Fox News' Shepard Smith A National Disgrace

[landtuna]

In this case, muck-raking is the discovery of events and incidents while yellow journalism is the publishing of the results.

My old journalism teacher would roll over in his grave if he read that statement.

Yellow journalism is the intentional incorrect sensationalism of a news story to induce certain reactions to the reader. If a muck-raking story is true then it is not guilty of yellow journalism regardless of the headline type size.

The initial investigations of the sinking of the Maine all concluded it had been attacked with a mine. The theory that firedamp (coal gas) had ignited in a bunker came much later. In the meantime Hearst printed that their reporters had concluded that a mine was used to sink the vessel.

If you read the total history of the USS Maine incident you will find that Hearst began the drum-beat against the Spanish before any positive cause was revealed. It was assumed, early on, that either the Maine had contacted a mine (unlikely since it was anchored) or a saboteur had planted a bomb aboard. Hearst began clamoring for retaliation against Spain (Cuba was a Spanish possession at the time) while the investigation was still underway.

There are many other examples of Hearst yellow journalism, a good many of them directed at Hollywood people even though William R. Hearst had actress Marion Davies as his live-in girlfriend for many years. He was truly a despicable human being.

 

[sdwulfdawg]

One should really consider the source how you are ranting and raving complaining about someone else ranting raving and doing it all in Comic Sans typeface.

Friends don't let friends use Comic Sans. That all said, you are probably not in the prime age demographic Fox News is trying to cash in with day in and day out. Scott Pelley is really good, but Shepard Smith is really good as well and has double the numbers as CBS. When there is breaking news I turn to FoxNews, rather than turning to CNN which has Don Lemon often going cuckoo over cocoa puffs.

 

[KeithE4]

Yellow journalism is the intentional incorrect sensationalism of a news story to induce certain reactions to the reader.

So Fox Noise and BSNBC are part of a fine American tradition that most probably predates Hearst by at least a century?

 

[sdwulfdawg]

And if you say so, it probably is.....NOT!

 

[sdwulfdawg]

And Bill O'Reilly wouldn't be doing that. And look who is on the air in the same place for 19 years and who can't stay at one network for more than a three year contract.

 

[KeithE4]

And Bill O'Reilly wouldn't be doing that. And look who is on the air in the same place for 19 years and who can't stay at one network for more than a three year contract.

Who are you talking to, what are you talking about, and what does tenure at a network have to do with anything?

 

[landtuna]

One should really consider the source how you are ranting and raving complaining about someone else ranting raving and doing it all in Comic Sans typeface. Friends don't let friends use Comic Sans.

I like Comic Sans. I don't care whether you do or not. Guess we'll never be friends.

That all said, you are probably not in the prime age demographic Fox News is trying to cash in with day in and day out.

Here we go with that old fallback, the demo. What demo is Faux Noos trying to reach - the 'get off my lawn' white, middle age paranoid gun owner? You're right. That's not me.

Scott Pelley is really good, but Shepard Smith is really good as well and has double the numbers as CBS. When there is breaking news I turn to FoxNews, rather than turning to CNN which has Don Lemon often going cuckoo over cocoa puffs.

If you understood my post, which you missed completely, you would know my intent was to disparage Smith because he was acting like a spoiled child instead of the professional he is supposed to be. That Faux Noos employs people like that tells me all I need to know about that organization and its viewers.

I used Pelley as a comparison because (1) he was not acting like a complete fool and (2) he, apparently had the very information Smith was ranting was not available and (3) I just happened to go to CBS from Fox when I got sick and tired of listening to Smith. I'm sure it could have been most anyone else on any network except Fox.

 

[landtuna]

So Fox Noise and BSNBC are part of a fine American tradition that most probably predates Hearst by at least a century?

I would definitely put Faux Noos in the yellow journalism category on occasion but I also need to point out that today, especially in electronic journalism, we have opinion mixed in with the story itself and opinion is seldom considered yellow journalism if it is indeed opinion.

