Posted by bad_luck on 3/14/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/14/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):
I tend to ignore comments from comedians with crappy late night shows.

What's Jimmy Fallon's viewpoint on healthcare?

How about touching base with Paris Hilton or Kimmy K? Don't want to leave that subset out.

Eh, I think most people are smart enough to see the difference between journalism with comedic relief (Last Week Tonight) and barely funny talk shows with zero journalistic value (Fallon).

Last Week Tonight is NOT journalism. If you think it is, you're part of the problem. It's a liberally slanted comedy commentary show. (just like Maher, Stewart, whatever passes for Stewart's old show, Samantha Bee, current SNL, etc.)

You're right about Fallon though.

Posted by toddcommish on 3/14/2017 1:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/14/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/14/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):
I tend to ignore comments from comedians with crappy late night shows.

What's Jimmy Fallon's viewpoint on healthcare?

How about touching base with Paris Hilton or Kimmy K? Don't want to leave that subset out.

Eh, I think most people are smart enough to see the difference between journalism with comedic relief (Last Week Tonight) and barely funny talk shows with zero journalistic value (Fallon).

Last Week Tonight is NOT journalism. If you think it is, you're part of the problem. It's a liberally slanted comedy commentary show. (just like Maher, Stewart, whatever passes for Stewart's old show, Samantha Bee, current SNL, etc.)

You're right about Fallon though.

It's journalism. Last Week Tonight investigates real issues and presents those issues in order to draw attention to them. It's usually also funny, but that doesn't preclude it from having value.

And sure, it slants liberal. Other outlets (NRO, Federalist, etc) slant conservative.

LWT is different from Maher's show because Maher's show sucks. Maher's show is more like a CNN talking heads panel. It's not journalism.

I don't watch Sam Bee. SNL is not journalism, it's a sketch show.

Interview with Dalai Lama?

So, out of all the liberal news commentary shows out there, you only think that LWT has a shred of journalistic fabric somewhere, while admitting that it "slants liberal". Shouldn't "journalism" be free of slant? Just askin'... Because slanted journalism isn't journalism, it's just confirmation bias

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/14/2017 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Interview with Dalai Lama?

Didn't see it. Did you see the piece on multi-level marketing companies? Or the one on special tax districts?

Posted by toddcommish on 3/14/2017 1:38:00 PM (view original):
So, out of all the liberal news commentary shows out there, you only think that LWT has a shred of journalistic fabric somewhere, while admitting that it "slants liberal". Shouldn't "journalism" be free of slant? Just askin'... Because slanted journalism isn't journalism, it's just confirmation bias

Everyone has a point of view, it's impossible to be free of slant.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/14/2017 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/14/2017 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Interview with Dalai Lama?

Didn't see it. Did you see the piece on multi-level marketing companies? Or the one on special tax districts?

Nope. Don't watch the show. Was sick and clicking channels. Ran across a bit lambasting China over human rights issues and stayed a few minutes. Transitioned into 10 minutes of nonsense with the DL.

So, yes, there is a shred of slanted journalism. And a bunch of nonsense. If that's where you're getting your "journalism", I'm going to start quoting Brian Kilmeade's views on the the Democratic party.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/14/2017 1:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/14/2017 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/14/2017 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Interview with Dalai Lama?

Didn't see it. Did you see the piece on multi-level marketing companies? Or the one on special tax districts?

Nope. Don't watch the show. Was sick and clicking channels. Ran across a bit lambasting China over human rights issues and stayed a few minutes. Transitioned into 10 minutes of nonsense with the DL.

So, yes, there is a shred of slanted journalism. And a bunch of nonsense. If that's where you're getting your "journalism", I'm going to start quoting Brian Kilmeade's views on the the Democratic party.

You don't watch the show but you saw a 10 minute clip and decided, "yep, I know enough to get into an argument about this show."

Seems par for the course for you.

Good job, mike.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/14/2017 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/14/2017 1:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/14/2017 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/14/2017 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Interview with Dalai Lama?

