LA Times beclowns industry
Comments(8)
Former LA Times reporter Evan Maxwell on that paper’s rather frightening decision to withhold a video of a current presidential candidate speaking to an audience:
this situation presents a real breakdown of editorial judgement. Journalists can’t withhold the best evidence of any news event from the reader and at the same time characterize the contents and draw conclusions and impressions. That kind of gate-keeping arrogance, in the present climate, is unacceptable…The moment a journalist says he is using a secret report to validate his work, and then refuses to reveal the full contents of the report, he is guilty of the kind of conduct that deservedly brought Sen. Joseph McCarthy to disgrace.
Not only will the Times not release the video, they refuse to even release a transcript of what is on the video.
Remind me again, are we still having that “bias in media” discussion? Well, not anymore.
Can we at least link readers to the oringinal L.A. Times story which ran over six months ago…
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,3627849.story
Also, are we having a discussion over bias in the media as it pertains to the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip? Because I remember having such a discussion in college when we discussed governmental gatekeeping and the media. Lord knows (haha) how much I love to talk about religious conflicts.
“Also, are we having a discussion over bias in the media as it pertains to the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip?”
Hmmm…Let me see…(scanning original post for any evidence of reference to “Israeli occupation of Gaza”)…(still looking, it’s a long post)…Not seeing any so far…(still looking)…
Um, no, though I am confused. I thought you said media was “unbiased.”
http://www.hometownsource.com/blogs/index.php/2008/10/21/concerned-about-double-standard/#comment-22721
Perhaps you misunderstood yourself.
LOL… or perhaps you are unable to comprehend how the government did, in fact, control media reports (bias, not the media choosing sides because if it’s own opinion, but instead the government supplying one-sided information) when it came to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
You don’t always need to jump to a defensive position, PT.
You have MSNBC which is far left in its news coverage, and FOXNEWS which is far right in its news coverage. Those are two biased news networks. But, when it comes to Bachmann’s comments or Biden’s comments, those two legitimate news items were covered by an “unbiased” media. Those weren’t news items that were generated from biased coverage, though it’s more than obvious that Matthews was asking leading questions for a reason Unfortunately, he was allowed to do that by his news organization.
PT, these blog discussions are not about winning or losing, they are about discussing. I hope you better understand me now.
But getting back to the L.A. Times story done a while back, do you believe that the L.A. Times is making up its story about promising its anonymous source that the video would not be made public? Or, do you think that the L.A. Times is telling the truth, but they have the responsibility to provide the tape no matter what?
“PT, these blog discussions are not about winning or losing, they are about discussing.”
Oh, for heaven’s sake. Is that about the “thanks for playing” line? It’s a phrase. Get over it. And, no, I understand very little about you in general. Every time I ask you to explain yourself, or provide something substantive, you start chanting “right-wing, right-wing” like some sort of mantra, as if it means anything.
If I was you, I would start spitting nonsense at this time like “Oh no, Matt said the media was unbiased. Did you hear that people? Totally unbiased. Ridiculous left-wing loon talking point. We’ll see how that faux-fact plays out.”
The LA Times has a responsibility to release the tape. Did you read the post? I found this part of it especially poignant:
“The moment a journalist says he is using a secret report to validate his work, and then refuses to reveal the full contents of the report, he is guilty of the kind of conduct that deservedly brought Sen. Joseph McCarthy to disgrace.”
If the Times is going to report using the video, it has a responsibility to release the video. If it wasn’t prepared to do that, it shouldn’t have used it in the first place. If the video can’t be released to protect a source, than a transcription is in order. The Times will provide neither. That is ethically wrong, but hey, they gotta protect their guy.
OK, I’m done. The floor is yours. I’m all but certain you can find some way to make this about the “right-wing” and completely ignore the subject and the point. Then again, there’s a first time for everything.
I never attempted to make this about you being a party liner, PT. Sometimes, you just try to be mean with your arguments. Did you ever have to debate as part of any class in college?
I’m trying to talk about the topic, which is essentially the L.A. Times possibly covering up evidence that would suggest Obama favors the Palestinian arguments over the Israeli arguments as it pertains to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Do you think Obama lies about being pro-Israel?
Do you think there deserves to be such a thing as pro-Palestine?
We have to understand the importance of the L.A. Times video within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is a topic that I’m very passionate about, because I was fortunate enough to have deep discussions about this issue with classmates from both Israel and Palestine at the University of Minnesota.
For Obama to be “sympathetic,” as reported by the L.A. Times, to the Palestinian cause, is only natural. There is a misunderstanding in America, because we believe that this is a case of good guys vs. bad guys. We have to understand that is not the case, that there are good guys and bad guys on both sides of the conflict.
“I never attempted to make this about you being a party liner, PT. Sometimes, you just try to be mean with your arguments.”