 

[davideduardo]

My old journalism teacher would roll over in his grave if he read that statement.

Having taken university journalism courses since my sophomore year in high school, and having been a guest presenter or lecturer in numerous journalism classes, I'd suggest that perhaps your teacher was out of date or, maybe, you are.

Yellow journalism is the intentional incorrect sensationalism of a news story to induce certain reactions to the reader.

Yellow journalism is the exaggeration to the point of sensationalizing of real news stories. That can be done by emphasizing trivial facts, the use of hyperbole and the selection of dramatic words as part of the story telling that is journalism.

If a muck-raking story is true then it is not guilty of yellow journalism regardless of the headline type size.

Muck raking is digging in the gutter and in the cesspool for tidbits of value. A hint of corruption, a whisper of deceit, a suggestion of revenge. In the case of the Maine, there was a tidbit in the form of the early belief that the ship was mined or bombed. Hearst and Pulitzer blew up the story and started a war that ended up with our owning Puerto Rico and The Philippines and taking only to let loose Cuba. A combination of muck-raking for stories that could be converted into scandals or situations that, when blown up in the yellow press, sold papers.

 

[landtuna]

Having taken university journalism courses since my sophomore year in high school, and having been a guest presenter or lecturer in numerous journalism classes, I'd suggest that perhaps your teacher was out of date or, maybe, you are.

I too took several journalism classes as well as working on my high school paper. I'm comfortable with my definition, and that of several other references, so I will stick with that.

That said, we seem to be splitting hairs on the muck-raking definition. Muck-raking, in my view, is not necessarily for the purpose of digging up dirt to be used in yellow journalism. In the earlier example of Sinclair Lewis I referenced he mucked about gathering facts of which the general population was unaware which affected the health and welfare of the meat-eating population. His publication of "The Jungle" did much to change the way our food production system works and laws affecting it. In no way would that book be considered yellow journalism.

If you would like more examples of yellow journalism, past and present, here is one quick source: http://www.americanhistoryusa.com/yellow-journalism-present-and-past/

Muck raking is digging in the gutter and in the cesspool for tidbits of value. A hint of corruption, a whisper of deceit, a suggestion of revenge.

Muck raking is called that because the act relates to the use of a muck rake to uncover hidden objects. Not necessarily corruption, deceit or revenge, but things that are being intentionally hidden or unknown to the reader. It does not have anything to do with gutters or cesspools. Today we commonly use the term "investigative journalist" to describe the work done by these types of journalists.

 

[davideduardo]

I too took several journalism classes as well as working on my high school paper. I'm comfortable with my definition, and that of several other references, so I will stick with that.

But you should admit that the term has changed in meaning over time, and today's usage is rather different from that of 1898 when the US was driven to war by feuding newspaper barons.

I founded my school paper, which lives on today. But that's irrelevant now. I also did some investigative reporting ("muck raking") leading up to an on-air and in-print exposé that certainly used "yellow journalism" techniques in and attempt to compel the government in power to call for free elections as promised. It got my colleague and friend at the newspaper "disappeared" and got me a visit from some soldiers with very large rifles. I think I earned a certain right to an opinion on journalism; we were recognized by the Interamerican Press Association for the job.

Muck raking is called that because the act relates to the use of a muck rake to uncover hidden objects.

Muck is sludge, grime, and such. And the use of the word "rake" is metaphoric, of course.

Not necessarily corruption, deceit or revenge, but things that are being intentionally hidden or unknown to the reader.

I'm sure I could have made a list of several dozen other nouns that are poignant and descriptive of what might be found in the figurative "muck" of humanity. I did not mean to be taken so literally.

It does not have anything to do with gutters or cesspools.

And neither of those commonly accumulate "muck"?

