Is hearing both sides an outdated concept? — Nikolas

Someone has to be the gatekeeper. In a private for profit organization like Faux News, they aren't going to let the opposition have a fair shake because the truth has a liberal bias. Just like Rush Limbaugh controlling the mute switch on callers. We got rid of the fairness doctrine and now the gloves are off. Even though private for profit organizations use *our* public air waves, they don't have to be fair. And who wants to hear some wack job? Is he entitled to be heard? And what about third and fourth views? Do they get equal time? And gets to speak for a side? And how are they vetted?

Whoever opined that money equals speech was stupid. Speech is free. You can scream till your voice goes out. No; what money equals is being heard. There is a difference. All those candidates and all those vendors spend all that money, not because they are stupid, but because it works. And it works because the people are stupid. Those ads work because they are heard by dummies.

One of my favorite quotes comes from John Milton, in Areopagitica. Paraphrased: "Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the Earth, so truth be in the field. We do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple, for whoever knew the truth to be put to the worse than in a free and open encounter?"

But I'm afraid old John thought there might be reasonable, intelligent and wise people calling the shots. He didn't suspect that education now means cranking out good little producers and consumers who don't know the difference between *what* to think and *how* to think. Is it any wonder that guys like Holt look around and hear stupidity getting more than equal air time and thinking he may have to give the opposition more time? We just came out of five years of falsehood. It got it's shot. Now we can try some truth. And if some stupidity or falsehood gets slipped in from the left, well, that's just part of the pendulum swing. If we don't like it, we need to dump a metric shit ton of money into non-STEM education. I'm not sure if we are going to get a re-Enlightenment though. But we can hope.

I can understand Holt's frustration. Why give liars air time if idiots will believe them? If dummies want to drink bleach, I guess it's okay. Darwin at work. But should Holt give air time to the notion that the Deep State and Bill Gates are putting a chip in your vaccine? That's dangerous to everyone. Especially if the counter point is some un-American commie pinko left wing liberal knee jerk Dem scientist who would question our Pres in a time of war. That's just unsat.

Discuss among yourselves.

Commercial newspapers, television, radio, cable, and internet channels are probably not a good place from which to expect fairness, probity, integrity, and other such virtues. The lack of fairness goes back a ways (Milton wrote the Aeropagitica in 1644), and we have seen better and worse quality reporting and editorial content over the years. So called "yellow journalism" has been around for all of the 20th century and it's sensationalist tradition continues.

The News (in print) has been a competitive business for quite some time, and content has been steered either by the personal opinions of the press's owners, or it was driven by business competition -- what we call "reader share".

Where media has excelled has usually been the result of a key figure. For example, Edward R. Murrow is largely responsible for establishing CBS News as a quality operation in the late 1930s and through the WWII years. CBS isn't "the Tiffany Network" any more (nobody is) but for a time it was quite a bit better than it's rivals.

Is Nation Public Radio or the Public Broadcasting Service an alternative? Both have delivered some excellent programs, and both have had some outstanding "intervals" of high quality news and commentary. But NPR and PBS are hardly independent agencies. Both receive a lot of funding and backing from VERY mainline organizations and corporations. Funding sources inevitably shape the overall product.

Indeed. Murdoch may be atrocious but people forget there was Hearst and Lord Beaverbrook, the Plato and Aristotle of Yellow Journalism.

Journalism is dead.

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity.

Too old fashioned. Now that the world has me to decide right and wrong and what is fair, who needs impartial ethical journalism? I am woke so know right and wrong.

public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy — Nikolas

That pretty much nails the case against excellence in journalism, or maybe journalism at all. From the POV of the oligarchy, the plutocracy, or the kleptocracy, who the hell wants public enlightenment? Keep the masses as uninformed about their reality as possible.

From the POV of the oligarchy, the plutocracy, or the kleptocracy, who the hell wants public enlightenment? Keep the masses as uninformed about their reality as possible. — Bitter Crank

:100:

Keep the masses as uninformed about their reality as possible. — Bitter Crank

Perhaps we can convince everyone to let the government run the schools, and then have the federal government to use financial incentives to exert top-down control of state and local school authorities. That would get the process started, and the media could do the rest. Can it all really be such a dastardly plot? Or did it more or less happen by accident?

public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy
— Nikolas

That pretty much nails the case against excellence in journalism, or maybe journalism at all. From the POV of the oligarchy, the plutocracy, or the kleptocracy, who the hell wants public enlightenment? Keep the masses as uninformed about their reality as possible.[/quote

The death of journalism means that Liberty is dying. Nietzsche said that God is dead and wondered what would replace God. When liberty is dead, what form of statist slavery or tyranny will replace it? I shudder to think — Bitter Crank

A bracket is missing from the end-quote at the end of my quote. The result is that I am credited with your very good response, You might want to fix that.

