Thank you!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from reindeergirl. Show reindeergirl's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    I feel the dumbing down of the news began in the early 1980s, when so many publishers feared that if they dared to question Reagan, they would lose readers. That was also the time of the advent of USA Today. Granted, it has some fine reporters and critics, but it's not a challenging paper to read, even for those with basic literacy skills.

    All of this snowballed into today's so-called "celebrity journalism." But decades ago, the gossip columnists were funny and intelligent. And celebrities would at least try to have some semblance of a private life, even though much of what the readers learned were lies. Even though people like Charlie Chaplin and Ingrid Bergman could be hounded out of country or career.

    Now it's all too much. Had the TV on while I was working this morning. The third section of The Today Show led with Chloe Kardashian. I felt sorry for Hoda, a real journalist. I hope that Hoda gets paid enough money in that gig to compensate for no longer for being a reporter's reporter, which is what she was.

    Thank you, Maldenlady. Like you, I learned so much about Vietnam from non-traditional sources. Cronkhite was the best. He had integrity, that man.

    Today I renewed my print subscription to this newspaper, and received a $25 gift certificate to Shaw's (where the promo was held). I don't know how The Globe can afford to do that, I worry for its future.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnjoyEverySandwich. Show EnjoyEverySandwich's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    In Response to Re: Thank you!:
    [QUOTE]With every bit of information we receive and send, we can help make a better world.
    Posted by reindeergirl[/QUOTE]


           ^^^^
    And this is why I love RDG.  8^)

     
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from cb156. Show cb156's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    RT wrote:
    The word FACT seems to have been replaced by the concept of report now, get the details later
    --------------------------------------
    Being first is more important than being right.  Which is a business maxim, not a journalism maxim.
    From my perspective, journalism and business just don't mix.
    And TV is a business.
    Next time you watch your local or national news on a major network, pay close attention to how many "news" stories are really ads for other shows from the same network, or for some type of product that is owned by the same group as the station doing the broadcast.  Most talk show guests fall into the same category.
    And can someone explain to me how the idea of an "exclusive" story upholds the journalistic ideal of the public's right to know?  Doesn't an exclusive, by its very nature, limit the public's ability to get the information, and in reality border on censorship?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    In Response to Re: Thank you!:
    [QUOTE]I like an informed partner, one who cares about what's happening outside of his cocoon. When I go on a date and the guys says to me something like "Oh, I don't care about current events; what do I care about history, it's already happened," that's an immediate turn-off for me. 
    Posted by reindeergirl[/QUOTE]
    Hand them over to me. :)   I have a very good track record of winning people over to our side of the history fence, RDG.   I work in the field of history (yes, I love what I do and it never stops being interesting) and have some very alluring projects and research to my credit to show people online -- wins them over every time.  I love relaying an appreciation of history.  I'm with ya.  :D
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    In Response to Re: Thank you!:
    And can someone explain to me how the idea of an "exclusive" story upholds the journalistic ideal of the public's right to know?  Doesn't an exclusive, by its very nature, limit the public's ability to get the information, and in reality border on censorship?
    Posted by cb156
    CB:
    Good morning. :)
    You pay for it.   Not sure why you would tie this into censorship.  If I have a story to tell and I take the highest bidder, I'm not being censored from telling my story.  I get to decide who facilitates, and/or ask for the most money.  Maybe I'm not on the mark with your question, and I apologize if not, but I don't see "exclusive" as the emblem of censorship.  Censorship is suppression or withholding information.   Exclusive means you have managed to keep a lid on the scoop.   Recently, Jackie Kennedy's oral history was released on network tv and was "exclusive" to that network until the program was aired.   That's an example of exclusivity, not censorship.  If information is really in the public domain, it doesn't remain exclusive for long, unless it is government information under NARA regs or typical bureaucracy, as we all know; in the private domain, that's an entirely different situation.   Just my take.  :D

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    cb156 wrote: "Being first is more important than being right. Which is a business maxim, not a journalism maxim."

    I will never forget a story on Channel 5. A Drivers Ed teacher was accused of raping a student. Ch 5 showed video of his arraignment and reported the story. Then the accuser recanted her story - no video of her on Ch 5 - charges dropped! but a life destroyed.  The guy went back to the school he had been with for 20+ years and was told his position had been eliminated (he was a History and Drivers Ed teacher).

    The accuser gets to walk around in total anonymity while the accused, in his 60's at the time, gets to walk around with the stigma of having his arraignment on TV and having been "falsely" accused of a heinous crime.

    This kind of "journalistic(?)" legal process continues today a la Nancy Grace - "I say your guilty therefore you are."

    Oh, and reindeergirl the "demise" of news began with cable tv, USA Today just came along for the ride! IMHO
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from cb156. Show cb156's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    In Response to Re: Thank you!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thank you! : CB: Good morning. :) You pay for it.   Not sure why you would tie this into censorship.  If I have a story to tell and I take the highest bidder, I'm not being censored from telling my story.  I get to decide who facilitates, and/or ask for the most money.  Maybe I'm not on the mark with your question, and I apologize if not, but I don't see "exclusive" as the emblem of censorship.  Censorship is suppression or withholding information.   Exclusive means you have managed to keep a lid on the scoop.   Recently, Jackie Kennedy's oral history was released on network tv and was "exclusive" to that network until the program was aired.   That's an example of exclusivity, not censorship.  If information is really in the public domain, it doesn't remain exclusive for long, unless it is government information under NARA regs or typical bureaucracy, as we all know; in the private domain, that's an entirely different situation.   Just my take.  :D
    Posted by yogafriend[/QUOTE]

    Hi Yoga--
    I understand what you are saying, but I'm not certain the meaning of my question came across.
    Censorship can refer to not allowing any particular story to be reported, but (at least to me) it could also apply to when and where a story is reported.  When one outlet has an exclusive story, that single outlet gets to determine when and where anyone will hear it.  What happens to the public's right to know if that outlet just decides to kill the story and not run it anywhere?
    Consider this situation:  If the White House Press office was the only place that any news from the WH could get out, what would we hear?  That the public has a right to know, and our news shouldn't be censored--that is, it should be up to the public to decide if the story has any importance.  The real argument:  having some news or information controlled by one place is not in the public interest and can amount to a form of censorship.
    How does that differ from an "exclusive", where one media source has control over the story and decides when, where and under what cirsumstances the public will hear the story?

    Really, my main point is that the phrase "jounalistic ethics" is an oxy-moron.  The idea of an "exclusive" story, to me, is one example.  RT's example above is another. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    In Response to Re: Thank you!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thank you! : Hi Yoga-- I understand what you are saying, but I'm not certain the meaning of my question came across. Censorship can refer to not allowing any particular story to be reported, but (at least to me) it could also apply to when and where a story is reported.  When one outlet has an exclusive story, that single outlet gets to determine when and where anyone will hear it.  What happens to the public's right to know if that outlet just decides to kill the story and not run it anywhere? Consider this situation:  If the White House Press office was the only place that any news from the WH could get out, what would we hear?  That the public has a right to know, and our news shouldn't be censored--that is, it should be up to the public to decide if the story has any importance.  The real argument:  having some news or information controlled by one place is not in the public interest and can amount to a form of censorship. How does that differ from an "exclusive", where one media source has control over the story and decides when, where and under what cirsumstances the public will hear the story? Really, my main point is that the phrase "jounalistic ethics" is an oxy-moron.  The idea of an "exclusive" story, to me, is one example.  RT's example above is another. 
    Posted by cb156[/QUOTE]Hi CB, and thank you.   Agreed, all reasonable points.  My mind works differently, that's why I like hearing your (or other) points of view.  Sadly, journalistic ethics has been so badly maligned that it has made it more and more difficult for a decent media outlet to have any credibility.  I've never worked for a media outlet, but I have worked for two highly regarded publishers, not in journalism, but in <information redacted; gave something of my identity away, sorry>.  The take-away for me has been fascinating in how hard a decent publisher has to work to stay alive, stay relevant, to be nimble in making changes, to maintain credibility, and to maintain market share (yes, that nasty business aspect that is difficult for reputable producers of scholarly content).   It's a tough, very competitive business and while I had a blast doing my own work, my naive eyes were opened as to the business around me.  I've also worked with classified information (not a government employee, but had to apply for a security clearance), so I've seen a bit of that world, too.   Seen some smokin' guns, you know?  Thanks for your reasoned response.  
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from cb156. Show cb156's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    Yoga--I too enjoy being able to reasonably discuss topics, and to hear and try to understand other points of view. It's always nice to be able to participate in a reasoned, friendly exchange. Thank you.

    RT seems to have a knack for starting threads that foster some pretty good discussions.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from reindeergirl. Show reindeergirl's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    I was thinking last night and today about poor Evelyn Wagler. I was thinking about how my supposedly-liberal Mum had that "tsk tsk why did she move there in the first place" attitude (although Mum wasn't happy about what happened to Ms. Wagler). This story was one of the horror shows of my childhood.

