On Election Eve the Repub Congressional Candidate for Montana's Only House Seat "BodySlams" Reporter
-
Do we just forget Fox News' coverage of the Bush Administration? How about Rush, Bill, Glenn & Hannity? These all unbiased far right journalists? Can we at least be honest in here.
Rush Limbaugh: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Bill O'Reilly: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Sean Hannity: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Glen Beck: Not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
These guys are commentators. They give out their opinions and they are free to do so because they only claim to be commentators and not journalists. It is on the left where journalists have gone off the rails of being unbiased reporters to activists and making commentary when journalists should not be doing that.
Rush Limbaugh: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Bill O'Reilly: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Sean Hannity: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Glen Beck: Not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
These guys are commentators. They give out their opinions and they are free to do so because they only claim to be commentators and not journalists. It is on the left where journalists have gone off the rails of being unbiased reporters to activists and making commentary when journalists should not be doing that.
I started with Beck. First link...
And let's be real, these people are on a NEWS station. Whether or not they call themselves journalists, their viewers treat them as such.
-
Rush Limbaugh: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Bill O'Reilly: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Sean Hannity: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Glen Beck: Not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
These guys are commentators. They give out their opinions and they are free to do so because they only claim to be commentators and not journalists. It is on the left where journalists have gone off the rails of being unbiased reporters to activists and making commentary when journalists should not be doing that.
I started with Beck. First link...
And let's be real, these people are on a NEWS station. Whether or not they call themselves journalists, their viewers treat them as such.
The difference between reporting and commentaryI started with Beck. First link...
And let's be real, these people are on a NEWS station. Whether or not they call themselves journalists, their viewers treat them as such.
Journalists are held to a very high standard of ethics and are expected to meet that standard on a daily basis. It is a fair assumption to make; after all, we are trusted to report the truth of what is happening in the world we live in, and what we say carries an enormous impact.
The public has a right to expect the best from us. But the public also needs to be aware of a particularly distinct division between journalists when they seek to enforce a standard of excellence.
The primary division between us is that of reporters and commentators, which essentially splits us into the “news” section of the newspaper, and the “opinion” section. More often than not, the public treats both sections as if they are one and the same.
I’ll be blunt: they are not the same thing. I do not report the news; I give my opinion on the news. The Collegian’s reporters report the news; they do not give their opinions on it. To insinuate otherwise does a disservice to both you the reader and the newspaper as a whole.
There are different standards for each desk. Reporters are expected to seek the truth and report it, usually as it happens or shortly after it happens. They must, therefore, find as many aspects of a story as they can. If there is a conflict (and usually there is) they must fairly represent both sides of that conflict where possible. Both sides have a unique angle to add to the story, and the public needs that to make up their own minds about the story.
For columnists, the news has already been reported and our job is to provide our perspective on it. If there is a conflict involved in the news, we tend to fall on one side or the other and we structure our opinions accordingly. Our job is to provide a bit of color to the story, share a unique perspective on the story, or explain why we think the story is a non-issue.
We take sides because that is what we are supposed to do. That’s our job. You don’t look for an opinion columnist that doesn’t express an opinion; that’s like looking for a teacher that doesn’t teach, or a taxi driver that doesn’t drive a taxi.
I tend to see examples of people falsely equating news and opinion when they start complaining about bias in the media. My liberal friends complain that FOX News is biased because of people like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. My conservative friends complain that MSNBC is biased because of people like Rachel Maddow and Ed Shultz. Are these people biased? Definitely. Are they reporters? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Their job is to say, “I’m a liberal/conservative and here’s what I think of the news,” not, “Here is objective news.”
News and opinion writers both publish articles they believe to be the truth about an issue. But here’s the difference: reporters would cover a debate about gay marriage, whereas columnists would take one side or another — sometimes neither.
Does this mean that we are forgiven for poor fact checking, or simply making things up? No, absolutely not. Our opinions would have no weight otherwise, and nobody (not just the people who disagree with us) could take us seriously. Columnists adhere to the same standard of accuracy that reporters do (we do make mistakes from time to time, but we’re human just like everyone else) — we just look at the world through a particular lens.
There are many, many valid complaints to be made about commentators like my staff and me. I’ve heard a lot of them in the relatively short time that I’ve been at the Collegian and they are definitely complaints that I myself have made before arriving here.
Are we sometimes given more influence than we should have? Yes. Do we sometimes come off as arrogant and dismissive? You betcha. (Although, to be fair, that’s a complaint that fits just about anyone who works in the public spotlight). Do we occasionally give the impression that we have an axe to grind? Sure.
