MorningGlory Posted February 9, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted February 9, 2017 I didn't think the leftist press could go any lower but, as usual, I was wrong! Bannon says we are at war with Islamists, it's a world war, and I agree. Thoughts on the article? http://www.newsheist.com/Articles/2017.2.6_usa_today_bannon_isis/1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted February 9, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 596 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,047 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,792 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 9, 2017 I'm going to have to pass up a comment on this one..... everything my keyboard wants to spell out is a bit vulgar..... or outright in some cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted February 9, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.70 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted February 9, 2017 From the USA Today editorial.... Both Steve Bannon and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi share similar world views. Both harbor apocalyptic visions of a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. I would say that the USA Today is spot on, as they did not compare the two men, they highlighted views they have in common. But they never accused Bannon of being a murderer or anything of the sort. I am not sure if there is anything in the piece that was said about Bannon that was not true. Did you read the USA Today piece and if so, what in it about Bannon did you find to be false? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedByGrace1981 Posted February 9, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,923 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 462 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/02/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/22/1953 Share Posted February 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Out of the Shadows said: From the USA Today editorial.... Both Steve Bannon and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi share similar world views. Both harbor apocalyptic visions of a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. I would say that the USA Today is spot on, as they did not compare the two men, they highlighted views they have in common. But they never accused Bannon of being a murderer or anything of the sort. I am not sure if there is anything in the piece that was said about Bannon that was not true. Did you read the USA Today piece and if so, what in it about Bannon did you find to be false? It is clever journalism. It is also dishonest. One can assume Fred Phelps of Westboro BAPTIST Church infamy claims to have a Baptist Theological worldview. The Reverend Billy Graham is also a Baptist. So assume an article was written - very carefully and perhaps technically correct - that headlined both men's names and suggested they were in any way similar theologically. This is what has happened here. OOTS, you have indicated you believe 'honest' sources of journalism are becoming rare and that is a problem. I happen to agree with you about their rarity - it's just the 'becoming' part that I have an argument with. From the NY Times praising the Soviet Union in the 1930s to CBS' Cronkite's dishonest reporting of the Vietnam War in the 60s - 'honest' journalism' has rarely (if ever) existed. This little 'episode' only cements my opinion. Blessings, -Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted February 9, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.70 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted February 9, 2017 5 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said: It is clever journalism. It is also dishonest. One can assume Fred Phelps of Westboro BAPTIST Church infamy claims to have a Baptist Theological worldview. The Reverend Billy Graham is also a Baptist. So assume an article was written - very carefully and perhaps technically correct - that headlined both men's names and suggested they were in any way similar theologically. This is what has happened here. OOTS, you have indicated you believe 'honest' sources of journalism are becoming rare and that is a problem. I happen to agree with you about their rarity - it's just the 'becoming' part that I have an argument with. From the NY Times praising the Soviet Union in the 1930s to CBS' Cronkite's dishonest reporting of the Vietnam War in the 60s - 'honest' journalism' has rarely (if ever) existed. This little 'episode' only cements my opinion. Blessings, -Ed But this is not journalism, this is not even an article, this is an OpEd piece, and one that has a counter to it with a "pro Bannon" piece. USAToday regularly does a "point/counter point" debate like this with a pro and a con to an issue or a person. It usually has at least one side that is sensationalized more than the other, but that is how you draw in readers. I am not pointing this directly at you, but people need to separate opinion from journalism. I have this same discussion with people on the left who talk about someone like Rush or Hannity as if they are journalist, which both frequently point out they are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted February 9, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 596 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,047 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,792 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 9, 2017 25 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said: From the NY Times praising the Soviet Union in the 1930s to CBS' Cronkite's dishonest reporting of the Vietnam War in the 60s - 'honest' journalism' has rarely (if ever) existed. This little 'episode' only cements my opinion. Blessings, -Ed Cronkite was the voice of Moloch, the owl god of the Bohemian Grove, for years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedByGrace1981 Posted February 9, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,923 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 462 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/02/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/22/1953 Share Posted February 9, 2017 35 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said: But this is not journalism, this is not even an article, this is an OpEd piece, and one that has a counter to it with a "pro Bannon" piece. USAToday regularly does a "point/counter point" debate like this with a pro and a con to an issue or a person. It usually has at least one side that is sensationalized more than the other, but that is how you draw in readers. I am not pointing this directly at you, but people need to separate opinion from journalism. I have this same discussion with people on the left who talk about someone like Rush or Hannity as if they are journalist, which both frequently point out they are not. I haven't looked at a USA Today for years (I recall when it first came out, it was called "McPaper" - meaning I suppose it was to journalism what McDonalds was to food). Thanks for clearing that up - that does put a different spin on it. As to the other point - there does seem to be a confusion between 'opinion' and 'journalism'. The lines seem to have been blurred, and if you say that is more a recent development I would agree. In the old newspaper days, editorials were rarely if ever put on the 'front page'. If they were, they were clearly labeled as such. Opinions and 'letters to the editor' were usually on page A-10. Where we may get into controversy and disagreement is I would say - even in THOSE days - 'opinion' was finding its way into hard news. It just wasn't labeled as such. But back to the OP - the editors at USA Today (as the editors of any media outlet) have the right to say whatever they wish - and frame it however they want. I suppose to me it boils down to a question of strategy. Do they want to 'draw in' new readers; or simply preach to the choir (their base)? Because - to me - it seems that the editorial we are talking about does the latter; not the former. Blessings, -Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedByGrace1981 Posted February 9, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,923 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 462 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/02/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/22/1953 Share Posted February 9, 2017 35 minutes ago, other one said: Cronkite was the voice of Moloch, the owl god of the Bohemian Grove, for years... The scary thing is - for years and years he was supposedly the most 'trusted man in America'. He closed his show every evening with " . . . .and THAT's the way it is, [insert date here]" It wasn't until years later he revealed how leftist he was. Blessings, -Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted February 9, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.70 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted February 9, 2017 9 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said: I haven't looked at a USA Today for years (I recall when it first came out, it was called "McPaper" - meaning I suppose it was to journalism what McDonalds was to food). Thanks for clearing that up - that does put a different spin on it. As to the other point - there does seem to be a confusion between 'opinion' and 'journalism'. The lines seem to have been blurred, and if you say that is more a recent development I would agree. In the old newspaper days, editorials were rarely if ever put on the 'front page'. If they were, they were clearly labeled as such. Opinions and 'letters to the editor' were usually on page A-10. Where we may get into controversy and disagreement is I would say - even in THOSE days - 'opinion' was finding its way into hard news. It just wasn't labeled as such. But back to the OP - the editors at USA Today (as the editors of any media outlet) have the right to say whatever they wish - and frame it however they want. I suppose to me it boils down to a question of strategy. Do they want to 'draw in' new readers; or simply preach to the choir (their base)? Because - to me - it seems that the editorial we are talking about does the latter; not the former. Blessings, -Ed I used to travel a lot and still do a fair amount of it and it seems that the USAToday is still the free paper of choice for most hotels. Keep in mind that this anti-Bannon editorial was only half of the story, there is also a pro-Bannon editorial called "Bannon is a welcome change". This is standard fare for USAToday, the point-counter point thing. It was one of the few sections I would read over breakfast at the hotel with my free paper. I would link to it but there are way too many embedded videos and ads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 7 hours ago, MorningGlory said: I didn't think the leftist press could go any lower but, as usual, I was wrong! Bannon says we are at war with Islamists, it's a world war, and I agree. Thoughts on the article? http://www.newsheist.com/Articles/2017.2.6_usa_today_bannon_isis/1.html It is another reckless comparison with no basis in real facts. The media has already tried, in futility, to paint him as an anti-Semite and that didn't hold water, either. It just another example of how liberal journalism is becoming a dishonest and despicable profession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts