Media screws up again...

"gatt" wrote in message
...

So why do you watch, then?


Live video feeds, eyewitness reports, photographs. Things the reporter
can't screw up.



And yet you keep on reading it.


Yes, I still subscribe to my local newspaper. I have dropped my
subscriptions to Time, Newsweek, and US News & World Report. My local
newspaper still has TV and movie listings, grocery coupons, various flyers,
etc., so it is still worth receiving.

"Jack" wrote in message news:Muayc.7230

Would a real-life journalist know the difference between "targeted" and
"targetted", or how to use a spell-checker?

Sorry. I don't use spell checkers for usenet.

All we ask from our reporters is a high school level of understanding of
the
world around them, which is easily achieved before the story exists and
has
nothing to do with deadline pressures.

Wow. Did they teach you the difference between aerodynamic and mechanical
stall in high school?

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message news:h8hyc.9

It's what people pay for.

Not me.

And others less and less...dramatically.

Any time there's a news event, everybody watches CNN, MSNBC, FOX, or they
read Time or Newsweek, or watch their local broadcast or cable news
affiliate, or listen to the news on the radio, or read daily or weekly
newspapers.

Yeah...during a MAJOR event.

Even most basic cable customers pay rates and get CNN, et al.

Ever see a cable company that doesn't provide CNN? How, with that built in,
why is their viewship down significantly EVEN DURING THIS WAR YOU TOUT?


There's a war going on. As such, there has been no dramatic reduction in
news viewership or readership other than the fact that people read the
news
on the internet more frequently now.

Geeez...you can't even follow the point for a few paragraphs. Here it is
again for your limited attention span (does that come with the job?) - their
viewship is down _dramatically_.

http://www.cnn.com,
http://www.abcnews.com. ....they're popular news sites that draw a lot of
money from advertising revenue.

Then why is Fox stomping their asses, huh?

CFOS!

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Faux". Engages in deliberate inaccuracy.


Rubbish.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

Ummm...and their market share has been doing...what lately?


Ummm...crashing.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message

Assuming the attribution is correct, it was the source who got it wrong.

So what? It's still the reporter's responsibility to get the story right

That is inaccurate, not to mention impossible. The reporter's
responsibility is to accurately report what the experts tell them.

In the case of a crash, it's the NTSB's responsibility to "get the story
right" which means if you wanted to read what -really- happened, you'd not
expect the publication to carry the story until the NTSB had made its
report. The reporter would then be responsible for accurately conveying the
information in the NTSB report.

-c

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

Ummm...and their market share has been doing...what lately?


Ummm...crashing.


Maybe their engine stalled?

"gatt" wrote in message
...

That is inaccurate, not to mention impossible.


Actually, it is both accurate and possible.



The reporter's
responsibility is to accurately report what the experts tell them.


Well, that would be fine, if the reporter limited his source to experts.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...

"gatt" wrote in message
...

That is inaccurate, not to mention impossible.


Actually, it is both accurate and possible.



The reporter's
responsibility is to accurately report what the experts tell them.


Well, that would be fine, if the reporter limited his source to experts.

Real ones...not self-proclaimed experts.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message

"Faux". Engages in deliberate inaccuracy.

Rubbish.

They do. All of the networks do to some degree, if nothing more than the
filtration of what content viewers see. "Sins of omission." No network is
free from s(p)in. Spin, by the way, is deliberate inaccuracy.

Fox NEWS tends to be more conservative, which is interesting because the Fox
network carries more liberal fare than the less conservative news networks
owned by more-liberal parent organizations.

It's very fascinating, but here's the deal: Ollie North. Nothing against
him, and I have an autographed photo that says "To Gatt: Semper Fi - Ollie"
He's a former Marine and admits his own bias. Okay? Who else appears
regularly on Fox, or is a Fox employee? I mean besides openly-conservative
radio hosts Sean Hannity AND Bill O'Reilly? Geraldo frickin' Rivera.
Kicked out of Afghanistan for drawing battle plans in the sand. Okay? Who
else? Mark FURHMAN, who blew one of the most viewed trials in world history
a major reason why OJ Simpson is a free man. Fox makes this guy out to be
an expert. He's a f'ck up. So is "Al Capone's Vault" Rivera.

I've heard Fox anchors refer to Iraqi noncombatants (the ones we're there to
"liberate") as "the bad guys."

No...wait a minute. Now I'M the one critical of the media and other people
are telling ME that the media is accurate.

Okeeeee....

-c