But that’s what we are supposed to do. Conflating us with reporters does you a disservice. If you’re looking for news in the opinion section, you’re going to be disappointed. If you point to the opinion section as a poor standard of reporting, you’d be correct because we aren’t reporting.
There is a big difference. Knowing that difference helps you become a more savvy media consumer, which is something that we sorely need in today’s society.
https://collegian.com/2013/02/the-difference-between-reporting-and-commentary/
-
Right, great copy and paste.
You said he never claimed to be. He clearly has. It's on video.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Do we just forget Fox News' coverage of the Bush Administration? How about Rush, Bill, Glenn & Hannity? These all unbiased far right journalists? Can we at least be honest in here.
Rush Limbaugh: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Bill O'Reilly: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Sean Hannity: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Glen Beck: Not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
These guys are commentators. They give out their opinions and they are free to do so because they only claim to be commentators and not journalists. It is on the left where journalists have gone off the rails of being unbiased reporters to activists and making commentary when journalists should not be doing that.
Rush Limbaugh: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Bill O'Reilly: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Sean Hannity: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Glen Beck: Not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
These guys are commentators. They give out their opinions and they are free to do so because they only claim to be commentators and not journalists. It is on the left where journalists have gone off the rails of being unbiased reporters to activists and making commentary when journalists should not be doing that.
They were on Fox News not Fox Commentary
-
Right, great copy and paste.
You said he never claimed to be. He clearly has. It's on video.
Right, great copy and paste.
You said he never claimed to be. He clearly has. It's on video.
Its srsly time to stop conversing with "those people". Obf is obviously one of them. Im dead serious is there another browns board that has a poly section and isnt populated by whining snowflakes protected by board admins?
-
Rush Limbaugh: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Bill O'Reilly: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Sean Hannity: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Glen Beck: Not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
These guys are commentators. They give out their opinions and they are free to do so because they only claim to be commentators and not journalists. It is on the left where journalists have gone off the rails of being unbiased reporters to activists and making commentary when journalists should not be doing that.
They were on Fox News not Fox Commentary
They were on Fox News not Fox Commentary
And Fox news is separated with their hard news dept and those who do commentary and editorials.
-
Right, great copy and paste.
You said he never claimed to be. He clearly has. It's on video.
Its srsly time to stop conversing with "those people". Obf is obviously one of them. Im dead serious is there another browns board that has a poly section and isnt populated by whining snowflakes protected by board admins?
Its srsly time to stop conversing with "those people". Obf is obviously one of them. Im dead serious is there another browns board that has a poly section and isnt populated by whining snowflakes protected by board admins?
Cleve read your own post^^^^^ Who is acting like the snowflake?
-
OBF, will you acknowledge that Beck referred to himself as a journalist or not?
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Right, great copy and paste.
You said he never claimed to be. He clearly has. It's on video.
Right, great copy and paste.
You said he never claimed to be. He clearly has. It's on video.
I copy and paste for those who don't read the links which you didn't do as what I copied and pasted clearly laid out the differences between those who do commentary versus those who are journalists.
-
OBF, will you acknowledge that Beck referred to himself as a journalist or not?
If Beck refers to himself as a journalist and he gives his opinions on subjects (which he does) then by definition he is not a journalist whether he claims it or not.
-
Do we just forget Fox News' coverage of the Bush Administration? How about Rush, Bill, Glenn & Hannity? These all unbiased far right journalists? Can we at least be honest in here.
Rush Limbaugh: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Bill O'Reilly: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Sean Hannity: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Glen Beck: Not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
These guys are commentators. They give out their opinions and they are free to do so because they only claim to be commentators and not journalists. It is on the left where journalists have gone off the rails of being unbiased reporters to activists and making commentary when journalists should not be doing that.
ugh.... AND I QUOTE
Glen Beck: Not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
This is objectively false. I posted a video where Beck refers to himself as a journalist.
Will you admit that you were incorrect?
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
So by def then hardly anybody on tv is a "journalist". So no more complaining about the msm
-
ugh.... AND I QUOTE
Glen Beck: Not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
This is objectively false. I posted a video where Beck refers to himself as a journalist.
Will you admit that you were incorrect?
ugh.... AND I QUOTE
This is objectively false. I posted a video where Beck refers to himself as a journalist.
Will you admit that you were incorrect?
LOL Woody I was correct and incorrect. None of those guys are journalists but it looks like Beck at one time claimed to be one (and at other times claimed he wasn't) when by definition he is not. BTW - nobody I saw was buying that Beck was a journalist either.
By definition of what journalists are you can see with the biased reporting today there are few real journalists out there. Real journalists don't take sides or report 90 percent negative stories about Trump because they don't like him.
