T1B

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2015 5:14 pm**

I wonder if there is really any true journalism left in this country. Sure we all have sources that package and present it to us in a flavor we prefer, but only the weapons grade dumb think their flavor is untainted.

A couple of examples are in the national spotlight today. The Rolling Stone Rape Story is back along with the Harry Reid tax accusation of Romney.

We all know that the Rolling Stone article has been completely destroyed and the investigation into how it was even published was released over the weekend. What is shocking isn't the findings, we all knew it would be bad, but rather the reaction from the magazine to the findings. Per the publisher no one from the author, to the fact checker, to the editor, is going to be fired. The author is currently working on future stories to be published later this year. But the reaction and quotes from the leadership at Rolling Stone are far more concerning than the article itself.

Rolling Stone Managing Editor Will Dana wrote:"It's not like I think we need to overhaul our process, and I don't think we need to necessarily institute a lot of new ways of doing things"

Coco McPherson Rolling Stone Fact-Checking Chief wrote:"I one hundred percent do not think that the policies that we have in place failed. I think decisions were made around those because of the subject matter."

So you don't see anything wrong and it is ok to suspend your policies if the subject matter is of a certain type. Sadly this sounds about right across the spectrum.

The Harry Reid case is back in the cycle because he basically admitted that the ends justified the means. In 2012 when he made the comments on the Senate Floor, he got exactly the reaction he knew he would. I don't blame him for using the press like he did, hell, he would be stupid not to when he knows exactly how they would react. In less than an hour headlines on websites and crawls on the cable news stations read something along the lines of "Reid claims Romney hasn't paid his taxes in a decade."

Only a few short years ago, the media would have asked Reid or his office for the name of the "source" Reid claimed to have heard the info from. They would have held the story until there were some solid verifiable sources to substantiate his claim. They also would have spoken to Romney or his office before running with the story. Not today. Just throw up the quote and wash your hands of it because you are lazy.

This also isn't just a national issue. Look no further than your local newspaper or TV station and you will see the same lack of journalism. Invitations to leave your thoughts on their website or facebook page. That isn't news, its local opinion and a poor representation at that. Its not surprising that local TV news in many markets now has the weather up first on most nights. A decade ago they would tease the weather up front to get people to hang around until the second half of the broadcast. Now with people able to get the weather on their phone, they might as well lead with it hoping people stay around afterwards.

I am not sure how we change this, but until we do we are left to choose the least offensive flavoring for our "news."

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2015 5:33 pm**

Twenty fucking years of Fox News and THIS is what gets your blood boiling?

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2015 5:46 pm**

Which networks did Dan Rather and Brian Williams work for again?

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2015 5:55 pm**

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... news-lies/

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:21 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... news-lies/

I laughed. What a steaming pile.

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2015 7:07 pm**

Sudden Sam wrote:It's both conservatives and liberals buying the "news" they want to hear.

There is little real reporting or investigative work these days that's not tainted by politics.

That was my point. Both sides are guilty.

BSmack wrote:Twenty fucking years of Fox News and THIS is what gets your blood boiling?

Fox News is just a flavor that some enjoy more than others. They are no different than CNN or MSNBC or others when it comes to journalism.

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:51 pm**

mvscal wrote:Which networks did Dan Rather and Brian Williams work for again?

Babs, you know damn well that all of the main networks and nwes services are owned by six corporations..
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6- ... ica-2012-6

And indeed the fact that none of them are allowed to state the obvious falsity of the 9/11 official story--all of the glaring holes, from the controlled demolitions, to the disappearing planes, to the absurdity of the stand down of U.S. air security, etc.

But to compare the main networks like CBS and NBC to FOX is a joke. At least Rather and Williams were actually punished--fired, really--for what amounted to small errors in their statements, no one ever gets fired from FOX--and that's because it makes no pretense of being an actual news service. Rather, as in the manner of Rusp Limpdick or Hannity, It is unabashedly a propaganda valve for the right-wing agenda. Murdoch owns it, of course, and does not try to hide his own hyper-Zionist, war-mongering, trans-national corporate allegiance.