    In terms of discussion on this thread, I think it is a cold case where good investigative journalism could really kick in. Those teens are in mid-life now, surely one of them has talked or even bragged about it in the almost-four-decades since. Surely one of the people who lived in the apts. in that alley might now, in the intervening years, be courageous enough to step forward.

    I was wondering if her body was ever claimed, and what affect the crime had on her child.

    Reporters can do this. They can be intrepid where police are not.

    Evelyn Wagler would have been in her 60s now. She deserves justice. Journalism can give it to her.

    It was the year of The Burning People. A non-fiction investigative book could be created from this, so that we remember all The Burning People of 1973. There were many.

    Evelyn Wagler gave police so much to go on in the four hours she lived from attack (murder!) to death. Why can't the police honor her, and pursue this case?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    In Response to Re: Thank you!:
    [QUOTE]Yoga--I too enjoy being able to reasonably discuss topics, and to hear and try to understand other points of view. It's always nice to be able to participate in a reasoned, friendly exchange. Thank you. RT seems to have a knack for starting threads that foster some pretty good discussions.
    Posted by cb156[/QUOTE]

    Thank you cb156 - I like to think that by asking my questions or expressing my opinion here I get to bring out, what appears to be, a very intelligent group of anonymous therapists and thoughtful people!

    What I enjoy most is the different opinions! A lot of the posts stop and make me think in a more "open minded" way..(I can be B&W!) I also like the adult content here versus Love Letters which appears to be more of an IM site for a lot of users.

    Thank you!.....glad we can still come here!

    Wink
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from reindeergirl. Show reindeergirl's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    Now now, Love Letters has its virtues too. ~wags finger~ WinkA lot of r/l friendships have been created there. And Mere loves hosting LL parties. I like the fact that I'm not so anonymous there; as with the 'tricks forums .Smile

    But I agree, I'm glad the forums have remained open to all. When Confidential Chat lost its print edition status, many of the participants didn't make the transition to online.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    In Response to Re: Thank you!:
    [QUOTE]Now now, Love Letters has its virtues too. ~wags finger~ A lot of r/l friendships have been created there. And Mere loves hosting LL parties. I like the fact that I'm not so anonymous there; as with the 'tricks forums . But I agree, I'm glad the forums have remained open to all. When Confidential Chat lost its print edition status, many of the participants didn't make the transition to online.
    Posted by reindeergirl[/QUOTE]

    Are you kidding me? LOVE LETTERS is consumed by 20 something's using it as an IM site! 1287 post to "Zombie Girl"  - NCIS? Spanish lessons? and very little advice amongst the 52 pages of response's!
    Sorry Reindeergirl, if I got something to say I won't go to Love Letters!

    Smile
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from kargiver. Show kargiver's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    Hey, BW, how the heck are ya?  Still doing very well, I hope.

    ~kar
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    In Response to Re: Thank you!:
    [QUOTE]The Love Letters articles are occasionally interesting.  The only advice needed is given by Merideth.  The comment section is completely useless.   Obviously we all goof off a bit during the day,  but I've never seen so many people with nothing else to do but spew post after post of one-liner jibberish, all day long, congregrate in one small room like that before.   I'm sure there are useful comments in there somewhere, but the signal-to-noise ratio is far too low to make it worth searching for them.
    Posted by SlimPickensIII[/QUOTE]

    Agreed, too bad for the person looking for advice from the "peanut gallery"....
     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    In Response to Re: Thank you!:
    [QUOTE]Hey, BW, how the heck are ya?  Still doing very well, I hope. ~kar
    Posted by kargiver[/QUOTE]

    "you talkin to me?"
    "you talkin to me?"...my impression of Deniro in Taxi Driver

    Hey Kar,
    Thought you left us! Thought for sure you would post to my last question book smart vs street smart!

    chime in!             Wink
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from kargiver. Show kargiver's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    Oh, yeah, I meant to!  Thanks for the reminder.  Good Deniro impression, by the way.  ;)
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpringRooster. Show SpringRooster's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    In Response to Re: Thank you!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thank you! : Are you kidding me? LOVE LETTERS is consumed by 20 something's using it as an IM site! 1287 post to "Zombie Girl"  - NCIS? Spanish lessons? and very little advice amongst the 52 pages of response's! Sorry Reindeergirl, if I got something to say I won't go to Love Letters!
    Posted by RogerTaylor[/QUOTE]

    Don't attack her, man. You yourself have been posting to Love Letters this week.
     

Share