-
So by def then hardly anybody on tv is a "journalist". So no more complaining about the msm
So by def then hardly anybody on tv is a "journalist". So no more complaining about the msm
Too many claim to be journalists today when they aren't. My primary complaint is the dishonesty among those who call themselves journalists. I don't have a problem with commentators because they are not being dishonest. Too much dishonest reporting is going on today.
-
Any good P I attorney will tell you to go to straight to the emergency room.
He should probably sue Donald Trump because according to the left wing media it's his fault.
?
WSS
Any good P I attorney will tell you to go to straight to the emergency room.
He should probably sue Donald Trump because according to the left wing media it's his fault.
Our President certainly was a tone setter during the campaign. Although last I heard he's yet to pick up the legal fees for a couple "supporters". But what's one more campaign promise down the drain.
It is hard for democrats to win in Montana but Montana does have a democrat governor.
What may have really helped the republican Gianforte was the early voting with most voters already having voted before the assault incident. But early voting is something the democrats always want because it helps them but in this case it hurt them. How many would have switched their votes on election day if they had the chance?
... and one of Montana's two US Senators is a Dem... Testor... who IIRC was a former Governor.
The early voting certainly did not hurt Gianforte's chances, but there was a disappointing amount of "deserved it" evident in voter interviews. But since we needed another billionaire in Congress, I guess the right man won...
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Any good P I attorney will tell you to go to straight to the emergency room.
He should probably sue Donald Trump because according to the left wing media it's his fault.
Our President certainly was a tone setter during the campaign. Although last I heard he's yet to pick up the legal fees for a couple "supporters". But what's one more campaign promise down the drain.
It is hard for democrats to win in Montana but Montana does have a democrat governor.
What may have really helped the republican Gianforte was the early voting with most voters already having voted before the assault incident. But early voting is something the democrats always want because it helps them but in this case it hurt them. How many would have switched their votes on election day if they had the chance?
... and one of Montana's two US Senators is a Dem... Testor... who IIRC was a former Governor.
The early voting certainly did not hurt Gianforte's chances, but there was a disappointing amount of "deserved it" evident in voter interviews. But since we needed another billionaire in Congress, I guess the right man won...
Our President certainly was a tone setter during the campaign. Although last I heard he's yet to pick up the legal fees for a couple "supporters". But what's one more campaign promise down the drain.
... and one of Montana's two US Senators is a Dem... Testor... who IIRC was a former Governor.
The early voting certainly did not hurt Gianforte's chances, but there was a disappointing amount of "deserved it" evident in voter interviews. But since we needed another billionaire in Congress, I guess the right man won...
...or Montana didn't want another socialist in congress?
-
there is no mounting evidence, just mounting hostility at losing the election and
the undoing of Obamao's marxist attempts at "transforming" our country.
sore losers. dang.
there is no mounting evidence, just mounting hostility at losing the election and the undoing of Obamao's marxist attempts at "transforming" our country.
sore losers. dang.
Your desperate generalizations are approaching panic level.
No perhaps about it I have been consistent about condemning violence. And Paul Ryan is a RINO and Cal is right there is no mounting evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. This investigation has been going on for a year or so and still there in no evidence to support collusion. None.
Fighting the Politicized, Evidence-Free ‘Collusion with Russia’ NarrativeRead more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447915/trump-russia-collusion-john-brennan-testimony-how-fight-politicized-narrative
If Ryan is a "RINO", I have no idea what a Republican looks like anymore...
As for evidence... Direct smoking gun? No... Plenty of smoke? Yes... and, IMO, it's getting thicker.
But the real question is why the rush? Investigations into Benhgazi began within days of the 2012 attack in various Congressional Committees including: Armed Services Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee, Intelligence Committee, and Oversight and Government Reform Committee
A House Select Committee was formed in May of 2014.
The House Select Committee issued its final report in June, 2016... over two years after its formation and nearly four years after the first committee hearings.
So why the rush now?
-
"Students of politics know that Ryan has long benefited from his reputation as a conservative, but the question that needs to be asked is, conservative compared to what? In recent years, at least, his reputation has been undeserved. Ryan is a conservative only in the dual sense that he supports the status quo and that his policy objectives and votes in the House of Representatives are to the right of the overwhelmingly left-wing and radical left-wing members of the media-entertainment-academia complex.
When it comes to actually doing things instead of just flapping one's lips, Ryan is somewhere between a liberal and a mushy moderate. In choosing a successor to John Boehner (R-Ohio), it is essential that Ryan be judged by his actual deeds, not just by his public image.
