General Americas media

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Papi Chingon

Domesticated Hombre
Oct 19, 2015
30,560
37,812
I don't have that info handy.

But this goes back to what I've said before, and that's that you should never rely on any single news outlet for all your news, because if you do you will undoubtedly end up with an unbalanced view of world events.

As I've mentioned more than once, I watch a lot of Fox News. But I also watch CNN and even MSNBC on occasion, and that really does help to provide a more balanced, well-rounded picture.

I also use a news app (SmartNews, it's great) that aggregates articles from many different sources.

I've concluded that some degree of bias is probably inevitable, but since I do have access to so many different news resources I don't worry about it too much. What I am much more concerned about is the news that is presented to me being factually accurate, at least to the best of the reporter's knowledge at that time. When I read a news article, or watch a news story on television, I need to be confident that the information being provided is correct.
Journalist code of ethics (I was going to add in bold violations, but let's not kid ourselves here, since none of it matters anymore)
Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.

Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.

Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.

Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.

Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.

Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.

Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.

Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.

Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.

Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.

Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.

Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.

Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.

Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.

Label advocacy and commentary.

Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.

Never plagiarize. Always attribute.
Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.

Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.

Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.

Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.

Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.

Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.

Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.


Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.

Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not.

Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.

Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.
Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content.

Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.

Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.

Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.

Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.
 
1

1031

Guest
Yeah, it's a little old. I doubt there's been some crazy Jewish wave that's swept through the news business in the last 8 years, though.

One thing to note is how it talks about various figures being rumored to be Jewish, but without substantiating evidence. It's very possible that the infographics posted earlier are the result of these rumors.

I can't say for sure, nor am I interested enough to try to fact-check them. But I'm just sayin'.



Well they are at least SOME of the events of our world.

It's certainly true that a lot of stuff just doesn't get reported, for one reason or another. Right now the US involved militarily in Yemen and it's barely being reported by the cable outlets when it probably should be a big story that's getting a lot more airtime.
It reminds me of some books I purchased a while back, the title is something like "Censored: The Most Under-reported Stories of:20XX"
I'm sure the title is off but you get the idea. Based on the stories within the book, it did give me the impression that there's something going on in terms of who "allows" some stories to get widespread coverage and of course which stories are censored. Food for thought.
 
M

member 1013

Guest
Jews have had a disproportionate amount of control over the media for a long time. It's not much different from their control over Hollywood. That's been the case for at least several decades.

Whether they targeted the news business just because they thought it would be a profitable business to get into or because they wanted a way to manipulate world affairs is the question, and not one I have an answer to.
It’s money. We also purposefully sought out industries to make our own as there was a substantial amount of time where Jews weren’t treated too nicely (thankfully gone in most of NA).

Although I don’t get offended when people think we are some evil boogeyman. It makes me laugh. If people think we’re organized enough as an entity to pull off shit like global domination conspiracies they clearly don’t know too many Jews or about the dynamics of inter Jew relationships.
 

Belobog

First 100
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
759
1,445
These editions were printed at different times, not in different markets. The differing WSJ editions are distinguishable by the number of stars displayed in the masthead.

The left was published after Trump met with Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto early in the day and referenced the seemingly cooperative tone of their discussion. The right was published later after Trump delivered a speech on immigration and referenced Trump’s reasserting his stance that he would force Mexico to pay for the building of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
 

MachidaKarate

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2018
553
636
Journalist code of ethics (I was going to add in bold violations, but let's not kid ourselves here, since none of it matters anymore)
Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.

Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.

Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.

Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.

Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.

Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.

Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.

Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.

Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.

Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.

Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.

Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.

Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.

Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.

Label advocacy and commentary.

Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.

Never plagiarize. Always attribute.
Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.

Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.

Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.

Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.

Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.

Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.

Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.


Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.

Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not.

Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.

Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.
Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content.

Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.

Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.

Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.

Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.
Nice list.

I don't think that this kind of dedication to journalism is dead, as much as it may at times seem so. You still have journalists dropping into war zones, risking their lives to tell the story, as well as journalists like Glenn Greenwald, who put their freedom at risk to break a story like the Edward Snowden revelations. That is to say that there are still principled people who care about the work.

I do want to say something else about bias. I'm reading this book right now:



The subtitle about "the collapse of American journalism," to be clear, is not about a collapse in ethics but rather a collapse in resources being dedicated to reporting.

But the first essay--the book is a collection of essays--says this, which reminded me of our conversation: "In private conversation, reporters and editors concede that objectivity is an ideal, an unreachable horizon. . ."

That's not a diabolical statement, but rather a concession that even editors and reporters are human, and as such are subjective and biased creatures. This doesn't mean they shouldn't work toward pure objectivity, it only means that because of their humanity they will always be reporting from a point-of-view.

Provided they're at least trying hard to reach that "unreachable horizon," I don't mind cutting them a little bit of slack.
 

MachidaKarate

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2018
553
636
It reminds me of some books I purchased a while back, the title is something like "Censored: The Most Under-reported Stories of:20XX"
I'm sure the title is off but you get the idea. Based on the stories within the book, it did give me the impression that there's something going on in terms of who "allows" some stories to get widespread coverage and of course which stories are censored. Food for thought.
Oh, well I can tell you that the editorial department controls the flow of news and the direction that coverage moves in. The reporters definitely don't have editorial independence by any means.

Consider the following leaked Fox News memos. These are instructions from executive John Moody to his staff.

