Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can see this on a regular basis in their reporting about gun issues. The thread by Little Acorn on the Second Amendment got me thinking about this. How many times do we see journalists tripped up by 'well regulated militia' clause. We've all seen it, many a time. Consider a simple analogy: "a well educated citizenry being necessary to a democratic state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." (cred to writer J. Neil Schulman). From this example, it becomes clear that the 'militia' clause does not constitute a restriction, but merely an explanatory aside. But it's too much for most journalists to grasp.
Many journalists also struggle with terminology. Consider a couple examples from reporting on the recent shooting in Colorado. The shooter was using a drum magazine, which are notoriously unreliable, and true to form it jammed, probably sparing some people from getting shot. Not only did the idiots in the media miss that salient point, several laughably misidentifed the drum magazine. The New York Times, referred to it as a "barrel magazine." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/us...l-arsenal.html
There are barrels, and there are magazines, but there ain't no such thing as a 'barrel magazine.' Google reveals that there is a periodical publication out of Maryland called Cracker Barrel Magazine. Maybe that's what the NYT had in mind.
Or maybe they got it from NBC News. Here, an NBC reporter refers to the CO shooter as having a '100 round ammuntion barrel.' (listen at 2:10 mark to hear it): First Light: Show Archives
Again, there is ammunition, and there are barrels, but the 'ammunition barrel' does not exist.
Rush Limbaugh created kind of a cottage industry with his 'media montages' showing how one reporter would say something, and the others would all flock to say the same thing. Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but IMO it's also can be a sign of low intellectual capacity, of inability to think independently. It's time to realize that many in the media just aren't very bright.
America seems to agree, judging by the low # of viewers. Left wing media outlets, and all their blunders, simply don't represent the sentiment of the people.
How can a kid who has never seen a gun or been exposed to guns accurately report on guns? He Googles for information, that's how. And his source is often a blog or opinion piece, or worse, Wikipedia. Prepared by kids just like him.
In our era of real-time tweets and news, "reporters" and "journalists" don't have time to actually check facts. And they probably don't know how, anyway. The Mainstream Media is a large amalgamation of kids cutting and pasting their way across television, Internet, and social media. I am amazed at how prevalent the practice is.
There was a group of kids at Cal who decided to test the theory and created a fictional story which they posted in blog format. It was picked up and reposted dozens of times by the MSM. The named source was a fictional character. Not one person validated the quotes or they would not have reposted the story.
the mainstream media (MSM), also humorously known by many of its very large number of vocal critics as the lamestream media, are the increasingly liberal media organs that censor the dissemination of news.
The common denominator of the "mainstream media" is their censoring or downplaying stories that would lead viewers to conservative conclusions, and their use of photo bias, placement bias and other forms of deception to mislead viewers into drawing incorrect liberal conclusions. The term mainstream media usually refers to how the majority of commercial-based or taxpayer-funded news reporting and commentary consist of liberal bias, while falsely pretending to be objective providers of information.
I said most and not all. It's clear that Noam Chomsky views the mainstream media much different than you. You view it as some type of socialist conspiracy, he views it as a tool for the elite ruling class. Then again , you probably think that the ruling elites are communists, thus proving my original point.
Now that's flawless
Where did I say it was a 'socialist conspiracy.' I said it was a confederacy of dunces.
I like to watch birds. If you watch the flock birds, like the common house sparrow, their modus operandi is to do whatever the other birds are doing. If you toss a seed or nut near where sparrows are roosting they might not do anything. But if one of them decides to fly down and investigate, all will fly down in a mad rush. I wouldn't call them as dumb as a journalist, but as birds go, they are not very bright.
So instead you say it's state controlled?? Well if the state is headed by a Socialist, and the media is controlled by the state, doesn't that mean the media is Socialist??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
