Members banned from this thread: Tahuyaman |
carolina73 (06-11-2021)
Hi, MMC!
Why is political analysis and commentary on a news source that is not objective a problem? It's part of what we should expect from a free press. A democratic society can be, and in fact probably should be, something of a mess, as opposed to the lockstep found in authoritarian regimes.
Regards, stay safe 'n well.
"And gladly wolde he lerne and gladly teche." Chaucer, the Canterbury Tales.
A free press should be about reporting facts and data objectively. Should be about the truth. Not trying to give cover for one party. Not going easy on one party. Not sticking up for one party.
Cronkite, Murrow were leftists yet they didnt let that stop them from asking tough questions with Democrats. Oh and they didnt allow Democrats to say whatever out of their mouths without being challenged. Nor did they allow Democrats to outright lie to their face and the American people. If they did.....they got put on the spot.
You must be under the impression that a Democratic society can't be authoritarian. Who taught you that?
History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~
Hi again, MMC.
The quoted post above would require quite a few words to answer in full. Let's start with just a small part of it. The first sentence.
My post specifically referenced analysis and commentary. That differs from straight reportage; who what when and where. I agree that straight reportage should be that and, ideally, kept separate from other functions. The alert consumer of straight reportage is aware of and alert for the use of adjectives and adverbs and, in general, filters them out.
As far as analysis and commentary goes, there should be very few restriction on it. It is, in the final analysis [Sorry!], free speech.
OK. Are we in agreement thus far?
Regards, stay safe 'n well.
"And gladly wolde he lerne and gladly teche." Chaucer, the Canterbury Tales.
Analysis should be objective and accurately correct as much as possible. Reporters and Hosts shouldnt be running favorable commentary for any Party. That is what the Guest Political Pundits are for.
Oh and sports Broadcasters should be about sports. Not going tangential about some political issue. You agree correct?
Last edited by MMC; 06-12-2021 at 07:30 AM.
History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~
Hi again, MMC.
On to the second sentence.
What I find in much of the commentary from some sources are not favorable comments about a political party but, rather, negative comments about a political party and its members of note. A few minutes devoted to listening to, say, Mr. Mark Levin will underline this observation.
Regards, stay safe 'n well.
"And gladly wolde he lerne and gladly teche." Chaucer, the Canterbury Tales.
History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~
Hi again, MMC!
In the United States of America sportscasters in radio talk about whatever attracts and keeps an audience for commercials. It's how our capitalist system works. In recent years sportscasters talk about sports, about themselves and, increasingly, about betting odds. I would think that if bringing politics into the show will increase the audience [and thus the prices charged for commercials,] we'll soon find it included.
And thank you for the clarification. I was in the terrible habit of including radio in the main stream of our American media. My bad.
Regards, stay safe 'n well.
"And gladly wolde he lerne and gladly teche." Chaucer, the Canterbury Tales.