Didn't see it. Did you see the piece on multi-level marketing companies? Or the one on special tax districts?

Nope. Don't watch the show. Was sick and clicking channels. Ran across a bit lambasting China over human rights issues and stayed a few minutes. Transitioned into 10 minutes of nonsense with the DL.

So, yes, there is a shred of slanted journalism. And a bunch of nonsense. If that's where you're getting your "journalism", I'm going to start quoting Brian Kilmeade's views on the the Democratic party.

You don't watch the show but you saw a 10 minute clip and decided, "yep, I know enough to get into an argument about this show."

Seems par for the course for you.

Good job, mike.

I do. 10 minutes of nonsense on a 30 minute "journalism" show. Even if the entire other 20 minutes was solid "journalism", I've got to be able to find something with a better than 2-1 journalism/nonsense ratio.

But you just keep quoting John Oliver's views on politics.

That is definitely par for the course for you.

Good job, bl.

Maybe get advice on child-raising from Louis CK. I believe that was another gem from you.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/14/2017 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/14/2017 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/14/2017 1:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/14/2017 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/14/2017 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Interview with Dalai Lama?

Didn't see it. Did you see the piece on multi-level marketing companies? Or the one on special tax districts?

Nope. Don't watch the show. Was sick and clicking channels. Ran across a bit lambasting China over human rights issues and stayed a few minutes. Transitioned into 10 minutes of nonsense with the DL.

So, yes, there is a shred of slanted journalism. And a bunch of nonsense. If that's where you're getting your "journalism", I'm going to start quoting Brian Kilmeade's views on the the Democratic party.

You don't watch the show but you saw a 10 minute clip and decided, "yep, I know enough to get into an argument about this show."

Seems par for the course for you.

Good job, mike.

I do. 10 minutes of nonsense on a 30 minute "journalism" show. Even if the entire other 20 minutes was solid "journalism", I've got to be able to find something with a better than 2-1 journalism/nonsense ratio.

But you just keep quoting John Oliver's views on politics.

That is definitely par for the course for you.

Good job, bl.

I like Oliver's show. He does better work than a lot of hosts on cable news and, if we're being honest, the ratio of solid journalism to crap is much worse than 2-1 most cable news shows. So, yeah, I'll keep quoting.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/14/2017 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 3/14/2017 1:38:00 PM (view original):
So, out of all the liberal news commentary shows out there, you only think that LWT has a shred of journalistic fabric somewhere, while admitting that it "slants liberal". Shouldn't "journalism" be free of slant? Just askin'... Because slanted journalism isn't journalism, it's just confirmation bias

Everyone has a point of view, it's impossible to be free of slant.

Um, I might be old fashioned, but I thought "journalism" was supposed to be free of bias, slant, or opinion.

I think that's where much of the media has flown off the rails...

Posted by toddcommish on 3/14/2017 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/14/2017 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 3/14/2017 1:38:00 PM (view original):
So, out of all the liberal news commentary shows out there, you only think that LWT has a shred of journalistic fabric somewhere, while admitting that it "slants liberal". Shouldn't "journalism" be free of slant? Just askin'... Because slanted journalism isn't journalism, it's just confirmation bias

Everyone has a point of view, it's impossible to be free of slant.

Um, I might be old fashioned, but I thought "journalism" was supposed to be free of bias, slant, or opinion.

I think that's where much of the media has flown off the rails...

I think you're conflating basic reporting of the facts - Jim met with Steve to discuss the plan for the highway - and investigative/analytical journalism - here is why the highway plan is good/bad.

Anytime you analyze something, your own perspective is going to color your analysis. Even if you are presenting the analysis in good faith. It won't always be a liberal/conservative thing, either. Referencing back to John Oliver's piece on multi-level marketing companies. They clearly went at the piece with the intention of exposing MLM's as a scam. There was nothing even-handed or balanced about it. But they didn't lie and they presented the argument in good faith. That's still journalism and, in my opinion, more valuable than acting like, "well maybe MLM's are a scam, maybe they aren't, who knows?"