Yours is a false pisssy complaint. As usual.

That said, the reporter from Rolling Stone should be fired. But, as with Judith Miller, also a disgraced fraud who refuses to apologize, she'll be kept in the fold. See any similarities? :wink:

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:57 pm**

And this is a recent phenomenon?

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:15 pm**

Papa Willie wrote:non-biased information...

Posted: **Tue Apr 07, 2015 11:22 pm**

Your press was threatened with "indefinite detention" and arrest...so they tucked their tails between their vagina lips and caved.

Posted: **Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:50 am**

Left Seater wrote:
The Harry Reid case is back in the cycle. In 2012 when he made the comments on the Senate Floor,"

You mean about Mittens? The most toxic stranger in the history of human society? The weirdest, most insulting affront to nature itself?

Let's be clear...Fakeseater...an absolute fraud, and a whore of immeasurable depth..is complaining about what?

WhifhhhZZxhhelldldouudufy^^dsh

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:46 am**

88 wrote:Based on the video, it shouldn't take too long for a jury to send that cop away for the rest of his life.

Yeah, that video really does a great job of portraying what happened before the shooting.

It's a good thing you don't practice criminal law.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:12 am**

Diego in Seattle wrote: It's a good thing you don't practice criminal law.

Neither do you DMViego. How the fuck would you shit about shit?

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:17 am**

88 wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:
88 wrote:Based on the video, it shouldn't take too long for a jury to send that cop away for the rest of his life.
Yeah, that video really does a great job of portraying what happened before the shooting.

It's a good thing you don't practice criminal law.
Alright. I'll play. Unless the guy was running away heavily armed with bad intent (and I read he was apprehended in an unarmed condition), what would justify shooting him in the back?

Fleeing felon ring a bell?

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:20 am**

Cop charged with murder ring one to you?

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:27 am**

R-Jack wrote:Cop charged with murder ring one to you?

Darren Wilson ring a bell to you?

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:30 am**

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:36 am**

Moving Sale wrote:Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others

I'm well aware of that decision, Moving Bowels. Go ahead & tell us how that wouldn't justify the use of deadly force in this case.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:43 am**

He had no weapon and was running away you stupid fuck.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:03 am**

Seriously Diego, are you fucking retarded?

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:13 am**

Moving Sale wrote:He had no weapon and was running away you stupid fuck.

1) Did the officer know that he was unarmed? If you know what the officer knew at the time of the shooting, please explain how you were able to ascertain such information.

2) Is a person who does not possess those weapons described in PC 12020 not capable of inflicting great bodily harm? If not, do tell why.

3) No shit he was running. What part of fleeing don't you understand?

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:16 am**

88 wrote:I think DiS is trolling.

I think we have a winner.

The rest of your take is spot-on. I give cops plenty of leeway when I'm passing armchair judgment. But I'm not a cop-ballsucking-homer, either. A badge isn't carte blanche to be judge, jury, and executioner. A felony warrant isn't grounds for a roadside execution (which my town has had a big problem with over the last 20 years, but getting better).

And the video (which he didn't know about at the time) is all I need to see. Unarmed, running away (from an aggressive cop during a traffic stop)... cut and dried. Fry him, and send a message.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:21 am**

Diego in Seattle wrote: Did the officer know that he was unarmed?

OK, it's been verified. Diego isn't weapons-grade stupid, so the evidence points strongly towards "trolling."

Unless you actually think that everyone who attempts to get away from the cops deserves to be executed (or if the cops says "I think he was trying to flee, and might have been a danger at some later time"). Condoning such behavior creates the most slippery slope in the history of the USA.

Slam dunk case... which the coming months (years) will prove me et al right. Dude's a bag of shit.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:35 am**

Diego in Seattle wrote: 1) Did the officer know that he was unarmed? If you know what the officer knew at the time of the shooting, please explain how you were able to ascertain such information.

Have you stopped to consider who might have that information and weighed it out? Maybe the folks who felt compelled to charge one of their own with murder. I'm willing to ascertain that they have some idea what went down.

