- This topic has 37 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by redblack.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 20, 2016 at 7:06 pm #848253
JKBParticipantJust a quick rant about how the presentation of events gets colored away from simple facts. From PBS NewHour just now (and I think of them as far more neutral than the main networks) “the Senate today failed to pass four gun control…”
Failed. Not ‘refused’, ‘rejected’, ‘did not’, etc. To be clear, I am not talking about whether there should be changes, or whether these were the right ones. Just the portrayal of a No vote as failure.
That’s not journalism. At best it’s an editorial.
June 20, 2016 at 9:04 pm #848262
metrognomeParticipant‘failed to pass’ is both accurate and grammatically correct; in the legislative world, a bill either ‘passes’ or ‘fails to pass’. if you Bing <pass ‘fail to pass’ legislation>, you will see numerous examples of headlines from a variety of sources using the phrase ‘failed to pass’ regarding a variety of issues. Use of terms such as ‘refused’, ‘rejected,’ etc., imply intent that may or may not be true; the Senate did not vote to ‘reject’ a bill just as a jury does not vote on whether a defendant is ‘innocent.’
I think the problem is that NPR is one of the very few organizations that strives to use correct language, esp. when compared to 24/7/365 newsfotainment companies whose bottom line and ability to pay multimillion dollar salaries to their ‘talent’ is based on how loudly they scream and how well they foment dissatisfaction in their followers. We are so used to hearing subtle spin that we no longer recognize it; imagine, if you will, Walter Cronkite saying any of the things that have become commonplace in our soundbite culture,
if I was going to take issue with language, I would take issue with use of the phrase ‘gun control’ as the NRA and conservative politicians have warped this into meaning ‘the gubmint is going to break down your door in the middle of the night and take away your god-given right to own firearms even though you don’t belong to a well-regulated militia.’ I have heard it suggested that ‘lethality control’ is more accurate.
June 21, 2016 at 8:33 am #848305
JoBParticipantNPR is no longer neutral… but yes, they do try to use accurate language…
unfortunately, in this case using accurate language does not reflect the actions taken by the Senate.
June 21, 2016 at 9:35 pm #848389
JKBParticipantSigh… Metronome, where were you going with the “gubmint break down your door” bit?
PBS NewsHour was boring tonight. Was it a slow news day on NPR too?
June 23, 2016 at 2:12 am #848516
metrognomeParticipantnot sure why you are sighing … don’t watch either show.
that’s the NRA ‘leadership’s’ basic message any time anyone mentions (or thinks) ‘gun control’, although they usually pretend to soften it while screaming at the top of their voice. Pretty much every NRA-owned Republican pol has accused Pres. Obama (and now Hillary) of plotting to take away ‘our (right to have) guns,’ which is impossible without amending the constitution, and therefore an outright lie. Not to mention that, in nearly 8 years, Obama has done no such thing.
They even refuse to allow the CDC and other appropriate agencies to conduct research on gun violence, much as they do on auto accidents or the Zika virus. I think the pendulum is swinging and the NRA is soon going to find that every dictatorship is toppled eventually.
Don’t you remember Wayne LaPierre referring to federal agents as ‘jack-booted thugs’; when Wayne refused to apologize or retract his comments, Bush41 tore up his NRA membership card. It’s only gotten worse, except that he has learned to couch his rhetoric.
June 23, 2016 at 6:34 am #848527
SmittyParticipantWhile true they won’t allow CDC to research it was allowed (via executive order) in 2013. They didn’t like the findings, which makes this talking point all the more curious.
June 23, 2016 at 6:46 am #848528
JoBParticipantLittle known secret…
I used t be a member of the NRA
Once upon a time when the NRA focused on gun safetyJune 24, 2016 at 12:08 pm #848702
JoBParticipantsmitty
i urge you to read the actual report you refer to
not just what the talking heads told you was in thereJune 25, 2016 at 9:23 pm #848852
JKBParticipantIt was never my intent to start a thread about gun control, mostly because the conversation would be so dysfunctional. Media bias occurs on many topics.
JoB’s advice to read the docs is valid on many topics as well. Although, I did read this one and found it pretty thin. Lots of proposals for topics to conduct more research on.
Metrognome, your portrayal of gun owners as ignorant hicks and fanatics ignores the behavior of a large number of responsible people, and is generally offensive. Take it somewhere else.
June 25, 2016 at 10:47 pm #848879
JTBParticipantJKB, Hopefully I can relieve you of the need to be offended by Metrognome’s comment which was clearly directed at the NRA leadership and conservative politicians but most certainly not gun owners as you mistakenly thought.
June 26, 2016 at 8:47 am #848917
JoBParticipanthere’s the thing..
it’s long past time we stopped discussing gun ownership as some kind of free right with no strings attached as though that were the only issue
and started talking about how to stop gun deaths…
there is plenty of common ground here.June 26, 2016 at 5:45 pm #848971
metrognomeParticipantJuly 10, 2016 at 12:03 pm #850477
JKBParticipantSome things seem missing in coverage of Dallas. One is that nobody mentions what kind of guns were used. Is an AR-15 news but others aren’t?