Regarding the battle of Fallujah:

Into Fallujah: It's called Operation Vigilant Resolve and it began Monday morning (NY time) with the US and Iraqi military surrounding Fallujah. We will cover this hour by hour today, explaining repeatedly why it is happening. It won't be long before some people start to decry the use of "excessive force". We won't be among that group (4/4/04).
Regarding general American involvement in Iraq:

The events in Iraq Tuesday are going to be the top story, unless and until something else (or worse) happens. Err on the side of doing too much Iraq rather than not enough. Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there? The US is in Iraq to help a country brutalized for 30 years protect the gains made by Operation Iraqi Freedom and set it on the path to democracy. Some people in Iraq don't want that to happen. That is why American GIs are dying. And what we should remind our viewers (4/6/04).
On George W. Bush:

[Th]e president is doing something that few of his predecessors dared undertake: [pu]tting the US case for mideast peace to an Arab summit. It's a distinctly [sk]eptical crowd that Bush faces. His political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day (6/3/03).
On the 9/11 Commission:

The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both frmer [sic] and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not "what did he know and when did he know it" stuff. Do not turn this into Watergate. Remember the fleeting sense of national unity that emerged from this tragedy. Let's not desecrate that (3/23/04).
Here's my source for these, and to be fair I picked out the most egregious in terms of being examples of how the editorial department shapes news coverage:

33 internal FOX editorial memos reviewed by MMFA reveal FOX News Channel's inner workings

But it's no secret that in any news room across the country, choices are made regarding what stories to cover and how much coverage they will receive. This is inevitable, even just looking at it purely on a practical level.
 

MachidaKarate

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2018
553
636
Although I don’t get offended when people think we are some evil boogeyman. It makes me laugh. If people think we’re organized enough as an entity to pull off shit like global domination conspiracies they clearly don’t know too many Jews or about the dynamics of inter Jew relationships.
LOL, I've questioned this myself.

When people starting proposing a big Jewish conspiracy, I always wonder how it would work. Like, do you guys have big quarterly Jew meetings where you decide what the plan is for the next four months?
 
Last edited:

MachidaKarate

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2018
553
636
These editions were printed at different times, not in different markets. The differing WSJ editions are distinguishable by the number of stars displayed in the masthead.

The left was published after Trump met with Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto early in the day and referenced the seemingly cooperative tone of their discussion. The right was published later after Trump delivered a speech on immigration and referenced Trump’s reasserting his stance that he would force Mexico to pay for the building of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Damn, no shit. Is this true?

If so, that's good detective work, and just goes to show you how easy it is for misinformation/disinformation to disseminate out across the Internet, no doubt with a lot of people just taking it at face value.
 
M

member 1013

Guest
LOL, I've questioned this myself.

When people starting proposing a big Jewish conspiracy, I always wonder how it would work. Like, do you guys have big quarterly Jew meetings where you decide what the plan is for the next four months?
Yes we meet in various halls throughout our network of underground tunnels. It used to be on the phone but since it’s 2018 we skype via secure connection directly to the 7 bankers that control everything. They pass down their evil and super sneaky diabolical ingenious plans to us so we may bend the goyim to our wills.
 
1

1031

Guest
When people starting proposing a big Jewish conspiracy, I always wonder how it would work.
To me, it's an odd way of thinking, i.e. why would some very powerful Jewish men and women really be looking out for any and all Jews, like they're all some collective. If there were some conspiracy, it would seem likely anyone not in the elite is simply expendable.

But I do have one Jewish friend, and he goes on full frontal offence on anyone or any notion suggesting there's any kind of Jewish or Israeli bias in the news. I swear the guy will take a sick day off work just to rally against whoever is in his sights. He's one of the most objective people I know but on that subject, not even a bit. It is also odd.
 
M

member 3289

Guest
It’s money. We also purposefully sought out industries to make our own as there was a substantial amount of time where Jews weren’t treated too nicely (thankfully gone in most of NA).

Although I don’t get offended when people think we are some evil boogeyman. It makes me laugh. If people think we’re organized enough as an entity to pull off shit like global domination conspiracies they clearly don’t know too many Jews or about the dynamics of inter Jew relationships.
So what you're saying is that you're a self-hating Jew?
 

MachidaKarate

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2018
553
636
To me, it's an odd way of thinking, i.e. why would some very powerful Jewish men and women really be looking out for any and all Jews, like they're all some collective. If there were some conspiracy, it would seem likely anyone not in the elite is simply expendable.
Rather than looking out for all Jews, I would think it would be more along the lines of Jews looking out for the interests of Israel.

But I do have one Jewish friend, and he goes on full frontal offence on anyone or any notion suggesting there's any kind of Jewish or Israeli bias in the news. I swear the guy will take a sick day off work just to rally against whoever is in his sights. He's one of the most objective people I know but on that subject, not even a bit. It is also odd.
Well one thing I will say is that the media does regularly seem to be reticent about criticizing Israel. It sometimes seems to be a taboo, frankly.
 
M

member 1013

Guest
To me, it's an odd way of thinking, i.e. why would some very powerful Jewish men and women really be looking out for any and all Jews, like they're all some collective. If there were some conspiracy, it would seem likely anyone not in the elite is simply expendable.

But I do have one Jewish friend, and he goes on full frontal offence on anyone or any notion suggesting there's any kind of Jewish or Israeli bias in the news. I swear the guy will take a sick day off work just to rally against whoever is in his sights. He's one of the most objective people I know but on that subject, not even a bit. It is also odd.
It can get super emotional