How I learned To Quit Worrying and Love The Propaganda

[Raider179]

"AP's mission is to be the essential global news network, providing distinctive news services of the highest quality, reliability and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed. AP operates as a not-for-profit cooperative with 3,700 employees working in more than 240 worldwide bureaus."

1)I am not talking about fox news.
2) She admitted she was wrong. That is enough proof for me.

3) see what the AP says about reporting news. not for profit, objectivity

[midnight Target]

Lets put this into perspective folks..

Yellow journalism has been around since the Spanish American War. W.R. Hearst was either in bed with the politicians of his time, or owned them.

Sure it's sleazy for the govt. to pay someone to maintain or even to write about a certain topic, but it is hardly new.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Raider179
"
2) She admitted she was wrong. That is enough proof for me.

Wrong about what?  All I saw her admit to being wrong about was forgetting to disclose her prior work, because she didn't think it mattered.  RE:  Didn't know the moonbats were going to cry about it.

That's proof enough for you?  That she's sorry for not realizing the liberals would whine about nothing?

[rpm]

Actually Martlet is arguing like a woman. Continuing to ask the same question over and over even tho he was given an answer. He has no counterpoint to give in rebuttal (i.e. a broken record).

[Martlet]

Originally posted by rpm
Actually Martlet is arguing like a woman. Continuing to ask the same question over and over even tho he was given an answer. He has no counterpoint to give in rebuttal (i.e. a broken record).

I keep asking the same question over and over in hopes he'll answer it instead of continue his dancing.

Did you have something to add, or is that crying just the result of a wet diaper?

[rpm]

Just pointing out the obvious. You don't like an answer, you keep asking the same question instead of offering a rebuttal.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by rpm
Just pointing out the obvious. You don't like an answer, you keep asking the same question instead of offering a rebuttal.

Ahhh, so you just have a wet diaper.

Carry on, then.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Martlet
Wrong about what?  All I saw her admit to being wrong about was forgetting to disclose her prior work, because she didn't think it mattered.  RE:  Didn't know the moonbats were going to cry about it.

That's proof enough for you?  That she's sorry for not realizing the liberals would whine about nothing?

She said she forgot not that she didnt think it mattered

 "I would have [disclosed the contract], if I had remembered it. My apologies to my readers," Gallagher said.

just fyi if you does this on tv or radio it is against the law good thing she is in print.

U.S. law requires that radio or television stations, as well as individuals, disclose on air when they have received compensation to talk about a product or issue.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/26/bush.paidpundits.reut/index.html

and yeah I get tired of the run around with you martlet. get a clue I will no longer keep reposting answers to vague questions.

[rpm]

Originally posted by Martlet
Ahhh, so you just have a wet diaper.

Carry on, then.

Childish rebuttal, but it's what we've come to expect.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by rpm
Childish rebuttal, but it's what we've come to expect.

No one's changed you yet?

[Holden McGroin]

One question...

If Fox is such a mouthpiece for Bush policy and only spews forth approved propaganda, why did the administration feel compelled to hire spokesmen?

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
One question...

If Fox is such a mouthpiece for Bush policy and only spews forth approved propaganda, why did the administration feel compelled to hire spokesmen?

I dont think they spout only approved propaganda. Nor do I think they are under the paid employ of the Republican party. As I said earlier that would be a violation of federal law.

 They are just a group of die hard republicans claiming to be a fair and balanced news channel. This is clearly not the case. The only democrat on there is colmes and he is like some scary monster who also acts like a wuss.  I do think O'rielly seems to be middle of the road but the rest are all Rush wanna be's.

for the why seems to me that  Journalists have reputations of being more unbiased than an administration official. Therefore people on the other side of the fence might listen to her where if its some appointed official they would just say yeah your promoting your own stuff no wonder you think its so great.

[TweetyBird]

His position that that a journalist can have a business relationship with the government or a corporation that he is writing about and appear objective, in untenable so he's resorted to goofy.

I think that was pretty clear when it got to the point "I'm not gonna tell you my question, go look for it."

[koda76]

lol

[Martlet]

Journalism is a business. Selling their medium pays the bills. You only have a few options:

You either say they have no responsibility, which allows them to do whatever they want to sell their product.

You establish that they don't have opinions about anything, and can therefore report without personal bias.

You can assert that they are completely capable of plying their trade without influence of the personal opinions they have.

If you think of a fourth option, let me know.

If the first is true, your argument is moot. It doesn't matter.

If the second is true, your argument is moot, it doesn't matter.

If the third is true, you have to establish that she included her personal bias in her journalism. You have yet to do that.