And you Sir are, of course, the epitome of magnanimous and would never stoop so low as to make this about right-wing, left-wing. Except of course, for these recent exceptions:
“PT wanted specific examples of how he makes love to right-ring faux-facts…” (I’m still waiting for credible examples)
“You like to pull right-wing faux-facts from sonservative-based Web sites to argue the majority of your points. It’s kind of like someone saying they get their news from Fox News but then they cite Hannity as a news provider. It’s a joke.” (A completely unsupported accusation, by the way)
As far as my “debate skills” go, I invite you to go back through some of our debates. I have done you the courtesy of arguing points on merit, and have done so providing supporting evidence at every step. You’re response to that is to change the subject rather than address those points, or pawn them off as “right-wing” while failing to present anything substantive to support your own “theories.”
Here is you trying to change the subject again:
“We have to understand the importance of the L.A. Times video within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
Huh? This is a simple story Matt. A newspaper refuses to release a tape or transcript of a meeting it has used to report on Obama. Do you think that is right or wrong? At this point in this argument, as with so many others, I can no longer tell if you simply can’t bring yourself to address the topic, are unable, or perhaps don’t understand what the issue is.
These debates are meaningless because you refuse to engage. I provide evidence, you respond by dismissing it out of hand without any supportable reason for doing so. In the last debate you suggested that a CBS 60 minutes story, a report from the Dept. of Education, a study by a respected Canadian group, and NPR were “faux-facts” from “conservative based” web sites.
I’m getting tired of pretending this is a two-way conversation. I put a lot of work into comments, do the research, support my arguments, and in return I get “haha.” It is a waste of your time, and for more importantly, my time.
Why don’t we just leave it alone from now on.
In my personal opinion, I think the L.A. Times should not release the video but release a transcript.
But, again, the story does not end there. The story involves what is in the transcript. And let’s say, hypothetically, that it has Obama saying “The Israeli Occupational Forces have mistreated innocent Palestinian men and women on a regular basis.”
I’m curious as to whether or not you would believe such a hypothetical comment would be accurate and/or appropriate. Would you?
We aren’t debating your faux-facts in this blog post, we were in another blog post. To bring that into the equation here is to dilute the conversation. But if you must, your obvious faux-fact was citing the IBD/TIPP poll in order to support your claim that Barack Obama does not have “overwhelming support” from the youth vote. You cited a poll that gave McCain a 10-point advantage with voters aged 18-24. Could you give me an example of a credible source like those you listed above (CBS 60 minutes, Department of Education, “respected Canadian Group” or NPR) in which they supply factual evidence that McCain is expected to win the youth vote by 10 points? If not, we have a perfect example of your faux-facts.
But, it was probably a lot of work to Google the most conservative poll out there and do all of the research to support your argument that Obama is not going to win the youth vote.
I know you put a lot of work into comments, do the research and support your arguments, and never do I attempt to suggest you don’t. “Do onto others as you would have done onto you.”
Suggesting I don’t research my arguments simply because you don’t like my side of the arguments is immature and sloppy. Where did you go to college and what courses did you take which offered debate lessons?
“your obvious faux-fact was citing the IBD/TIPP poll in order to support your claim that Barack Obama does not have “overwhelming support” from the youth vote.”
OK, this is a great example. The fact that the IBD/TIPP poll was the most accurate of the 2004 election cycle belies your charge that it is a “faux-poll.” As well, overall the TIPP poll mirrors very closely what other pollsters, like Rasmussen, Battleground, and Gallup (traditional) are projecting. Additionally, the fact that the TIPP poll has swung in the last week regarding the 18-24 set erodes the idea it has been trying to give a false (partisan) impression.
It is wrong? We’ll see. Frankly, I don’t trust any of them. But you calling it not credible, “faux”, or “conservative” just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny given the facts. Can you please provide a link in which a credible source makes a supported case that the TIPP poll is a sham. Most of what I see making that case is left-wing blogs like DU, and DemTrib.
In the larger sense, the poll data I provided was a tiny, insignificant point to the overall discussion. You chose to focus on that because you thought you might get somewhere. The rest of it, in fact the body of the entire argument against nationalized health care, you simply ignored and included in your original “suggestion” that I was reporting faux facts.
“Suggesting I don’t research my arguments simply because you don’t like my side of the arguments is immature and sloppy.”
I don’t know how much research you put into comments because you never provide links to your research materials. I don’t know where your arguments come from, or what weight to give them. Telling me what your friends say about their health care struggles has no bearing on the subject. Nor did you provide any supporting evidence for why the Constitution should be rewritten to include positive rights like to health care or secondary education. In our last debate (28 comments long), you provided NOT ONE SINGLE link to sourced information. NOT ONE! I provided six. (Interestingly enough, I am now supporting with facts my accusation that you do not provide any supporting evidence for your assertions.)
Rule number one of debate is to provide sources for any information you provide or case that you make. Do you disagree with that statement?
If you do not provide sources, no one can judge the veracity of your argument. Say what you want about my arguments, as least you can access the information at its source and judge for yourself. I am offered no such courtesy when you make an argument. I’m simply supposed to take your word for it.
You say, “Do onto others as you would have done onto you.” I think extending me the courtesy of providing sourced material would be a good start in that endeavor.
Back to the original post, if you believe the Times should release the transcript, the only question than is: why won’t it? I fail to see that there could be any reasonable explanation other than the Times desire to protect Obama, but I would be happy to consider all credible, sourced, arguments to the contrary.