun to read ... :D