Posted by bad_luck on 3/14/2017 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 3/14/2017 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/14/2017 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 3/14/2017 1:38:00 PM (view original):
So, out of all the liberal news commentary shows out there, you only think that LWT has a shred of journalistic fabric somewhere, while admitting that it "slants liberal". Shouldn't "journalism" be free of slant? Just askin'... Because slanted journalism isn't journalism, it's just confirmation bias

Everyone has a point of view, it's impossible to be free of slant.

Um, I might be old fashioned, but I thought "journalism" was supposed to be free of bias, slant, or opinion.

I think that's where much of the media has flown off the rails...

I think you're conflating basic reporting of the facts - Jim met with Steve to discuss the plan for the highway - and investigative/analytical journalism - here is why the highway plan is good/bad.

Anytime you analyze something, your own perspective is going to color your analysis. Even if you are presenting the analysis in good faith. It won't always be a liberal/conservative thing, either. Referencing back to John Oliver's piece on multi-level marketing companies. They clearly went at the piece with the intention of exposing MLM's as a scam. There was nothing even-handed or balanced about it. But they didn't lie and they presented the argument in good faith. That's still journalism and, in my opinion, more valuable than acting like, "well maybe MLM's are a scam, maybe they aren't, who knows?"

What you define as "investigative/analytical journalism" is basically politics, not journalism. A highway plan is not inherently good or bad, unless it's built using the corpses of freshly murdered co-eds. Journalism is exposing whether politicians were bribed to get the contract, or whether the contractor is mob-connected. Saying that a highway is BAD (qualitative judgment) because an illegal homeless encampment might be affected is NOT journalism. Once you interject your "perspective" (which appears in your definition to be your political filter/spin), it ceases being journalism and starts being politics.

Journalism is Watergate. Journalism is NOT political or sociological hit pieces built on rumor and bias.

Posted by toddcommish on 3/14/2017 4:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/14/2017 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 3/14/2017 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/14/2017 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 3/14/2017 1:38:00 PM (view original):
So, out of all the liberal news commentary shows out there, you only think that LWT has a shred of journalistic fabric somewhere, while admitting that it "slants liberal". Shouldn't "journalism" be free of slant? Just askin'... Because slanted journalism isn't journalism, it's just confirmation bias

Everyone has a point of view, it's impossible to be free of slant.

Um, I might be old fashioned, but I thought "journalism" was supposed to be free of bias, slant, or opinion.

I think that's where much of the media has flown off the rails...

I think you're conflating basic reporting of the facts - Jim met with Steve to discuss the plan for the highway - and investigative/analytical journalism - here is why the highway plan is good/bad.

Anytime you analyze something, your own perspective is going to color your analysis. Even if you are presenting the analysis in good faith. It won't always be a liberal/conservative thing, either. Referencing back to John Oliver's piece on multi-level marketing companies. They clearly went at the piece with the intention of exposing MLM's as a scam. There was nothing even-handed or balanced about it. But they didn't lie and they presented the argument in good faith. That's still journalism and, in my opinion, more valuable than acting like, "well maybe MLM's are a scam, maybe they aren't, who knows?"

What you define as "investigative/analytical journalism" is basically politics, not journalism. A highway plan is not inherently good or bad, unless it's built using the corpses of freshly murdered co-eds. Journalism is exposing whether politicians were bribed to get the contract, or whether the contractor is mob-connected. Saying that a highway is BAD (qualitative judgment) because an illegal homeless encampment might be affected is NOT journalism. Once you interject your "perspective" (which appears in your definition to be your political filter/spin), it ceases being journalism and starts being politics.

Journalism is Watergate. Journalism is NOT political or sociological hit pieces built on rumor and bias.

This is from the American Press Institute:

Being impartial or neutral is not a core principal of journalism. Because the journalist must make decisions, he or she is not and cannot be objective. But journalistic methods are objective.

When the concept of objectivity originally evolved, it did not imply that journalists were free of bias. It called, rather, for a consistent method of testing information – a transparent approach to evidence – precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of the work. The method is objective, not the journalist.