Aaron Hernandez's attorney is wondering where you were when they were picking jurors.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:44 am**

88 wrote:But it does not justify a death sentence under any circumstance.

Even with Due Process.

The police should be subservient to the Citizenry... always.

We actually have some archaic wording for that in the Oregon Constitution (kinda sorta -- Oregon Constitution was written by illiterate pioneers, and today contains a whole buncha "[sic]" in it).

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:46 am**

Diego in Seattle wrote:

=

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 4:11 am**

I think its been a pretty easy to pick a side on this one Spray (outside of one twat), even with you trying to bang the drum that the dead guy happened to be a bad guy. His asshole-ness is pretty much irrelevant to the matter.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 4:21 am**

Once again, irrelevant.

I don't want cops shooting motherfuckers in the back because they can.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:46 pm**

Significant dose of stupid in this thread.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:53 pm**

88 wrote:But I guarantee that the reporting was driven in some measure by the shared hatred of the man's politics. Had it been Kennedy or LBJ that was doing those things, the story would have been handled differently.

Wrong. You are a fool to believe otherwise.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:55 pm**

88 wrote:I think DiS is trolling. I am shocked that anyone would watch that video and believe that the shooting was justifiable. It was a traffic stop gone bad. Jesus, the cop has a radio and lots of other cops with radios and cars that could have corralled the fleeing driver. I generally give the police a lot of latitude because they deal with an enormous amount of shit. But I cannot think of any reasonable justification for launching 8 rounds at that guy. I think the cop will be going bye-bye for a long, long time.

There is nothing Diego loves more than sucking correction officer union and police union crank. It's amazing.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:03 pm**

Nice white flag, midget sale.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:24 pm**

Screw_Michigan wrote:
There is nothing Diego loves more than sucking correction officer union and police union crank. It's amazing.

So much so that Wags is feverishly taking notes for the next time the UAW is discussed here.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2015 7:00 pm**

Screw_Michigan wrote:
88 wrote:I think DiS is trolling. I am shocked that anyone would watch that video and believe that the shooting was justifiable. It was a traffic stop gone bad. Jesus, the cop has a radio and lots of other cops with radios and cars that could have corralled the fleeing driver. I generally give the police a lot of latitude because they deal with an enormous amount of shit. But I cannot think of any reasonable justification for launching 8 rounds at that guy. I think the cop will be going bye-bye for a long, long time.
There is nothing Diego loves more than sucking correction officer union and police union crank. It's amazing.

What if the union police officer shot a Boeing union employee?

Posted: **Fri Apr 10, 2015 8:43 pm**

At issue here is not whether the cop blatantly shot him in the back and then shamelessly planted the taser next to him after cuffing him...no this is all on tape. Rather, the question, Is Journalism Dead, should be rephrased, Is Journalism Completely Compromised?

The use of the media--and its willing compliance--were on full and painful display immediately after the shooting. Remember, it took a couple days for the tape to surface.
file:///C:/Users/NS/Downloads/Until%20Shooting%20Video%20Surfaced%20Media%20Swallowed%20Police%20Fantasy%20(1).htm

Consider, just as you see how the machinery was routinely utilized to protect the cops and their utter lies, so too were we fed the instant pile-on of total bullshit about 9/11. Don't you recall how immediate and with what uniformity the media signed on to the "19 hijackers" story? Even though the only evidence that any of these guys were anywhere near the event was the miraculous recovery of an intact passport in the wreckage of the WTC tower? But, as with this initial story--but for the surfaced tape--you would have believed the official story of the man "struggling for the officer's taser--and turning it on him before fleeing"..

WW

Posted: **Fri Apr 10, 2015 10:18 pm**

88 wrote:
The Press is not blind to politics.

good one!

Posted: **Fri Apr 10, 2015 10:27 pm**

88 wrote:I think DiS is trolling.

No, he's not. He is a genuine cop-sucking holster sniffer whose idea of a good time is squatting on a police baton with his nose inserted in a badge monkey's indifferently wiped bunghole while CHiPs reruns play in the background.

T1B

Is journalism completely dead?

Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?

Re: Is journalism completely dead?