The Madness Continues
Comments
-
Maybe it is madness, maybe it is blindness provided by God. Whatever, it is absurd.
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
― Søren Kierkegaard"Fools may have the greatest repository of knowledge but will never attain wisdom."
― Caleb Ricketts“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
― Mark Twain
-
@GaoLu said:
Maybe it is madness, maybe it is blindness provided by God. Whatever, it is absurd.“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
― Søren Kierkegaard"Fools may have the greatest repository of knowledge but will never attain wisdom."
― Caleb Ricketts“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
― Mark Twain
GaoLu,
Whatever you're trying to convey, may the readers understand. On the other hand,
it's may have been madness that caused the recent death of 17-people, but it's not blindness, absurdness, foolishness, or lack of wisdom to mourn the loss of those that died. If it too soon to just discuss "commonsense gun-laws" or changes; God knows it is too soon to justify the NRA rightness of Republican politicians behaviors in relating to grieving students. Please, allow the flowers to wither on the graves of those recently buried. CM -
@C_M_ said:
GaoLu,Whatever you're trying to convey, may the readers understand. On the other hand,
it's may have been madness that caused the recent death of 17-people, but it's not blindness, absurdness, foolishness, or lack of wisdom to mourn the loss of those that died. If it too soon to just discuss "commonsense gun-laws" or changes; God knows it is too soon to justify the NRA rightness of Republican politicians behaviors in relating to grieving students. Please, allow the flowers to wither on the graves of those recently buried. CMI certainly agree with your point, so much so that it was my own point! MSNBC and CNN (see related thread) were holding meetings, politicizing the event. The way I understood it, they were using the event and the pain of it wretchedly attacking the wrong targets and using children and emotion to do so. I find that reprehensible. People like Rubio tried to offer some peace and suggestions and common sense to the whole melee. He got trashed for his effort as well. What a shame. I agree. Allow a little grief and time and stop politicising grief. Then we can work on social matters with logic and clear heads.
-
@C_M_ said:
@GaoLu said:
Maybe it is madness, maybe it is blindness provided by God. Whatever, it is absurd.“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
― Søren Kierkegaard"Fools may have the greatest repository of knowledge but will never attain wisdom."
― Caleb Ricketts“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
― Mark Twain
GaoLu,
Whatever you're trying to convey, may the readers understand. On the other hand,
it's may have been madness that caused the recent death of 17-people, but it's not blindness, absurdness, foolishness, or lack of wisdom to mourn the loss of those that died. If it too soon to just discuss "commonsense gun-laws" or changes; God knows it is too soon to justify the NRA rightness of Republican politicians behaviors in relating to grieving students. Please, allow the flowers to wither on the graves of those recently buried. CMExcept guns are not the main issue here. Yes, it was the weapon used, but it was NOT the underlying problem in this situation. You could have prevented this without a single line of more gun control. You could have also prevented the Texas shooting without a single line of more gun control. Even Sandy Hook could have been prevented without a single line of more gun control.
-
The fact that Van Jones even still has a job in media is amazing...
-
And a perfect example why these people should not have a national voice right now. It is too emotional and they are irrational.
-
I experience this MSNBC clip as that of a news anchor trying to understand what's happening - in the parlance of the day, it's called "breaking news." It's clearly a loud and chaotic scene, in which the governor's staff people are doing little to pass along the facts about the governor's whereabouts. Tur makes of it what she can, what she's been told, and in the end, within a few minutes relays the fact of the governor's presence at a funeral, clearly, as soon as that info reaches her ear.
"Breaking news" coverage is, by definition, chaotic and unpredictable. What would you have networks do? Not report the information shared with them on the scene of an event until the veracity of that information is formally confirmed?
And notice that MSNBC offered the correct information as soon as it reached them. Has President Trump EVER offered a SINGLE correction of the hundreds - make that, thousands - of false things he's said? No.
For example, in his CPAC speech today, the president contended that among the evidence that supports his assertion that "our country is starting to do very well" is the fact that "wages are rising for the first time in many, many years."
Real wages DID rise in 2017, the first year of the president's term. But they also rose in 2014, 2015, and 2016. Will the president offer a correction to his remarks as quickly as Katy Tur corrected the information about the governor's whereabouts that her network passed along to its viewers? No. Because for the president, truth is whatever he last said it was, and because for "mainstream media" critics, a single - albeit, quickly corrected - MSM news network broadcast of incorrect information is FAR WORSE than a president's thirteen month unending parade of falsehoods.
-
@Bill_Coley said: Will the president offer a correction to his remarks as quickly as Katy Tur corrected the information about the governor's whereabouts that her network passed along to its viewers? No. Because for the president, truth is whatever he last said it was, and because for "mainstream media" critics, a single - albeit, quickly corrected - MSM news network broadcast of incorrect information is FAR WORSE than a president's thirteen month unending parade of falsehoods.
