Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: The Right to not be Offended

  1. #11
    Senior Member JaneV2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,467
    Quote Originally Posted by catherine View Post
    Wow. I read most of the article (or at least sped-read it) and I watched some of the interview, and all I can say is Wow. She makes Rachel Maddow look like Walter Cronkite. This is what I HATE about TV journalism. There aren't any journalists. ...
    That's interesting. I recently heard someone--I think it was Malcolm Nance--praise Maddow and her staff for generating powerful and meticulous investigative work--I think he even mentioned Cronkite. She has done, and continues to do, the most granular study of the issues surrounding the Mueller probe. I don't recall such in-depth analyses of similar issues since I binge-watched coverage of the Watergate hearings. My idea of "not journallism" is on display daily on morning "news" shows.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneV2.0 View Post
    That's interesting. I recently heard someone--I think it was Malcolm Nance--praise Maddow and her staff for generating powerful and meticulous investigative work--I think he even mentioned Cronkite. She has done, and continues to do, the most granular study of the issues surrounding the Mueller probe. I don't recall such in-depth analyses of similar issues since I binge-watched coverage of the Watergate hearings. My idea of "not journallism" is on display daily on morning "news" shows.
    Maddow is one of the very few talking heads of cable, regardless of political stripe, who sometimes does actual reporting. Cable "news" these days consists mainly of regurgitating the same headlines as everyone else, and then encouraging your base of viewers to work themselves into a self-righteous snit through interviewing "commentators" who mostly tell the left-leaning/right-leaning audience what they want to hear. Maddow does a certain amount of this too (it's what drives ratings), but she has a staff who sometimes get into the weeds and report something that's not being reported everywhere else.

  3. #13
    Senior Member JaneV2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,467
    As far as "microagressions" go, they give me an idea of who someone is, so I'd hate if people went underground and got all Eddie Haskell on me. I say pick your battles, and grow the aforementioned thick skin. Indiscriminate whininess is more annoying than the actions it protests, IMO.

  4. #14
    Senior Member catherine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Central Jersey
    Posts
    7,348
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneV2.0 View Post
    That's interesting. I recently heard someone--I think it was Malcolm Nance--praise Maddow and her staff for generating powerful and meticulous investigative work--I think he even mentioned Cronkite. She has done, and continues to do, the most granular study of the issues surrounding the Mueller probe. I don't recall such in-depth analyses of similar issues since I binge-watched coverage of the Watergate hearings. My idea of "not journallism" is on display daily on morning "news" shows.
    I haven't watched her in quite some time, but back then, I really felt that her reporting was very partisan. This may be part of her being "guilty by association" with MSNBC, which I have always viewed to be the liberal yin to FoxNews' conservative yang. My husband and I used to toggle between Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reilly when they were on at the same time, and I felt that both presented a pretty strong personal agenda, which I object to, even though more often than not I was on Rachel's "team". Maybe she's changed. I'll have to check her out.
    "Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
    www.silententry.wordpress.com

  5. #15
    Senior Member JaneV2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,467
    Quote Originally Posted by oldhat View Post
    Maddow is one of the very few talking heads of cable, regardless of political stripe, who sometimes does actual reporting. Cable "news" these days consists mainly of regurgitating the same headlines as everyone else, and then encouraging your base of viewers to work themselves into a self-righteous snit through interviewing "commentators" who mostly tell the left-leaning/right-leaning audience what they want to hear. Maddow does a certain amount of this too (it's what drives ratings), but she has a staff who sometimes get into the weeds and report something that's not being reported everywhere else.
    And to be fair, it's not just cable news that does that--most of the major news organizations do a lot of regurgitation--it's a 24/7 business, after all. I lament the loss of Al Jazeera, that presented lots of international stories--stuff never see from US-based outlets.

  6. #16
    Senior Member JaneV2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,467
    Quote Originally Posted by catherine View Post
    I haven't watched her in quite some time, but back then, I really felt that her reporting was very partisan. This may be part of her being "guilty by association" with MSNBC, which I have always viewed to be the liberal yin to FoxNews' conservative yang. My husband and I used to toggle between Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reilly when they were on at the same time, and I felt that both presented a pretty strong personal agenda, which I object to, even though more often than not I was on Rachel's "team". Maybe she's changed. I'll have to check her out.
    I'm clearly biased, but Fox has been caught out in lies time and time again (I have trouble taking an organization seriously that uses Breitbart as a source and gives credence to every wacky conspiracy theory they espouse), and I think MSNBC sticks pretty close to the truth, albeit truth with a slant. I know Maddow corrects herself if she misstates something, or gets it wrong.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,853
    Suddenly, I'm reading about this Peterson guy all over the place. The Atlantic. National Review. The New York Times. The Wall Street Journal.

    Based on the one half-hour video I've seen, I can't claim to be an expert on his positions. I'm hearing that he upsets "the outrage culture" and "progressive orthodoxy". David Brooks even compared him to a young William F. Buckley.

    I'm going to have to buy his book.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Ultralight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    7,416
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    Suddenly, I'm reading about this Peterson guy all over the place. The Atlantic. National Review. The New York Times. The Wall Street Journal.
    I have known about him for maybe a couple years now. I watched many of his talks on YouTube. There is a lot that he says that I actually agree with.
    I came from a real tough neighborhood. I put my hand in some cement and felt another hand." -- Rodney Dangerfield

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,494
    Pu$h controver$y $ell book$. And if you ask us the name of the game boy, we call it riding the gravy train. But have you anything to say. Maybe, maybe not. The very controversy would TEND TO ARGUE NOT, as people who have genuinely interesting things to say don't tend to need it to sell books. That's a ploy afterall that usually indicates your main interest is marketing. But eh hey we are all brands these days or should be or something. Even the president is a brand.
    If you want something to get done, ask a busy person. If you want them to have a nervous breakdown that is.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3,155

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •