SmokeAndMirrors
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 18,282
- Reaction score
- 16,154
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
OMG. How incredible. Now, after just posting journalistic ethics, you say I just don't understand journalism.
Go harass someone else. It has become impossible to dialogue with you of late.
Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors
Editorializing is not purely for entertainment. It is about allowing the people to hear and share various argumentations or philosophies about our governance. Our public square, if you will. How we change our governance is decided by opinion, so this is rather important.
If that's not part of what journalism does, then explain to me why almost every newspaper, TV news program, and news website in existence for the past several centuries has had an Op/Ed section.
....
You simply don't understand what journalism is...
They can discuss it, opine on it, editorialize on it all they want. But that is not reporting news.
Did I say left or right?
I said ALL news....
...
This exchange speaks volumes:
It would have been nice if she actually understood the question, and responded to it.
Well, I suppose that's one way to look at it.
To others, shutting the guy off and never really letting him speak again while insulting and attacking is just more evidence of CNN's extreme bias and fraud filled efforts.
A professional doing his job would have allowed the guy to make the comment and remained calm, moving on to the next of the 4 guests.
Instead, the idiot blows a gasket and proves what people are saying about CNN.
I'm no fan of Don Lemon's but he was absolutely right and his definition of "fake news" was correct. The story about the cost Of Trump's trips is not fake news. I think it is trivial an unimportant news, but not fake.
Well, you don't. :shrug: And you clearly can't defend how you do, otherwise you'd have done so. Pointing out objective facts to you is "harassment" now?
Fact is, Dennard lied. Fact is, Lemon has a journalistic obligation to correct lies. Fact is, there's nothing about facilitating other people's opinions based on a fact that is at odds with the ethical obligations of a journalist to be truthful.
And you can't defend your denial of any of those things. That's not "harassment." That's you failing to make a logical argument.
Fact: Dennard didn't lie. Fact: Journalism isn't editorializing. Fact: In that segment, Lemon was functioning as an entertainer, not a journalist. Fact: Your bolded sentence makes no sense. Fact: You are not pointing out objective facts. You are expressing your opinion. Learn the difference because this is the whole basis of our disagreement.
looks to me like Don Lemon did his job. he didn't let the "fake news" dodge / talking point slide, and pinned down the guest on it pretty effectively.
The whole fake news claims from Trump is addressed quite effectively by McCain in this response to "Meet the Press"
Fact: Dennard didn't lie. Fact: Journalism isn't editorializing. Fact: In that segment, Lemon was functioning as an entertainer, not a journalist. Fact: Your bolded sentence makes no sense.
Fact: You are not pointing out objective facts. You are expressing your opinion. Learn the difference because this is the whole basis of our disagreement.
Yes, he did. He said the story was fake, when it isn't. If he DIDN'T mean that the story was fake, then he was lying about the definition of the word "fake."
Journalism has included editorializing for literally all of time. You're wrong. Provided it is based on correct information, clearly noted as opinion, and accountable to the public (including by facilitating their opinions), there is nothing about editorializing that contradicts journalistic ethics. There never has been at any point in all of history. Never.
Lemon functioned as facilitator for democratic discussion and gave Dennard a perfectly neutral opening question. He literally just asked him what he thought. It doesn't get more neutral than that. He could have said, "I think this is trivial and requires no action." That would have been a legitimate response. But instead, he lied about the basic definition of basic English words.
Those are all objectively true things. You have done nothing but lie about them, just like Dennard.
My sentence is grammatical and clearly referencing the paragraph immediately before it. If you can't understand it, that's a reading problem on your end. Perhaps your unwillingness to read is why you also don't get what journalism is.
By lying to his guest commentator. He promised him he would let him speak. THen didn't. Why?
Yes, he did. He said the story was fake, when it isn't. If he DIDN'T mean that the story was fake, then he was lying about the definition of the word "fake."
Journalism has included editorializing for literally all of time. You're wrong. Provided it is based on correct information, clearly noted as opinion, and accountable to the public (including by facilitating their opinions), there is nothing about editorializing that contradicts journalistic ethics. There never has been at any point in all of history. Never.
Lemon functioned as facilitator for democratic discussion and gave Dennard a perfectly neutral opening question. He literally just asked him what he thought. It doesn't get more neutral than that. He could have said, "I think this is trivial and requires no action." That would have been a legitimate response. But instead, he lied about the basic definition of basic English words.
Those are all objectively true things. You have done nothing but lie about them, just like Dennard.
My sentence is grammatical and clearly referencing the paragraph immediately before it. If you can't understand it, that's a reading problem on your end. Perhaps your unwillingness to read is why you also don't get what journalism is.
House passes bill that could limit Syrian Refugees. Statue of Liberty bows head in anguish.
Everyone, It was wrong of me to editorialize. My tweet was inappropriate and disrespectful. I sincerely apologize.
McCain is a giant piece of warmongering **** that many Service Members, like myself, hate. He doesn't care about anything but defense contract profits. He's a damned traitor to those who serve and cares nothing for their lives.
Not sure you are correct here. He said it was fake NEWS. In that the story was not news. Just BS anti- Trump hate. Not sure many Lemon supporters will deny that Lemon has been a hater for months on end.
Now if he wants to acknowledge that he is an opinion person like Hannity or Matthews that is fine. To call him a newsperson at this point is a stretch. Same as an editorial writer for a newspaper. There they readily acknowledge the difference. Not sure why some here don't do the same for Lemon.
i saw a host shutting down a dishonest guest. was that the best way to handle it? that's up for debate. when he got shut down, he was repeating his script, so i suppose that's part of why Lemon cut him off.
Editorializing directly contradicts journalistic ethics. You're right about at least one thing, Lemon was functioning as a facilitator, not a journalist. Dennard did not lie. He didn't even get to finish his thought because your "objective journalist" cut him off.
Please show me a link that proves your so-called fact that good journalism involves editorializing.
Editorializing won Elise Labott a two-week suspension from CNN when she tweeted this:
Followed by
https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/tag/editorializing/
And when your argument includes calling me a liar, I'd say it's pretty piss poor. You?
Every single one of your "Facts" -- are not.
Irony enough to make the eyes bleed.
It was an opinion discussion panel, he should have let his guest state his opinion. Don went on a rant about WHATE FAKE NEWS IS, which in and itself completely subjective and irrelevant, and then shut down his guests opinion.
McCain is a giant piece of warmongering **** that many Service Members, like myself, hate. He doesn't care about anything but defense contract profits. He's a damned traitor to those who serve and cares nothing for their lives.
his guest was repeating his script when he got cut off. was that the best way to handle it? as i said, that's debatable.
No it doesn't. Editorials are a standard part of almost every free news organization on earth. Nothing in your little Wiki definition says editorials can't be used, provided they are based on facts and accountable to the people. You're simply wrong.
Furthermore, Lemon didn't editorialize. He gave the definition of a basic English word. Words do have objective meanings, you know.
It was unnecessary for Lemon to let him continue talking, because he had already told a lie that required correction. The story was not fake according to the damn English language.
What Labott did has nothing in common with what Lemon did. Lemon gave a definition for an English word. Labott gave her opinion on a story she was reporting on, which is a big no-no in the journalistic world. She deserved her suspension.
It is factually true that you lied, so no, I don't think it's poor. It's correct.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?