Sad! CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Real wages DID rise in 2017, the first year of the president's term. But they also rose in 2014, 2015, and 2016. Will the president offer a correction to his remarks as quickly as Katy Tur corrected the information about the governor's whereabouts that her network passed along to its viewers? No. Because for the president, truth is whatever he last said it was, and because for "mainstream media" critics, a single - albeit, quickly corrected - MSM news network broadcast of incorrect information is FAR WORSE than a president's thirteen month unending parade of falsehoods.
Wow, what a deflection of the topic. Good grief.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said:
Real wages DID rise in 2017, the first year of the president's term. But they also rose in 2014, 2015, and 2016. Will the president offer a correction to his remarks as quickly as Katy Tur corrected the information about the governor's whereabouts that her network passed along to its viewers? No. Because for the president, truth is whatever he last said it was, and because for "mainstream media" critics, a single - albeit, quickly corrected - MSM news network broadcast of incorrect information is FAR WORSE than a president's thirteen month unending parade of falsehoods.
Wow, what a deflection of the topic. Good grief.
Since I disagree with you as to relevance of my example, I guess I have to contend that it was bad grief, David.
You posted a link to a Townhall story about an MSNBC anchor who received and promptly passed along a correction to the network's previously-offered surmise of the Florida governor's whereabouts and actions. In the process of asking what more you expect a news anchor to do than to correct factual errors as corrections become available (a question you chose not to address) I pointed to an example a very different approach to handling corrections - the example of the president's frequent and never-corrected falsehoods - with the point of suggesting that if you object to MSNBC's delivery of false-but-corrected information, you must have a VERY negative response to the president's habit of distributing uncorrected falsehoods. But I shouldn't assume; I should ask. Do you have a very negative response to the president's habit of distributing falsehoods that are never corrected?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said:
Real wages DID rise in 2017, the first year of the president's term. But they also rose in 2014, 2015, and 2016. Will the president offer a correction to his remarks as quickly as Katy Tur corrected the information about the governor's whereabouts that her network passed along to its viewers? No. Because for the president, truth is whatever he last said it was, and because for "mainstream media" critics, a single - albeit, quickly corrected - MSM news network broadcast of incorrect information is FAR WORSE than a president's thirteen month unending parade of falsehoods.
Wow, what a deflection of the topic. Good grief.
Since I disagree with you as to relevance of my example, I guess I have to contend that it was bad grief, David.
You posted a link to a Townhall story about an MSNBC anchor who received and promptly passed along a correction to the network's previously-offered surmise of the Florida governor's whereabouts and actions. In the process of asking what more you expect a news anchor to do than to correct factual errors as corrections become available (a question you chose not to address) I pointed to an example a very different approach to handling corrections - the example of the president's frequent and never-corrected falsehoods - with the point of suggesting that if you object to MSNBC's delivery of false-but-corrected information, you must have a VERY negative response to the president's habit of distributing uncorrected falsehoods. But I shouldn't assume; I should ask. Do you have a very negative response to the president's habit of distributing falsehoods that are never corrected?
Yes, when he is actually proven false, not when the WAPO spins it to be false.
-
I really wonder at the lucidity of a population that swallows the news today. Yet, there are some who do!
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Yes, when he is actually proven false, not when the WAPO spins it to be false.To my knowledge, not even the president himself, let alone anyone on the White House staff, disputes the Post's collection of Trumpian falsehoods. Neither does the White House protest the the New York Times' own annotated list.
Since you now claim to have a "very negative response" when the president says things that are "actually proven false," I'm guessing you live in a constant state of disapproval given that the president lies even more often than we experience mass shootings in this country.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Yes, when he is actually proven false, not when the WAPO spins it to be false.To my knowledge, not even the president himself, let alone anyone on the White House staff, disputes the Post's collection of Trumpian falsehoods. Neither does the White House protest the the New York Times' own annotated list.
Since you now claim to have a "very negative response" when the president says things that are "actually proven false," I'm guessing you live in a constant state of disapproval given that the president lies even more often than we experience mass shootings in this country.
The fact that you are so focused on him than the actual issue this thread is about is very revealing about you.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
The fact that you are so focused on him than the actual issue this thread is about is very revealing about you.It probably is.
Now YOU have yet to respond to my analysis of the Townhall story to which you provided a link, the one about MSNBC's handling of the Florida governor's whereabouts. Am I correct to assume you'll say that that's "very revealing about you"?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
The fact that you are so focused on him than the actual issue this thread is about is very revealing about you.It probably is.
Now YOU have yet to respond to my analysis of the Townhall story to which you provided a link, the one about MSNBC's handling of the Florida governor's whereabouts. Am I correct to assume you'll say that that's "very revealing about you"?
My analysis is that news organizations need to quit breaking news stories before they have the facts. It's idiotic and poor journalism.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
My analysis is that news organizations need to quit breaking news stories before they have the facts. It's idiotic and poor journalism.
