I’m having trouble understanding whether you intend to talk about reporters and the stories they cover, or opinion writers and the issues they discuss. Can you clarify?
I can’t believe we’re still debating this idiocy three years later. yorick73, what you’re quoting is not a conspiracy. It’s journalists saying they don’t think something is worthy of news coverage and encouraging their colleagues not to cover it for that reason. News judgment is part of journalism. Let’s not mince words here: there are reasons sensible people can object to what Wright said, but the story was also headline news for several weeks and part of that was simple racial paranoia. “Oh my God, the black guy hates white people!” I think that at least not considering the racial implications of the story before reporting it would be stupid since that’s what the story was about in the first place.
No one in the linked story advised anyone to bury the Wright scandal out of a concern for good reporting. Ackerman, for instance, wanted to threaten his political opponents, and recommended that, instead of covering the scandal, that they choose a member of the right at random and accuse him of being racist.
This sounds like a concern for good reporting to you?
All the horseshit you people spout about Fox News and how terrible they are and how biased and how evil. Then something like this comes up, which is many times worse, and you just try to pretend it’s OK.
:shrugs:
Regards,
Shodan
So Ackerman’s suggestion that, instead of covering Wright, they pick out a member of the right at random and accuse him of racism, is good news judgment in your opinion? How come they aren’t so worried about the racial implications of that?
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, there’s oodles of difference. For starters, the pastor who introduced Perry was introducing him at a political function, a function where Perry was the focus. Perry had an opportunity to speak at once, or at any time he chose, most likely.
Obama had no such opportunity. I understand that black church events are more lively and interesting that the mayonaisse Methodism of my own youth, but I don’t imagine that it is common for a parishoner to rise at the end of the sermon to offer remarks and/or corrections.
The political opinions of Obama’s pastor interest me just a bit more than the opinions of his dentist. But not much more.
That’s similar to what I said in that they’re both written with letters. EDIT: I was responding to yorick73’s comment that the emails show the press tried to bury the story, not saying that a bunch of over-the-top rhetoric is good journalism. Given that the press did spend weeks on the Wright story, I find it hard to believe anybody who dislikes Obama can be unhappy with anything about it except the fact that it didn’t kill his candidacy.
I’ve heard plenty of speeches (not so many sermons since I avoid churches like the plague) where I was inspired and very much agreed with parts of it, but disagreed with other parts. Isn’t this how most people react to lengthy opinion pieces by people with strong agendas?
It’s not clear to me who in the dialogue is talking about reporting and who is talking about opinion writing.
Btw, how many people who believe that “Obama hates America” have read his books? I’ve read them and I think it’s pretty clear that he loves this country.
Obama didn’t have to get up and protest right there. All he had to do was to quit going to a church run by a racist and anti-semite.
See post #59. Do you think those stories are worthy of news coverage?
Can get get some cites for that? Specifically please. I’d like to see quotes.
Thanks in advance.
And, of course, stop beating his wife.
Whoever wrote it loves this country, yes. Has anyone seen the first drafts, in his own hand? Well, there you have it.
Like others here you have missed the point. The point is that the media will try to ignore any bad story about one of its favored candidates until it can no longer be ignored. If, on the other hand, the focus of the story is a Republican doing or saying something bad, the media will jump on that story regardless of the amount of evidence available.
Of what?
His antisemitism and more general racism.
Even that would be doubtful. Even a child could see that the handwriting was forged. And you could see the pixels. Definitely 'shopped.
Just google Rev Wright quotes
I’m asking you to substantiate you claim. Should I assume you’ll retract it now?