Could you explain why you wouldn’t agree, based on that hypothetical?
Because, the media has an obligation towards the truth, not towards what the public wants.
And the media is the absolute arbiter of the truth? Sometimes the truth cannot be known, or cannot be known for weeks, months or years. Until then, there are opinions, or positions. That;s all they are. C’mon you’ve got to do better than that.
I don’t believe I’m in the position of having to retract anything. Which post are you referring to? The OP?
Why?
Before the war, the president made speeches. They covered that. Preparation happened. They covered that. Countries protested that there was not just cause. They covered that. People said the war would be a good thing, and people said it would be a bad thing. They covered both of those. All things that actually happened, that they covered. All, by dint of existing, true events.
What do you think they did before the war, only show anti-war news, and editorials? :dubious:
This HAS to be a rhetorical question. Please enlighten us.
[QUOTE=andros]
Why? This has already been covered in the last thread, and you are not going to get a recap from me. Anyone else want to try?
Well, in post 75 you said that the NPR got a rep for being liberal because the country moved to the right. So at one point the center, as defined by both the general populace and NPR, were one and the same. So NPR is mainting a center from a time past. Your quote:
“I submit to you that a similar process has occurred wrt to NPR. The country has shifted far to the right, and in trying to maintain balance and objectivity to its stories, it has gotten a rep for being liberal. The people who are right-wing see NPR’s stance as liberal. They are only trying to keep things balanced, to not be influenced by a culture that has shifted so far to the right that Attilla the Hun looks mainstream now.”
But then you said in post 95 that:
“NPR is in the middle now.”
As I tried to point out, you can’t have it both ways. One of those positions has to be wrong. Whichever you choose, you should retract the other.
Hey, the whole purpose of public media was to provide a non-commercial alternative to commercial media.
The media have an obligation to who pays their bills. If the public desires objectivity and “truth,” that’s what will be provided.
Sadly, most people don’t.
Your morals and ethics don’t enter into it.
To borrow a Scott Plaid tactic:
“I didn’t have a real answer before and I don’t have one now. Someone bail me out!”
You think that is how I work? How many times have I ever done that, compaired to the nuumber of times I have plugged on, sure that only I 
can possibly provide the right answer?
Fine then, I will provide one good answer of many for why the press should not lie to the public. Because, it is union rules, that is why.
Now, anyone want to give input on this? Should I give cites for something that has been done to death?
[QUOTE=Scott Plaid]
You think that is how I work?
[quote]
No, I was referring to the “translating people’s posts” shtick.
You quoted the code of ethics for journalists. Not for “the media.”
And “the media” is made up of… What?
Apparently, I’m also mimicking the “can’t code” shtick. (I kid, I kid!)
“The media” is owned by . . . whom? Operated by . . . whom?
And the code of ethics is binding . . . how?
Arbiter? But that’s not what he said. The media has an obligation to truth is what he said.
Now, they may not fulfill that obligation, and we, as consumers, may be lax about holding them to that obligation… after all, the obligations they will suffer consequences from are their financial and market obligations. The truth, unfortunately, isn’t going to come after anyone’s job or kick someone in the butt for funding demogogery.
I guess Scott Plaid gave up. Oh, well… But I appreciate your input wevets.
I used the word arbiter because SP’s earlier contention was that the media did not have an obligation to air both sidea of a position. My point was that they have an obligation to air both sides because that’s how you get to the truth, if you’re going to get to it at all. If they do not do this, then they have decided ahead of time where the truth lies, therefore rendering themselves arbiters of the truth. I don’t know if you’ve done so already, but if you read our exchange going back to post #75, I think our respective positions will be clearer.
Oops. In the previous post I cited Scotch Plaid when I meant to write Evil Captor. I was involved in discussions with them both. My apologies to Scothc Plaid.
But as you hint in post #91, you really can’t explore all sides of an issue in a practical sense. I would even argue that there are some situations where “both sides” don’t necessarily deserve a hearing in a news report. Creation vs. Evolution, for example (let’s not get hijacked though, it’s just a case in which I think airing both sides is less likely to help you get to “truth.”)
Getting back to NPR, I think they do a laudable job of being very fair. Someone earlier mentioned the infamous “shut up” problem in some modern media. I believe this problem is essentially non-existent on NPR, while it’s all too common on just about every commercial network (CNN, Fox, etc…).
I read it, but I must admit I often skim posts… 
shrug