The barriers to entry into journalism are very very low. The standards of journalism on the networks and cable are even lower. So none of this is surprising.
The problem is that journalism is not a profession. There is no licensing. There are no enforceable standards. So to use the word "malpractice" is to deceive people into thinknig that incompetent journalism suffers financial loss, as in legal, engineering or medical malpractice.
MSM is the greatest threat to our democracy. Why are they so hellbent to prop up all things Democrat? Why are they so willing to smear all things Republican? The folks that get all their information from them are fools. Those that extract their news from CNN, MSNBC, NPR, New York Times (etc.) exclusively are simply unwilling to expand their view. Perhaps they are afraid or maybe they are just smug? What a pity. V.
I have said for years that the main stream media are the original Reality TV, complete with ratings, sponsors who watch ratings and producers who respond to sponsors.
This is not the CBS of Edward R Murrow or even Walter Cronkite, who took a jeep ride with Moshe Dayan over the Golan Heights battlefield-This network since Dan Rather's poor attack on Bush Jr's service record and 60 Minutes descent into 60 Seconds and now this adventure in the realm of cut and paste, biased moderators and the reaction to the anti Semitism of Coates anti Semitsim rivals ABC and NBC, for being all wokr all the time.
At this point, can't we just agree that she is not competent for the job? There has never been a politician who needed and received this much help from the media. And still, despite all the help, we all see through her.
The full Harris CBS interview that people are imagining is probably worse than her actual performance. Release the unedited interview and move on. This is straight from the classic movie Broadcast News.
Regardless of who wins the election, we know that the occupant of the White House will continue to be someone who is stunningly inarticulate and unintelligible.
Well, if they don’t release the complete, unedited video (breaking precedent, breaking journalistic standards and norms), we can assume the worst (of Kamala, and of CBS News).
I might suggest people on this blog connect with the small cable news channel, NewsNation, which we like a TON, and which we watch regularly. It's not perfect, but it's far better than anything offered by the MSM.
It's not the revision of the statement that bothers me so much as the vacuous word salad of the original utterance. The revision was a tolerable statement but that of a functionary not a stateswoman. Mediocrity kicks incompetences' ass every time, but I don't even feel assured we are getting the former. I was not a Hillary fan, but I can't imagine her tripping over this so badly. Trump would have been clear like a cave drawing. But it would have been bullshit nonetheless. These are times that try folx's souls.
"60 Minutes" has been doing this for years, but apparently hasn't gotten publicly caught. When I was in college in the mid-1980s, one of my journalism professors showed the class a video (or film?) clip of a "60 Minutes" episode of Morley Safer interviewing a man, and in some shots - while focused solely on Safer - he was wearing a certain necktie, but then in the shots of the man (being interviewed) answering Safer's questions, Safer is wearing a completely different tie. So, as our professor was pointing out to us the difference in the shots - which most students didn't notice, he was showing us how easy it is for these types of shows to do a switcheroo on the interviewee by doing post-interview edits so that it looks that the interviewee is not answering their questions correctly, and thus, it then advances whatever angle or POV the show has for that episode. And, hand to God, within a year of our class graduating, "60 Minutes" reached out to a local hospital where one of my friends and former college classmates was working in their public information office, and said they wanted to do a positive profile piece on an innovative new emergency service the hospital offered. So the hospital gave them full access to the department and was very facilitating and professional only to receive in return a hit piece by "60 Minutes" on the hospital's new service. My friend was devastated but learned an important lesson. And, in the end, "60 Minutes" was on the wrong side of history because the program is still successfully saving peoples' lives 40 years later. I never watched "60 Minutes" again since I knew I couldn't trust them to be honest.
Is The "Free Press" this upset about the Trump campaign coordinating with Elon Musk to kill circulation of the J.D. Vance Dossier on X? I haven't seen a single mention of that story on TFP, despite multiple pieces on the alleged suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story on Twitter impacting 2020, and now raging against CBS editing.
I guess censorship is only ok when Republicans do it. Dear me Bari, you're better than this.
Fifty-some years ago Edith Efron wrote "The News Twisters".
The barriers to entry into journalism are very very low. The standards of journalism on the networks and cable are even lower. So none of this is surprising.
The problem is that journalism is not a profession. There is no licensing. There are no enforceable standards. So to use the word "malpractice" is to deceive people into thinknig that incompetent journalism suffers financial loss, as in legal, engineering or medical malpractice.