And where are the cries of ‘hate crime’ and ‘domestic terrorism’? We sure heard those after Orlando.
July 10, 2016 at 1:26 pm #850490
JanSParticipantand where are the cries of, despite him doing a horrendous thing, using a drone to blow him up before he got a trial. Whatever happened to lesser measures to subdue? Nope, they just blew him up.
and while we’re ast it…there’s this today : http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/dallas-mayor-calls-bs-on-open-carry-it-didnt-help-during-shooting-and-made-things-much-worse/
July 10, 2016 at 2:41 pm #850504
JKBParticipantStart with whether deadly force was justified at that point. If so, the difference between a police handgun and a bomb-carrying robot is just the means of delivery.
Reminder: this thread is not here to debate gun control. But on on the media-bias side, it’s pretty obvious where ufyouonlynews’ sympathies lie. Do they present as responsible news, or as advocacy for a particular view?
Except for the question of control, and whether the robot can be hacked. Urp.
July 11, 2016 at 7:00 am #850560
JoBParticipantso JKB.. if i think you are a terrorist.. are you a terrorist?
and if thinking you are a terrorist makes you one.. do i have the “right ” to kill you to “protect” myself?
by the way.. lest you think this a rhetorical question … i think that anyone carrying a gun in public does so to intimidate and instill “terror”. So the valid question is whether or not i should carry a gun to protect myself from people who “terrorize” me? And.. whether i would be justified in using it?
it seems that some people think that their perception of danger is the only reality… and unfortunately that is a two way street that opens up some really thorny questions.
some people also seem to think their perception of “coverage” is the only reality.
i would like to point out to you that here in West Seattle where the mega flag was not lowered for the victims in Orlando.. it was lowered for the Dallas policemen.
What? that wasn’t “covered” to your standards?
funny.. it wasn’t covered to mine either.. but i suspect i am concerned for entirely different reasons.- This reply was modified 8 years, 11 months ago by JoB.
July 11, 2016 at 8:22 am #850564
TanDLParticipantI’m watching BBC these days for a much more interesting view of our politics.
July 11, 2016 at 12:59 pm #850597
JKBParticipantBut I like rhetorical questions!
To wit, I believe in an objective reality. One is, or is not, a terrorist (or whatever else) regardless of what some person thinks.
I was struck by the different coverage: in Orlando it was discussed as an essential question, and in Dallas it’s not there at all. Same for the hate-crime classification.
JoB, I’m hearing a lot of anger in your post. Mad at me about something?
TanDL, definite yes. Big thumbs-up for the BBC.
July 11, 2016 at 3:16 pm #850602
JoBParticipantno anger JKB..
just an old broad struggling to stay coherant on the kinds of pain meds you get after major surgery..
and thanks. i am doing fineJuly 11, 2016 at 3:18 pm #850603
JoBParticipantLOL.. it’s funny..
the nursing staff and i talked about this..
when my body is stressed to the max the first thing that goes for me is my swearing monitor..
i swear like a trucker when i hurt
it appears that my making nice monitor is impacted too..
oh wellJuly 11, 2016 at 5:20 pm #850616
JKBParticipantNo worries then. Take some drugs, get some sleep…
So I’m watching the Dallas police chief defend using the robot, and musing about what we’re told.
The shooter was black, and killed by police. So does he go into the stats that way? And the police chief is black. Is being killed by a white cop different from being killed by a black cop?
Not sure those are good for discussion. Mostly I’m saying that I mistrust nearly everyone as having ignored confounding factors like that.
July 11, 2016 at 7:18 pm #850624
JoBParticipanti think we are looking at all of the wrong factors..
lone gunman. PTSD. fueled by the hate machines. armed by the NRA.
what could possibly go wrong?July 24, 2016 at 1:09 pm #852086
anthonyjb4ParticipantJuly 28, 2016 at 7:49 pm #852567
redblackParticipanti’ve been watching this thread with bemused interest. the OP intimated – but didn’t assert – that, as a reporting agency, lehrer is biased for gun control.
fine.
typical.
but when asked to discuss the actual substance of the reportage, OP states that the topic is verboten, and proceeds to berate any further attempts at meaningful discussion of the substance of the offending reportage that begat the OP’s claim of media bias…
…even after being shown that “failed to pass” is common vernacular in our nation’s congressional records.
fine.
again: typical of anonymous internet fora.
so, umm, race is now a confounding[sic] factor in the discussion, but we can’t actually talk about gun control?
wtf?
i’m going to ask the OP a pointed, straight-forward, on-topic question:
what is lehrer’s bias?
and, like, too: why do you believe they hold that bias?
July 28, 2016 at 9:54 pm #852593
JKBParticipantGlossary note: ‘lehrer’ is German, meaning ‘teacher’ or possibly ‘redblack wishes to appear erudite’.
‘Confounding’ was used correctly – no need for [sic]. But kudos for using ‘fora’ in a sentence!
I did expect readers to comprehend that media bias in general, or about something specific, is different from the issue said bias is supposedly about.
Otherwise I can only read this as a troll. The thread’s been dead for two weeks.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.