The media reports stories. The LSM reports stories incorrectly. My point is that the LSM incorrectly reported several of (insert media victim’s name here) statements. It doesn’t matter who is the subject of a LSM’s erroneous reporting. My point is that the media can turn into the LSM whenever their lazy, or biased, or piss poor reporting requires it. If the public held the media to a higher standard of reporting, the media would be less likely to become the LSM.
You admit that the media has screwed up it’s reporting. You object to my pointing it out by calling them the LSM.
You have not responded to my polite request for citations of the MSM claiming you can’t see Russia from Alaska.
I got tired of waiting, so I looked for them myself. I got over a million hits on “palin see russia house”, and looked at scores of them. With one exception, every allegation that Palin said she could see Russia from her house was in a right-wing attack piece on the MSM. And like you, they did not provide examples, they just repeated it as something “everybody knows” the MSM says. Also, every hit from a credible MSM source noted that Palin didn’t actually say “from her house,” and that it was instead Tina Fey.
The one slip was a host on Nightline who mentioned “from her house” in a throwaway line during an intro to a story about a startup news network Palin was touting, but he also played clips of both Palin’s original statement, and Fey’s spoof, so it’s likely that he simply misspoke and forgot to say “alleged” or something. In any case, Nightline became a glorified Entertainment Tonight years ago, and is not considered hard news, and airs at 12:30 AM with a minuscule audience, so you can hardly condemn the MSM on the basis of that one slip out of thousands of stories.
So come on, put up or shut up. You have been expressing your outrage for the last week over inaccurate slams by the MSM, but it appears that you are inaccurately slamming the MSM by repeating canards from right-wing sources, rather than knowing of any examples yourself.
Once again, the question is: can you site a hard news story from the MSM that said Palin was wrong when she said you can see Russia from Alaska?
Incorrect reporting is not the same as biased reporting. His criticism of CNN was for incorrect reporting and too rapid reporting. His criticism of Fox was for bias. And self contradiction. And for hypocrisy.
I don’t know what you think I “admitted” but let me repeat the most salient part again for you:
… it’s not a matter of “how wrong they are”, it’s more a matter of “how many of the factual details they tend to get wrong”, and this is especially true on technical matters of science and technology because the journalists often don’t understand them well enough. And on other matters like current events, they’ll get details wrong because in the rush of compiling stories about complex events against the pressure of deadlines it’s inevitable that that will happen. They tend to be a lot more accurate when taking a long-term analytical view of past events.
That doesn’t mean the media is “lame” or consistently unreliable, and it certainly doesn’t make them “liberal”.
IOW, you don’t get to call all the major mainstream media “lame” because they sometimes make mistakes or because they report facts that conflict with your personal ideological viewpoint.
*Gohmert reads SNL’s ‘I can see Russia’ sketch on House floor
03/19/14 08:05 PM—Updated 03/20/14 02:21 PM
Rep. Louie Gohmert quoted the 2008 skit starring Tina Fey as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in which Fey mocked Palin’s suggestion that she could “see Russia from [her] house.” But Gohmert didn’t just quote the sketch. He actually played both Tina Fey and co-star Amy Poehler’s parts in the bit to get his point across that Palin never said those words herself.*
*ABC’s Harris Falsely Hits Sarah Palin as the ‘Woman Who Says She Can See Russia from Her House’ By Scott Whitlock | July 29, 2014 | 5:45 PM EDT
Nightline co-anchor Dan Harris on Monday night mocked Sarah Palin for her new internet channel and falsely identified the conservative as “the woman who says she can see Russia from her house.” [See video.] No, she didn’t. It was Saturday Night Live’s Tina Fey in 2008 who uttered this line.*
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2014/07/29/abcs-harris-falsely-hits-sarah-palin-woman-who-says-she-can-see-russ#sthash.OFI41fMD.dpuf Any intelligent person knows that Sarah Palin was joking when she said that she could see Russia from her house. It’s pure hyperbole. But everyone in the media keeps repeating it over and over, and I’m certain that some people probably actually believe it to be true. I bet that even the people that understand the hyperbole probably don’t realize just how much of an exaggeration it really is. So I decided to use my Distance To Horizon Calculator to see just how tall Governor Palin’s house would have to be in order to see the Russian coast.