Whether Ryan is a RINO depends on where you sit. As a colleague reminds me daily – no, make that hourly – the RINO epithet is not primarily an ideological descriptor. A "Republican In Name Only" is first and foremost a self-identified Republican who refuses to fight. For example, no serious person would argue that Rudy Giuliani, who is out of step with most Republicans on abortion and gun control, is a RINO. Rudy, who is willing to take the fight to his adversaries, is about as tough as they come.
Ryan is certainly no wimp. He definitely has a lot of fight in him. But on issues of importance, he's regularly working against conservative goals.
Fighting for the right ideas is a key distinction between conservative Republicans and Republicans In Name Only. RINOs won't fight for the conservative beliefs they claim to hold, so they become experts at lying. To remain in power, they have to be adept at fooling the party's base into believing they are serious, committed conservatives. They get away with it most of the time because even among the better-informed members of the base, not too many assiduously track how lawmakers vote.
RINOs excel at paying lip service to conservative stances. When pressed, they rain down a blizzard of excuses for why Republicans can't do the right thing: we don't have the majority we need; we don't have the super-majority we need; we don't have both houses of Congress; we don't have the White House; we don't have the Supreme Court; and so on. And then there are the whispered and unspoken excuses of the cowardly: we don't want to be called racist or mean or the Party of No, and we don't want to alienate women or Latinos or blacks or illegal aliens who will be voters one day.
If Paul Ryan isn't a RINO, he at least has some powerful RINO tendencies.
Ryan currently receives a "Liberty Score" of just 58 percent from the Conservative Review website, which corresponds to a failing grade of "F."
According to Conservative Review:
He opposes crony capitalism in theory, but this has not stopped him from endorsing bailouts for banks and the auto industry, as well as a failed stimulus package. He continually supports status quo transportation spending, and even led the charge in the House to make amnesty a reality. Friendly Republicans will defend Ryan’s consistent moves to the middle as “pragmatic,” but the policy results are the same—gains for a big government agenda. (Mediaite) While Ryan may have an eye toward a more conservative governing vision, and would one day like to see that vision realized, it is a mistake to see him as an enemy of Speaker Boehner or the establishment—he simply provides no true contrast to their culture of surrender.
Ryan wanted to reduce veterans' earned benefits instead of cutting unearned welfare benefits for illegal aliens.Seriously? What kind of coservative does that?"
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/paul_ryan_a_poor_choice_for_speaker.html
-
Caoatse doesnt know what a libertarian is. And per usual he wont educate himself. Libertarians are socially liberal coatse, u ignorant sock puppet
Caoatse doesnt know what a libertarian is. And per usual he wont educate himself. Libertarians are socially liberal coatse, u ignorant sock puppet
Basic difference between "reading" and "reading comprehension"... but when handicapped by an entrenched ideological filter, the bridge between the two is long and tenuous...
Fox is/was right down the middle....
For as long as I have listened to Chris Wallace, this has been true of him. Pretty much ditto for Shep Smith... Brett Baier? Close, but there's a reason he's had to issue as many retractions and corrections as he has.
Rush Limbaugh: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Bill O'Reilly: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Sean Hannity: not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
Glen Beck: Not a journalist, never claimed to be one.
These guys are commentators. They give out their opinions and they are free to do so because they only claim to be commentators and not journalists. It is on the left where journalists have gone off the rails of being unbiased reporters to activists and making commentary when journalists should not be doing that.
I might give you Bill-O... and maybe Beck, if I'm in an extra generous mood... as commentating...
But Sean and Rush are entertainers. They lack true conviction in their views... they blow wherever the winds of their following, take them. This year it was to Trump. To Sean's credit, he saw the trend much earlier than Rush did.
But the entertainer label was not always applicable to Rush. Once upon a time he actually constructed Beck-style arguments. I used to listen to him a couple mornings a week while commuting.in the late-70s/early-80s. Until he found out he did not have to work so hard; he just needed to be more assertive, more outrageous... so long as he picked the right targets... I mean... correct left targets...
-
Your desperate generalizations are approaching panic level. Dreamer Tourish
But Sean and Rush are entertainers. They lack true conviction in their views... they blow wherever the winds of their following, take them. This year it was to Trump. To Sean's credit, he saw the trend much earlier than Rush did.
****************************************************************
yep. liberals see the world emotionally - reality doesn't set in - they don't think.
I've been listening to Rush and Hannity, etc.. for years. Never once have I figured they didn't believe what
they were saying.
That's old liberal slant silliness. "Oh, those who oppose us aren't sincere, and they secretly know our feelings
are exact, they are just posturing and..."
anything to discredit real opinions that make liberal emoting look worse than "out there"
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login