That absence of consequences is the problem.
MSM is the greatest threat to our democracy. Why are they so hellbent to prop up all things Democrat? Why are they so willing to smear all things Republican? The folks that get all their information from them are fools. Those that extract their news from CNN, MSNBC, NPR, New York Times (etc.) exclusively are simply unwilling to expand their view. Perhaps they are afraid or maybe they are just smug? What a pity. V.
I have said for years that the main stream media are the original Reality TV, complete with ratings, sponsors who watch ratings and producers who respond to sponsors.
This is not the CBS of Edward R Murrow or even Walter Cronkite, who took a jeep ride with Moshe Dayan over the Golan Heights battlefield-This network since Dan Rather's poor attack on Bush Jr's service record and 60 Minutes descent into 60 Seconds and now this adventure in the realm of cut and paste, biased moderators and the reaction to the anti Semitism of Coates anti Semitsim rivals ABC and NBC, for being all wokr all the time.
At this point, can't we just agree that she is not competent for the job? There has never been a politician who needed and received this much help from the media. And still, despite all the help, we all see through her.
Shocked, but looking forward to the Fox interview with Bret Bair on Wednesday. He's already stated the transcript will be made available. 👍
Lack of information leads to speculation.
The full Harris CBS interview that people are imagining is probably worse than her actual performance. Release the unedited interview and move on. This is straight from the classic movie Broadcast News.
Go on, surely not. It couldn't be worse than we can imagine, ...
I guess it depends on your imagination.
Regardless of who wins the election, we know that the occupant of the White House will continue to be someone who is stunningly inarticulate and unintelligible.
Well, if they don’t release the complete, unedited video (breaking precedent, breaking journalistic standards and norms), we can assume the worst (of Kamala, and of CBS News).
I might suggest people on this blog connect with the small cable news channel, NewsNation, which we like a TON, and which we watch regularly. It's not perfect, but it's far better than anything offered by the MSM.
This is nothing new for CBS and 60 Minutes. Dan Rather and Mary Mape ran with the Bush National Guard story which costed them both their careers.
Unfortunately, 20 years later and CBS is a full blown DNC politburo. CBS will be a reliable DNC foot soldier and never release the transcripts.
It's not the revision of the statement that bothers me so much as the vacuous word salad of the original utterance. The revision was a tolerable statement but that of a functionary not a stateswoman. Mediocrity kicks incompetences' ass every time, but I don't even feel assured we are getting the former. I was not a Hillary fan, but I can't imagine her tripping over this so badly. Trump would have been clear like a cave drawing. But it would have been bullshit nonetheless. These are times that try folx's souls.
"60 Minutes" has been doing this for years, but apparently hasn't gotten publicly caught. When I was in college in the mid-1980s, one of my journalism professors showed the class a video (or film?) clip of a "60 Minutes" episode of Morley Safer interviewing a man, and in some shots - while focused solely on Safer - he was wearing a certain necktie, but then in the shots of the man (being interviewed) answering Safer's questions, Safer is wearing a completely different tie. So, as our professor was pointing out to us the difference in the shots - which most students didn't notice, he was showing us how easy it is for these types of shows to do a switcheroo on the interviewee by doing post-interview edits so that it looks that the interviewee is not answering their questions correctly, and thus, it then advances whatever angle or POV the show has for that episode. And, hand to God, within a year of our class graduating, "60 Minutes" reached out to a local hospital where one of my friends and former college classmates was working in their public information office, and said they wanted to do a positive profile piece on an innovative new emergency service the hospital offered. So the hospital gave them full access to the department and was very facilitating and professional only to receive in return a hit piece by "60 Minutes" on the hospital's new service. My friend was devastated but learned an important lesson. And, in the end, "60 Minutes" was on the wrong side of history because the program is still successfully saving peoples' lives 40 years later. I never watched "60 Minutes" again since I knew I couldn't trust them to be honest.
Is The "Free Press" this upset about the Trump campaign coordinating with Elon Musk to kill circulation of the J.D. Vance Dossier on X? I haven't seen a single mention of that story on TFP, despite multiple pieces on the alleged suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story on Twitter impacting 2020, and now raging against CBS editing.
I guess censorship is only ok when Republicans do it. Dear me Bari, you're better than this.
I know the editors loved writing that final sentence