• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Broadcast network coverage of Iran bombing

TheBigA said:
However, in the days since, a lot of people who had actually been at those facilities when we had access have substantiated that reporting. The satellite photography only shows what's on the surface. The actual work was being done miles below the surface.
Click to expand...
You just gave an example of unsubstantiated "reporting".

You said "miles below the surface". Here is the temperature estimate at three miles:

"The temperature three miles underground would likely range from 212 to 302 degrees Fahrenheit (100 to 150 degrees Celsius)."

The Iranian Fordow installations were 200 to 300 feet below the surface, not "miles".
 
AbrahamJSimpson said:
Incessant attacking? Is that what we’re calling questions based on other information? Expecting something called evidence?

We get it. Not slobbering on dear leader is bad. They are to report and not attack by pointing to holes, no pun intended, in the unsubstantiated ramblings of the supposed person in charge.
Click to expand...
The issue with the majority of voters who elected our "dear leader" is that newsrooms are predominantly inhabited by either registered Democrats (Stephanopoulus et. al.) or those whose political orientation is left of center. That is the news media that failed to report on the cognitive decline of our former elected President and denied now-proven things like the Hunter Biden laptop. So with such actual facts in hand, we are justifiably skeptical of nearly everything that comes out of traditional sources such as WaPo, NYT, NBC, CBS, and ABC.

I gave an example of the NYT's unique way of minimizing the achievement of getting the NATO allies to all-but-one co-finance their mutual defense. That one should be engraved on a brass plaque as an example of biased news reporting... particularly since it was buried two pages down on the website despite it being perhaps the second most significant news item today.

In an hour of GMA today, that topic was not even mentioned.
 
davideduardo said:
The issue with the majority of voters who elected our "dear leader" is that newsrooms are predominantly inhabited by either registered Democrats (Stephanopoulus et. al.) or those whose political orientation is left of center. That is the news media that failed to report on the cognitive decline of our former elected President and denied now-proven things like the Hunter Biden laptop. So with such actual facts in hand, we are justifiably skeptical of nearly everything that comes out of traditional sources such as WaPo, NYT, NBC, CBS, and ABC.

I gave an example of the NYT's unique way of minimizing the achievement of getting the NATO allies to all-but-one co-finance their mutual defense. That one should be engraved on a brass plaque as an example of biased news reporting... particularly since it was buried two pages down on the website despite it being perhaps the second most significant news item today.

In an hour of GMA today, that topic was not even mentioned.
Click to expand...
The Medias job is to report the facts as they get them. Not rehash government press releases that only glaze over what the administration wants to get out.

The press secretary is supposes to give facial details to the press. Not a dog a pony show with smoke and mirrors.

39% is not a majority.
 
davideduardo said:
The issue with the majority of voters who elected our "dear leader" is that newsrooms are predominantly inhabited by either registered Democrats (Stephanopoulus et. al.) or those whose political orientation is left of center. That is the news media that failed to report on the cognitive decline of our former elected President and denied now-proven things like the Hunter Biden laptop. So with such actual facts in hand, we are justifiably skeptical of nearly everything that comes out of traditional sources such as WaPo, NYT, NBC, CBS, and ABC.

I gave an example of the NYT's unique way of minimizing the achievement of getting the NATO allies to all-but-one co-finance their mutual defense. That one should be engraved on a brass plaque as an example of biased news reporting... particularly since it was buried two pages down on the website despite it being perhaps the second most significant news item today.

In an hour of GMA today, that topic was not even mentioned.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the media was also the one in 2016 and 2020 less so helped kick Bernie to the curb in order to make Hillary the candidate of the primary. Washington Post in particular ran about one editorial every 2 hours in a 24 hour period in 2016 that was a hit piece on Bernie before an important primary. So it's not like they're very progressive.
 
tall_guy1 said:
Yeah, but the media was also the one in 2016 and 2020 less so helped kick Bernie to the curb in order to make Hillary the candidate of the primary. Washington Post in particular ran about one editorial every 2 hours in a 24 hour period in 2016 that was a hit piece on Bernie before an important primary. So it's not like they're very progressive.
Click to expand...
In that case, which I followed, the argument was that Bernie was not a Democrat but a Socialist who ran as a Democrat. From that perspective, many in the media were making a distinction that they felt necessary, explaining that a Democrat Party candidate should really be a Democrat, not a socialist.
 
davideduardo said:
In that case, which I followed, the argument was that Bernie was not a Democrat but a Socialist who ran as a Democrat. From that perspective, many in the media was making a distinction that they felt necessary, explaining that a Democrat Party candidate should really be a democrat, not a socialist.
Click to expand...
He shouldn't have called himself that (they were still just slightly more left of center than Hillary), but they forced a different candidate (Hillary) which didn't have the momentum he did. A lot of the people who thought he was a communist thought she was, too.
 
davideduardo said:
In that case, which I followed, the argument was that Bernie was not a Democrat but a Socialist who ran as a Democrat. From that perspective, many in the media were making a distinction that they felt necessary, explaining that a Democrat Party candidate should really be a Democrat, not a socialist.
Click to expand...
And what do the republicans have now? It would make Regan look like Bill Clinton.
 
davideduardo said:
In that case, which I followed, the argument was that Bernie was not a Democrat but a Socialist who ran as a Democrat. From that perspective, many in the media was making a distinction that they felt necessary, explaining that a Democrat Party candidate should really be a democrat, not a socialist.
Click to expand...