Indeed you can, and you just did. So let me add the necessary qualifier: you don’t get to call all the major mainstream media “lame” because they sometimes make mistakes or because they report facts that conflict with your personal ideological viewpoint if you want to retain a shred of credibility on the topic.
BTW, I don’t know what you think you accomplished in post #166, but you once again failed to respond to TonySinclair’s question, which was: can you site a hard news story from the MSM that said Palin was wrong when she said you can see Russia from Alaska?
You’ve got a cite for Louie Gohmert playing out the Tina Fey skit on the House floor. Yes, we already know Gohmert is a raving lunatic. So what?
You’ve got a cite for Dan Harris making a quip about Palin “seeing Russia from her house” in the Nightline opening. Deceptive? Hard to claim deception when Palin’s actual words are clearly heard in that same segment. Nor does it answer TonySinclair’s question. Nor would an isolated example say anything about “the mainstream media” as a whole anyway, and you have yet to be able to provide even that much.
And your third example is hilarious. Do you even know what “mainsteam media” is? Hint: it’s not a random blogger.
I’ll try. The mainstream media shows a lot of Trump. This makes them “lame.” LameStream Media was a term Sarah Palin liked to use. Therefore Trump will win because Palin support him.
I believe the cite is post #20, wherein it was claimed that Trump was being unfairly trashed by something called the “LSM”. The rest more or less followed from there, unfortunately.
Perhaps we should admit here and now that Trump meant no harm and just simply “doesn’t know” about Seventh Day Adventists, because indeed there are so, so many things that The Donald obviously doesn’t know. And it would be a terrible mistake to assume that just because The Donald claims that he “doesn’t know” something, that he’s being in some way critical, or trying to make some slimy innuendo about any of his opponents, and especially not about an opponent who is overtaking him in the polls.
According to whom? You? Seriously? You can accept piss poor journalism if you wish. You can accept rumors, biases, distortion, and lies as news stories if you wish. Your choice.
However, your attempt to prevent others from holding media outlets to a higher standard has failed. Better luck next time.
Trying to hold the media to a higher standard is fine. Thinking you’re advancing that goal by the infantile use of the term “LSM” is what people think is ridiculous. It’s a simple point that has been repeatedly made here, but you pretend to not understand.
Exactly. I mentioned the Nightline intro in my challenge to doorhinge as the only one I found that even remotely fits his criteria, and noted that
a) it is an infotainment show, not hard news
b) they played both clips, so the announcer clearly misspoke, and anyone actually watching saw that it was Tina, not Sarah, who said it
c) it airs at 12:30 AM, to a tiny audience
Most importantly, it doesn’t say that you can’t see Russia from Alaska.
Since two such mental giants as doorhinge and myself, combined, couldn’t find anything better, I conclude that doorhinge’s accusation is false. And since false accusations are what he is crusading against, I think he should flog himself and wear a hair shirt until he purges his mind of unclean thoughts about the MSM.
As far as I’m concerned, “higher standard” means publishing stories that are not later proven to be false or misleading. I expect them to get it right the first time. While the media outlets are concerned with being the first to report a story, regardless of it’s authenticity, I prefer that media outlets spend the time, money, and manpower to report the story correctly the first time. YMMV.
It’s proving difficult to remember who said what in 2008/2009 ,which makes it difficult to find videos of those people who were discussing Palin’s seeing Russia. Therefore, I’ll concede the “I can see Russia from my house” issue.
I’ll continue to use the term LSM to describe the media outlets who repeatedly publish false, misleading, and especially un-vetted, news stories.
So how’s that Carson vs. Trump: This Could Get Interesting issue working out for ya? Anything interesting?
I understand the point they are making. They don’t like me now, and if I continue to use the term LSM, they won’t like me in the future. Regardless of which path I chose, nothing changes. Therefore, I chose to continue to use the term LSM to describe media outlets who can’t/won’t properly verify their facts before publically reporting some of their news stories.
Can you think of anything interesting concerning Carson vs Trump?
