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.
I had no idea who this guy was just a year ago, but he has certainly made a name for himself and his "reporting" throughout this election. Now he is advocating that journalists abandon the very principles that make them journalists.
I realize that many "journalists" have already abandoned their neutrality, but they do it covertly. Not that it is not obvious, but no journalist to my knowledge, has ever advocated openly abandoning neutrality as a policy.
Should neutrality still be the benchmark for journalists? Are the good journalists still the ones that are the most neutral, or are they the ones who entertain us the most with their partisanship?
Quote:
Univision anchor Jorge Ramos took to Fox News on Thursday night to defend his calls for journalists to abandon neutrality when covering Donald Trump.
Ramos appeared on “The Kelly File” to discuss his Time magazine opinion piece where he wrote “neutrality is not an option,” as well as the fact that his daughter works for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Ramos wrote in the op-ed that “it doesn't matter who you are — a journalist, a politician or a voter — we'll all be judged by how we responded to Donald Trump.”
CNN is the Clinton News Network. He's preaching to the choir.
What does that have to do with the words that came out of his mouth ???
He explained what he meant in his comment. You either take him at his word, or you believe he is lying. Either way, what network he said it on doesnt change that.
mr ramos wants to attack trump, and that is fine, but is he also going to attack clinton as well? if not then he is abandoning neutrality and siding with clinton, and thus is no longer a reporter, but rather a campaigner for clinton.
this is the problem with the media today, they want to pick who wins the election, and that should not be the case. the media needs to report the facts, and they need to be neutral, otherwise they are just cheerleaders for their candidate.
I watched him be interviewed on CNN, He seems to actually be arguing that you shouldnt play nice with a political candidate.
Your job is to get to the truth, not coddle people. He isnt arguing that you shouldnt be objective.
So much for the school of journalism! We should just mandate that our news is proceeded with: "This is a paid political announcement"! With six corporations owning 90% of the news; try to show one unbiased report! I have to wonder how much money our reporters paid the Hillary Foundation just to keep their jobs?
How many have recently watched: Truth (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3859076/)? That was about our establishment crushing any challenge to George W. Bush's military record. That move came out last year. I wonder how many years it will take to make 'Truth II' about Hillary's past? Of course, if they do make the move; I have to wonder how many will die instead of just loosing their jobs?
I had no idea who this guy was just a year ago, but he has certainly made a name for himself and his "reporting" throughout this election. Now he is advocating that journalists abandon the very principles that make them journalists.
I realize that many "journalists" have already abandoned their neutrality, but they do it covertly. Not that it is not obvious, but no journalist to my knowledge, has ever advocated openly abandoning neutrality as a policy.
Should neutrality still be the benchmark for journalists? Are the good journalists still the ones that are the most neutral, or are they the ones who entertain us the most with their partisanship?
Actually, that is EXACTLY what he is arguing. Read his words. They couldn't be more clear.
How can you call yourself objective and make statements of judgement at the same time? Those two things are opposites.
You can be objective in the overall view of Dem vs Republican. Liberal vs Conservative. He never said not to do that.
But, for example. If a Politician says that a Mexican american cant be a udge on a case against him, then that is racist, and you arent being a good journalist by not calling that politician out on it
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.