And that was where the argument against was purely semantics. Socialist is not a political party, it is defined as a governing policy where there is more public than private ownership of business. The Democratic party leans toward that direction, which is undoubtedly why Sanders caucuses with them. By comparison, the pure opposite of socialism is capitalism, which is a fairly good descriptor of the Republican party's leanings.

I suspect that if Sanders had somehow won the presidency, he would have been moderate in his socialist views. When you go too far in that direction, you end up with communism, and I know he does not intend for that to happen.

Staying on topic, I believe the media did not fully understand the nuances and that caused unintentional bias in reporting, which gave Clinton the opening she needed.
 
K.M. Richards said:
And that was where the argument against was purely semantics. Socialist is not a political party, it is defined as a governing policy where there is more public than private ownership of business. The Democratic party leans toward that direction, which is undoubtedly why Sanders caucuses with them. By comparison, the pure opposite of socialism is capitalism, which is a fairly good descriptor of the Republican party's leanings.

I suspect that if Sanders had somehow won the presidency, he would have been moderate in his socialist views. When you go too far in that direction, you end up with communism, and I know he does not intend for that to happen.

Staying on topic, I believe the media did not fully understand the nuances and that caused unintentional bias in reporting, which gave Clinton the opening she needed.
Click to expand...
The media didn’t do Hillary any favors. Every rally Trump did got wall to wall coverage. He owned the news cycle during the whole campaign.
 
Don CT said:
The media gave us Trump with the free publicity throughout his first campaign. And all the apprentice crap. He was practically handed to us.
Click to expand...
They treated him as an entertainment story and crowded out the rest of the GOP field.
Don CT said:
The media gave us Trump with the free publicity throughout his first campaign. And all the apprentice crap. He was practically handed to us.
Click to expand...
 
davideduardo said:
You just gave an example of unsubstantiated "reporting".
Click to expand...

I'm not the reporter. I'm just saying the government has to do a better job of selling this than they're doing, and attacking the media doesn't replace the work they NEED to do to convince the taxpayers. Because a lot of them didn't vote for this. The voters were lied to about weapons of mass destruction. They don't like it when their government lies to them.

The media is not the government's PR department. If they don't like what the media is saying, maybe they should do a better job of telling their story. That's really the only part they can control. They can't control the media.
 
TheBigA said:
I'm not the reporter. I'm just saying the government has to do a better job of selling this than they're doing, and attacking the media doesn't replace the work they NEED to do to convince the taxpayers. Because a lot of them didn't vote for this. The voters were lied to about weapons of mass destruction. They don't like it when their government lies to them.
Click to expand...
You are now obfuscating. You said the nukes were "miles underground" and they really were a coupla' hundred feet. Your response is to a totally different subject.
 
davideduardo said:
You are now obfuscating. You said the nukes were "miles underground" and they really were a coupla' hundred feet. Your response is to a totally different subject.
Click to expand...

Once again, I'm not the reporter. So don't make this about me. If I get my facts wrong, it doesn't matter. If the president gets his facts wrong, it's a BIG problem.
 
davideduardo said:
The issue with the majority of voters who elected our "dear leader" is that newsrooms are predominantly inhabited by either registered Democrats (Stephanopoulus et. al.) or those whose political orientation is left of center. That is the news media that failed to report on the cognitive decline of our former elected President and denied now-proven things like the Hunter Biden laptop. So with such actual facts in hand, we are justifiably skeptical of nearly everything that comes out of traditional sources such as WaPo, NYT, NBC, CBS, and ABC.

I gave an example of the NYT's unique way of minimizing the achievement of getting the NATO allies to all-but-one co-finance their mutual defense. That one should be engraved on a brass plaque as an example of biased news reporting... particularly since it was buried two pages down on the website despite it being perhaps the second most significant news item today.

In an hour of GMA today, that topic was not even mentioned.
Click to expand...
You seem to not acknowledge that the entirety of right-wing media exists. I live in ruby-red Tennessee, where the GOP runs the table, except for a couple of districts they haven't managed to gerrymander out of existence yet. Nashville was carved up into 4 MAGA districts, so Nashville cannot even select its own representation. So if it wasn't for a handful of reporters being or leaning Democratic, Republicans would have absolute one-party rule with no opposition,completely unchecked power and we'd have Utopia? There's little real media critique of our state leaders; most won't talk to constituents or anything other than Fox News or Newsmax. The local media would rather cover sports
 
TheBigA said:
You're LYING again. This is what caused Scott Fybush to quit. Stop making up crap. You're supposed to be a moderator.

Reporters don't get their jobs because of who they voted for. They're protected by the first amendment no matter whose side they take.
Click to expand...
It's people like you who have made me decide to close WorldRadioHistory. You probably don't care, so....

You insulted me in ALL CAPS for giving the insider facts about the format shift of WAQI in Miami, now you are accusing me of lying. The majority of mainstream journalists are Democrats or sympathize most with the tenets and standards of that party. Period.

It does not matter how reporters got their jobs. The issue arises when partiality is inserted into news reports, such as the NYT quote I posted with an "editorial opinion" word along with placing a major win for the USA in a "below the fold" article.
 


Back
Top Bottom