Revisit my post on the matter and I bet you'll note that I referenced the chaotic nature of "breaking news." The alternative to occasional (rare) errant reports are summary newscasts 24 hours after events are over. That's NOT how journalism works in the modern world. In addition, the best way to respond to such errant reporting is to do as MSNBC did, report the corrected information ASAP.
Closing the other circle in our exchange, I now take it that you think it's "idiotic and poor presidenting" for Mr Trump to make false statements, statements that don't reflect "the facts," especially since he's not under any competitive pressure to "break news"? (I'm only checking for consistency in your views, David!)
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
My analysis is that news organizations need to quit breaking news stories before they have the facts. It's idiotic and poor journalism.
Revisit my post on the matter and I bet you'll note that I referenced the chaotic nature of "breaking news." The alternative to occasional (rare) errant reports are summary newscasts 24 hours after events are over. That's NOT how journalism works in the modern world. In addition, the best way to respond to such errant reporting is to do as MSNBC did, report the corrected information ASAP.
It is how journalism works, just not how it is practiced. Journalists should start practicing good journalism not just I better get this out first.
Closing the other circle in our exchange, I now take it that you think it's "idiotic and poor presidenting" for Mr Trump to make false statements, statements that don't reflect "the facts," especially since he's not under any competitive pressure to "break news"? (I'm only checking for consistency in your views, David!)
Stay on topic Bill.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
It is how journalism works, just not how it is practiced. Journalists should start practicing good journalism not just I better get this out first.There is a significant difference between live reporting of ongoing incidents and researched reporting, such as the many stories the Washington Post and NY Times have published about the conduct of Trump campaign members during and since the election. It is no more fair to hold those two kinds of reporting to identical standards than it is to hold members of Congress to identical standards for both their comments about proposed legislation they HAVE read and the bills they haven't read.
Stay on topic Bill.
I give you credit for the creative ways you find to avoid answering questions, David - usually, the questions whose truthful answers would show weaknesses or, as in this case, inconsistencies, in your views.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
It is how journalism works, just not how it is practiced. Journalists should start practicing good journalism not just I better get this out first.There is a significant difference between live reporting of ongoing incidents and researched reporting, such as the many stories the Washington Post and NY Times have published about the conduct of Trump campaign members during and since the election. It is no more fair to hold those two kinds of reporting to identical standards than it is to hold members of Congress to identical standards for both their comments about proposed legislation they HAVE read and the bills they haven't read.
Let's get some perspective here.
How often do you think you can waltz up to a Governer's office and just demand to be seen? No rational person would conclude that. It doesn't normally happen. So the students are wrong right from the start to think that was going to happen.
Second, there was no indication that the Governor was refusing to speak with the students, just that he could not do it today because he was too busy. But that isn't what MSNBC said. They could have just stuck with what they said at first that the governor was too busy, but they changed it.
Third, there is a proper way to do things in this country and what those students did was ridiculous and anything but proper. They wanted to get on tv, to have their moment in the spotlight.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Let's get some perspective here.How often do you think you can waltz up to a Governer's office and just demand to be seen? No rational person would conclude that. It doesn't normally happen. So the students are wrong right from the start to think that was going to happen.
The Townhall article to which you linked concerned MSNBC's journalistic conduct as it covered the students' efforts to speak with their governor. What does your assertion that "no rational person would conclude" that he or she could "waltz up to a governer's office" have to do with MSNBC's journalistic conduct in its coverage of those efforts?
Second, there was no indication that the Governor was refusing to speak with the students, just that he could not do it today because he was too busy. But that isn't what MSNBC said. They could have just stuck with what they said at first that the governor was too busy, but they changed it.
I encourage you to replay the tape, David:
- By about the 0:20 mark, MSNBC anchor Katy Tur reports that "apparently" "a blonde woman wearing glasses came out" and told the students that the governor was "too busy."
- At around the 0:40 mark, Tur concludes the governor is "refusing to speak" with the students.
- At about the 2:28 mark, Tur apologizes for mis-identifying the "blonde woman wearing glasses" as an employee of the governor's office, and correctly identifies her as part of the student group.
- At the 3:35 mark, Tur again apologizes as she informs her audience that the governor's office has called the network to inform it that the governor is at a funeral for one of the shooting victims.
So, it takes the network about three minutes to correct both its mis-identification of a woman at the chaotic scene and its surmise of the governor's unwillingness to meet with the students.
To me, that sounds like appropriate transparency and accountability in an emotional and chaotic news scene. I expect you disagree.
We probably also disagree as to whether presidents of the United States should correct their mis-statements and falsehoods within three minutes, three weeks, three months, or ever.
Third, there is a proper way to do things in this country and what those students did was ridiculous and anything but proper. They wanted to get on tv, to have their moment in the spotlight.
What does your assertion that "there is a proper way to do things in this country" have to do with MSNBC's journalistic conduct in its coverage of the way(s) the students did thing, the subject of the Townhall article to which you provided a link?
