Thanks for posting this one. These guys are nuts and fact free. Good grief. Can't they understand that we can find out where they were instead of at the anniversary? Eric Cantor, for instance, was talking to oil workers and execs. in North Dakota on the day of the anniversary.
And he published a retraction and an apology, as should be expected when the media makes a mistake. http://news.yahoo.com/foxs-oreilly-made-wrong-claim-173441446.html;_ylt=A2KLOzIA4yFSZxsAF7dDDex_
"as should be expected when the media makes a mistake. "
And yet usually Bill O doesn't make either apologies, or acknowledge those frequent mistakes.
Yes, we expect a retraction and apology from the media; we should also be expecting them to do a bit of fact checking before they run their mouths. This is appropriate 1. because it was made and posted BEFORE he made that apology and remark, and because the ridicule of him for this error was part of why he made that apology. And 2., because it so clearly reflects the shoot first, lie later, the-hell-with-the-facts attitude of the right wing nuts on fairly unbalanced Fox Not-really-news.
Sorry, NO, that's not what is the expectation of journalists. JOURNALISTS ask WHY they got it wrong. Good journalists even ask why they reported it, when they do their soul searching about it, and REALLY good journalists publicly hold themselves accountable for WHY.
To me, imho, the why here is this, O'Reilly has an axe to grind, a made up one, but still, an axe. He wants to portray black Americans as hating whites, manifested by their disdain for "white-guy Joe Average" = Republican. The question here is, why did O'Reilly report this? Maybe my supposition isn't true, maybe it's just that he wanted to report something he saw as unfair, but then the question still is why did his staff put this forward to him? I think you know that answer. Why didn't O'Reilly question something which was so bald-facedly stupidly unlikely to be true? That's a good question, but not the real thrust here - the answer being O'Reilly is a bit of a tool and rather uninformed. Another adjunct is why didn't his audience question this kind of bunk? Hmmmm... another puzzler.
You see, the art of actual JOURNALISM is reporting the story, the what, where and most importantly the WHY, that they don't want you to report. Propogandism is reporting that which they, those being reported on or those who control the news, DO want you to report. There are some "whys" here that bear asking and most importantly, answering.
Thanks for posting this one. These guys are nuts and fact free. Good grief. Can't they understand that we can find out where they were instead of at the anniversary? Eric Cantor, for instance, was talking to oil workers and execs. in North Dakota on the day of the anniversary.
ReplyDeleteAnd he published a retraction and an apology, as should be expected when the media makes a mistake.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/foxs-oreilly-made-wrong-claim-173441446.html;_ylt=A2KLOzIA4yFSZxsAF7dDDex_
"as should be expected when the media makes a mistake. "
DeleteAnd yet usually Bill O doesn't make either apologies, or acknowledge those frequent mistakes.
Yes, we expect a retraction and apology from the media; we should also be expecting them to do a bit of fact checking before they run their mouths. This is appropriate 1. because it was made and posted BEFORE he made that apology and remark, and because the ridicule of him for this error was part of why he made that apology. And 2., because it so clearly reflects the shoot first, lie later, the-hell-with-the-facts attitude of the right wing nuts on fairly unbalanced Fox Not-really-news.
SSG,
ReplyDeleteSorry, NO, that's not what is the expectation of journalists. JOURNALISTS ask WHY they got it wrong. Good journalists even ask why they reported it, when they do their soul searching about it, and REALLY good journalists publicly hold themselves accountable for WHY.
To me, imho, the why here is this, O'Reilly has an axe to grind, a made up one, but still, an axe. He wants to portray black Americans as hating whites, manifested by their disdain for "white-guy Joe Average" = Republican. The question here is, why did O'Reilly report this? Maybe my supposition isn't true, maybe it's just that he wanted to report something he saw as unfair, but then the question still is why did his staff put this forward to him? I think you know that answer. Why didn't O'Reilly question something which was so bald-facedly stupidly unlikely to be true? That's a good question, but not the real thrust here - the answer being O'Reilly is a bit of a tool and rather uninformed. Another adjunct is why didn't his audience question this kind of bunk? Hmmmm... another puzzler.
You see, the art of actual JOURNALISM is reporting the story, the what, where and most importantly the WHY, that they don't want you to report. Propogandism is reporting that which they, those being reported on or those who control the news, DO want you to report. There are some "whys" here that bear asking and most importantly, answering.
But the most important one was this..
Why didn't any Republicans show up?