Lame Stream Media or: How journalists failed America. The Lara Logan Story

[GRT]

www.google.com

[Correction]

You want good journalism? Stop reading free news on the internet.

I'm still boggling as to what the fuck this really means.

[GRT]

news for free is a leading cause for the industry's current downfall?

[Rhinox]

www.google.com

Just say you don't know. Fuck

here I'll help you out.

http://www.franklinremixed.com/?cat=5&paged=1

"He made a lot of money on ads"

Still doesn't prove your argument of him being this Newspaper mogul you make him out to be.

while listing many more sources of income.

I'm done arguing with Einstein here.



Also lmao@

This website project was created and produced by:
The Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary
The Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary, a non-profit organization supported by a lead grant of $4 million from The Pew Charitable Trusts, was established to mark the 300-year anniversary of Benjamin Franklin’s birth (1706-2006) with a celebration dedicated to educating the public about Franklin’s enduring legacy and inspiring renewed appreciation of the values he embodied.
Dr. Rosalind Remer, Executive Director
Dana Devon, Director of Educational Programming
The Rosenbach Museum and Library
Bill Adair, Hirsig Family Director of Education
Derick Dreher, Director
Generously funded by:
The Hirsig Family Fund of the Philadelphia Foundation
Teaching and learning assessments by:
The University of Arts, Museum Communication Program
Beth A. Twiss-Garrity, Director
Margaux DelCollo
Anna Cataldo
Whitney Jeffers

being random people on the internet.

[Correction]

news for free is a leading cause for the industry's current downfall?

News has been free since the radio was invented. You're implying it's only just now leading to the downfall of journalism as an institution. Don't deflect by saying 'newspapers are losing money.'

[Rhinox]

Careful this is where he'll toss out the strawman and bust out Ulysses Grant and pencils


I'm sure you won't get sucked in like I did though.

[GRT]

Just say you don't know. Fuck

here I'll help you out.

http://www.franklinremixed.com/?cat=5&paged=1

"He made a lot of money on ads"

Still doesn't prove your argument of him being this Newspaper mogul you make him out to be.

while listing many more sources of income.

I'm done arguing with Einstein here.

dude, google a college and go to it, or a history book, anything! has the internet made all those things obsolete? thinking you can learn all you can from reading some shit some random people wrote online is exactly why the news media is failing

[GRT]

News has been free since the radio was invented. You're implying it's only just now leading to the downfall of journalism as an institution. Don't deflect by saying 'newspapers are losing money.'

i'm not just talking about free for the audience, but also free for the business. people make money now by linking to OTHER people's news for their own site, and linking to some shit some random people wrote entirely without a source and call that news, that's total BS

radio and TV did hurt the newspaper, but it didn't hurt the journalism profession. free linking on the internet does

[Zoolander]

dude, google a college and go to it, or a history book, anything! has the internet made all those things obsolete? thinking you can learn all you can from reading some shit some random people wrote online is exactly why the news media is failing

I think what he is trying to say is that blogs and this notion that they are legitimate news sources is causing the legit reporters/journalists to lose money and basically go by the wayside. And, that since the internet has literally no oversight (which is good and bad), people can say whatever the fuck they want and pass it off as fact with little to no repercussions for their lies. There is also the issue of the sheer amount of "news" being circulated on the internet making it increasingly difficult to filter through and find the legit news and analysis.

Perhaps most of that was me, I'm just gunna pretend thats what he was trying to say. Edit, guess his post while I was typing eluded to some of what I just said.

[Correction]

thinking you can learn all you can from reading some shit some random people wrote online is exactly why the news media is failing

Is this a bad thing? Good thing? Help me out here you're being extremely unclear.

If you're saying 'bad thing' then it is pretty astonishing that you'd derail a thread this far to say something this fucktarded stupid. I guess nobody ever taught you the word 'autodidact' before

free linking on the internet does

Gonna need more than 'because I said so' to sell me on this. Some of the only ways news escapes information-starved areas of the world is via 'random people' leaking it to the internet. See: Iranian protests, political prisoners in totalitarian regimes around the world, etc.

[GRT]

what? the OP said that? where? O.o

[Zoolander]

what? the OP said that? where? O.o

err, was talking to OP/Correction, guess that wasnt implied well enough. "He" being you.

[GRT]

Is this a bad thing? Good thing? Help me out here you're being extremely unclear.

If you're saying 'bad thing' then it is pretty astonishing that you'd derail a thread this far to say something this fucktarded stupid. I guess nobody ever taught you the word 'autodidact' before

what the fuck are you talking about?

[GRT]

Gonna need more than 'because I said so' to sell me on this. Some of the only ways news escapes information-starved areas of the world is via 'random people' leaking it to the internet. See: Iranian protests, political prisoners in totalitarian regimes around the world, etc.

it's not me saying so, i'm not one of ALL those veteran newsman who has analyzed this shit for the last decade and reached this conclusion

and nobody is saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, but it IS the reason why journalists are becoming the assembly line workers of the 21st century


edit: actually i guess a lot of people are crying about it, and saying it is eventually gonna be a really bad thing, so there you go

[Kohan]

dude, google a college and go to it, or a history book, anything! has the internet made all those things obsolete? thinking you can learn all you can from reading some shit some random people wrote online is exactly why the news media is failing

When you challenge someone in a debate, the burden of proof is on you. If you cannot provide any sort of material that backs up your words, your commentary is worthless, and your best option is to back out of the discussion.

You're mentioning books, so cite their titles or ISBNs; you're referring to colleges, but they cover a wide variety of subjects, some of which contain conjecture rather than proven facts; you're insisting evidence exists, but you are failing to provide it. Beyond that, you ironically suggested using the internet to conduct a search before stating that they should rely on brick and mortar sources instead, likely because you yourself cannot use the search engine to produce proof of your point, either.

If you've no desire to prove your argument worthwhile though, by all means, keep posting. You've got quite a few fools hooked on responding to your bait.

[GRT]

lol, what a sophisticated "post count +1"

welcome to BG, invisible man

[Talint]

The moment the fourth estate was bought out by corporations is the moment that we lost journalistic integrity. Sure, the development of the blogger-journalist and the internet didn't help, but it comes down to the consolidation of media conglomerates devouring each other. Take the business out of news, and we might see some investigative journalism again.

Mountain to Mohammad, of course.

In re: to evening cable punditry, I think Rachel Maddow does some really amazing investigative reporting from time to time (like the stuff on C-Street and BP's oil spill contingency plan to help non-existent walruses), so she's only the one I watch. In election seasons, I switch around to try and get a read on the politics.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Easy short term bandaid solution? Lobby congress to bring back the Fairness doctrine.

But its easier said then done especially with all the red baiting going on by Republican noise machine. They claim it would censor Conservative Radio but in fact it would force Media outlets who use public airwaves to have a platform for everyone.. Another byproduct of the Fairness doctrine is that it would force companies like Clear Channel and News Corp to sell off its stations and other media outlets and essentially force diversification of ownership of all radio stations.

One of the other byproducts of the FD was that Stations had to clearly state that they were giving an opinion and had to prove to the FCC that they weren't just making up their own facts. If they were found to do so they would get their Broadcast license pulled.

It was good policy up until the Reagan Administration revoked it.

Go figure a conservative administration revoked a policy that grossly benefited only conservatives.

You are not serious, you are trolling.

[eunhye]

The fairness doctrine, bring that back? Yeah ok.

[benjamus]

democracy now!, newshour on PBS, al jazeera (US), and of course from you BG douchebags is where i get the majority of my news. always fun to watch you guys do the boner limbo (how low can you go!). carry on