Saw this on social media this morning. Nails it:

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" Isaac Asimov

I would add that it springs from this notion that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Yeah, they are. But does their right to be stupid entitle them to have others give them equal time? Not so much. If you've got chops, the adults will let you in the room. We are the gatekeepers. Get used to it. You want to engage, go get an education and learn how to think.

We are the gatekeepers. — James Riley

Can you give an example of the ones over whom you are entitled to rule? Name names and justify your claim to be among the gatekeepers.

On a broader theme, it's the "best and the brightest" who got the US into Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and all the other futile wars we can't win. You may know that there was a book, The Best and the Brightest, about how the so-called "whiz kids" of the Kennedy administration blundered into Vietnam.

Intellectuals have quite a lot to answer for over the past sixty years of American history.

Here's a piece I just happened to read this afternoon by the great Chris Hedges about what the intellectuals you revere have done with the US as it thrashes about in the violent throws of its status as a failing empire.

https://www.salon.com/2021/04/20/unraveling-of-the-american-empire-a-series-of-military-debacles-point-toward-a-tragic-end/

Imperial ineptitude is matched by domestic ineptitude. The collapse of good government at home, with legislative, executive and judicial systems all seized by corporate power, ensures that the incompetent and the corrupt, those dedicated not to the national interest but to swelling the profits of the oligarchic elite, lead the country into a cul-de-sac. Rulers and military leaders, driven by venal self-interest, are often buffoonish characters in a grand comic operetta. How else to think of Allen Dulles, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Donald Trump or the hapless Joe Biden? While their intellectual and moral vacuity is often darkly amusing, it is murderous and savage when directed towards their victims.

Hedges is a radical leftist, a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times, and a man who tells it like it is.

Can you give an example of the ones over whom you are entitled to rule? Name names and justify your claim to be among the gatekeepers. — fishfry

First, where did you get the word "rule"? We were talking about media and the news and whether they should provide equal time to 1. anti-intellectuals, stupid people, etc. and 2. how many sides they should let in (for there are often more than two).

I think we were talking about Holt. There's a name for you. But you could sub in any who work for private-for-profit outfits that get to pick and choose who they want to give their time to. That would make them the gatekeepers.

You don't need to tell me about the distinction between intelligence and wisdom, or the "gravitas" that has caused so many problems in this world. I don't expect you to read all I've written on this forum, and I don't know how to link or even where to find it, but I've thrashed that issue extensively and you and I are in accord.

“Decisions to not give unsupported arguments equal time are not a dereliction of journalistic responsibility or some kind of agenda, in fact, it’s just the opposite.”

- Lester Holdt

Lester’s argument is, ironically, unsupported. The journalist’s role is to inform us, not to decide which arguments we can or cannot hear. He fails in this regard.

Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

you and I are in accord. — James Riley

You may be right. I only grabbed that one sentence of yours out of context and haven't read most of the thread. FWIW, intellectuals have a terrible track record in the 20th century to the present. The "right kind of people" seem to do all the wrong kinds of things. My apologies if I misconstrued your sentiments.

I think we were talking about Holt. — James Riley

Holt works for NBC News, does he not?

NBC News Deceptively Edits Bodycam Footage So Viewers Don’t See Knife in Ma’Kiyah Bryant’s Hand Moments Before Officer Shoots Her Dead

Lester Holt works for a network with a demonstrated pattern of not believing in fairness.

As a columnist on PJ Media, a scurrilous conservative website I enjoy wrote:

I can’t be the only one who didn’t have “Liberal America Doesn’t Want Cops to Stop Black Girl From Stabbing Another Black Girl” on my bingo card.

I'll leave it at that this morning.

Holt works for NBC News, does he not? — fishfry

He does.

Lester Holt works for a network with a demonstrated pattern of not believing in fairness. — fishfry

That may be. Maybe we should reinstate the Fairness Doctrine? Or, if you don't like it, buy them out. You know, capitalism and all that.

Or we could just tune in to that bastion of "fair and balanced" Fox News? Yeah, that's the ticket.

The journalist’s role is to inform us, not to decide which arguments we can or cannot hear. He fails in this regard. — NOS4A2

Journalists report facts, as best they can be determined to be facts. Period. Argument is the province of commentary on the news. And to be sure, there is good and bad commentary, and commentary not worthy of name. In a restaurant you may not like the meal, fair enough, but you do not expect to be served a plateful of s***, nor would you expect a restaurant that served such be allowed to remain open. And the same with commentary, although there is no Health Department to control as to what is being served - beyond some very broad limits on free speech.

The point here being not to confuse journalism with commentary.

Journalists report facts, as best they can be determined to be facts. Period. Argument is the province of commentary on the news. — tim wood

:100:

Or we could just tune in to that bastion of "fair and balanced" Fox News? Yeah, that's the ticket. — James Riley

You just said you fundamentally agree with me, and now you want to pick a fight about Fox News? I don't watch cable news and certainly not broadcast news. I'm not sure if you want to argue politics or agree with me about something. Intellectuals and mainstreamers have an awful track record. You were advocating if not the "rule," at least the primacy of -- who exactly? The "public intellectuals," certified morons like Sam Harris and the so-called New Atheists? Who exactly? That's what I asked you. Or perhaps by intellectuals you really mean the mainstream neocon/neoliberal coalition that's run the country so well the past 30 years.

Here's a nice clip that summarizes it all. Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert (if you're not watching them on Youtube you should be) pointing out that Bill Clinton did three things: He repealed Glass-Steagall, he passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, and he granted China most favored nation status in the WTO. Keiser calls this, "the trifecta of the disembowlment of the American middle class." Starting at 4:45 here but the whole thing is well worth watching. as is everything Max and Stacy put out several times a week. Turn off the tv news, turn on Youtube and other streaming services. That's where honest journalism is these days. Lester Holt ain't it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZcQtp-qCRU&feature=youtu.be

I'm not sure if you want to argue politics or agree with me about something. — fishfry

You just said I may be right. I am. You only grabbed that one sentence of mine out of context and you haven't read most of the thread.

So, to satisfy your curiosity on that point, we're not arguing the merits of any given political position. We're talking about gatekeepers, and whether or not "arguments" or "facts" deserve equal time.

You just said I may be right. I am. You only grabbed that one sentence of mine out of context and you haven't read most of the thread. — James Riley

Since I already confessed to that crime you can't prosecute me for it a second time. Isn't that double jeopardy? Or is this a state prosecution followed by a federal prosecution, as is commonly done in this great bastion of constitutional freedom of ours?

So, to satisfy your curiosity on that point, we're not arguing the merits of any given political position. We're talking about gatekeepers, and whether or not "arguments" or "facts" deserve equal time. — James Riley

I say let everyone speak and let the market decide. I don't believe in gatekeepers. They have the worst track record of all.

Journalists report facts, as best they can be determined to be facts. Period. Argument is the province of commentary on the news. And to be sure, there is good and bad commentary, and commentary not worthy of name. In a restaurant you may not like the meal, fair enough, but you do not expect to be served a plateful of s***, nor would you expect a restaurant that served such be allowed to remain open. And the same with commentary, although there is no Health Department to control as to what is being served - beyond some very broad limits on free speech.

The point here being not to confuse journalism with commentary.

It is often the case that people make arguments the journalist doesn’t like. They need not suppress those arguments. Period. I wouldn’t expect a server to hide burgers from the menu if he doesn’t like beef.

Again, from the code of ethics at the society of professional journalists: “Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.”

Since I already confessed to that crime you can't prosecute me for it a second time. — fishfry

It's kind of like the "War on Christmas." There isn't one. Nor is anyone prosecuting you. Having drifted off course, you might want to invoke hyperbole to distract, I'm not sure. But it would be easier to focus on the merits, rather than digress or try to start an argument that isn't there.

I say let everyone speak and let the market decide. I don't believe in gatekeepers. They have the worst track record of all. — fishfry

No one is stopping anyone from speaking. Everyone can speak until they are horse. But if they want to be heard, they should pony up and buy a microphone, per capitalism, ala Citizens United. Or we could reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and try to tweak it to be even more fair; and get money out of politics. Until then, welcome to gatekeeper land!

I wouldn’t expect a server to hide burgers from the menu if he doesn’t like beef. — NOS4A2

The server works for the restaurant. If it's veggie, then there is no beef to hide. If he doesn't like it, he can go work somewhere else.

It is often the case that people make arguments the journalist doesn’t like. They need not suppress those arguments. Period. — NOS4A2

This brings to mind my observations of the opposing sides, left and right. The left likes to take the worst the right has to offer and hold it up as the straw man representative of the right. The right does the exact same thing to the left. So, is a journalist to let both these stupid assholes have equal time? I don't think so. Oh, and if the market place of ideas is to have any currency, don't buy what you don't want, and don't listen to hucksters.

If a man of newsworthy importance speaks, I would prefer the journalists inform me of what he said, and not withhold that information due to some fear or other of how that information may be used. Even if that information is false, inflammatory, or injurious to someone’s reputation, to suppress it is to suppress the fact that it was spoken and the facts of what was said, denying me an accurate account of the truth.

If a man of newsworthy importance speaks, — NOS4A2

Who's the gatekeeper on that? I am a man of newsworthy importance, but no one gives a shit. What do I have to do to get the gatekeepers to let me in? Perhaps I need money?

The "fairness is overrated" remark speaks to conscience. My question is, how long can someone go before their conscience can no longer be ignored?

Of course it's outdated. No modern algorithms work like that. They feed you what you'll keep watching. This means that you'll be recommended videos from within your own ideological silo, and generally be led to more and more extreme and emotionally charged videos to boot.

That's how YouTube and Facebook operate. Cable News is dying, and if they're getting viewers outside the Baby Boomer demographic, it's often via internet feeds.

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity"

Describes the commentary scene these days, too, which is another factor.