 

[landtuna]

I also did some investigative reporting ("muck raking") leading up to an on-air and in-print exposé that certainly used "yellow journalism" techniques in and attempt to compel the government in power to call for free elections as promised. It got my colleague and friend at the newspaper "disappeared" and got me a visit from some soldiers with very large rifles. I think I earned a certain right to an opinion on journalism; we were recognized by the Interamerican Press Association for the job.

Why would you intentionally lie and distort the facts of your story(s) to make a point? Wouldn't the facts of the story be enough to convince the government to reconsider its failings? I would think that by using yellow journalism you would be undermining your own cause since they, the government, could rightfully turn your erroneous statements back upon you with subsequent discredit. Or perhaps we are talking the difference between yellow journalism and propaganda?

Didn't your sainted mother advise you not to dabble in South American politics? Many soldiers with big rifles tend to cause lower bowel problems which don't go away easily. Your choice of radio might have contributed to a much more stable career.

 

[davideduardo]

Why would you intentionally lie and distort the facts of your story(s) to make a point? Wouldn't the facts of the story be enough to convince the government to reconsider its failings? I would think that by using yellow journalism you would be undermining your own cause since they, the government, could rightfully turn your erroneous statements back upon you with subsequent discredit. Or perhaps we are talking the difference between yellow journalism and propaganda?

Yellow journalism is not about outright lying, but, rather, sensationalizing the news to give it more impact and interest.

As an example, the often-remembered CKLW newscasts in that station's monster Top 40 days were dramatic and sensationalized, but totally factual. They certainly fit the definition of "yellow journalism" which, of course, is a term invented long before radio came on the scene.

What I did, along with the Diario El Tiempo was to look for the inconsistencies between the military government's early promises and its later actions. In radio, we contrasted them, often in dramatic "re-enactments" of prior statements, sometimes using the style of radio soap operas for effect. Other times, the straight newscasts carried rather conventional reports.The newspaper used columnists and satirists and political cartoons to make the same points.

Didn't your sainted mother advise you not to dabble in South American politics? Many soldiers with big rifles tend to cause lower bowel problems which don't go away easily. Your choice of radio might have contributed to a much more stable career.

As a major broadcaster in the country, with stations in a half-dozen cities and several of them operated in partnership with the leader of a major political party, there was no way to avoid politics. I was just months away from being given citizenship, and was doing what any concerned citizen would do when the government broke promises and was becoming, each day, more totalitarian in nature. We considered it the responsibility of our news/drama/talk/sports station to be the voice of those who wanted the government to do what it had promised when it seized power; every movement has to start somewhere.

My mother made it possible for me to be where I was; as a life-long political and social activist, she was, I think, rather proud of what we tried to do.

And, if by "stable" you refer to working for the same company for decades on end, that's not a very common radio trait. Advancement in radio, when ownership was severely limited, came by moving to bigger markets and bigger stations. Those good enough were actively recruited for such moves, and jokes abound regarding the frequency that we, as a group, employed the services of U-Haul.

 

[K.M. Richards]

And Bill O'Reilly wouldn't be doing that. And look who is on the air in the same place for 19 years and who can't stay at one network for more than a three year contract.

Who are you talking to, what are you talking about, and what does tenure at a network have to do with anything?

I believe Mr. Dawg is referring to my tongue-in-cheek comment that Fox News had not, at least, allowed Bill O'Reilly to come on the air and blame the San Bernardino tragedy on Keith Olbermann. (Which, if this had happened during the "Countdown" years on MSNBC, I suspect O'Reilly would have gotten around to saying.)

 

[tested]

I walked into my kitchen this afternoon to eat some lunch and flipped on the TV which was on Fox. Shepard Smith was on-air breathlessly bleating about the shooting in SoCal. This is what I remember from the first few minutes (paraphrased):

"We don't know how many shooters there were."
"The police can't tell us anything."
"We don't know how many victims there were."
"We don't know who the victims are."
"The police are not telling us anything. We don't know anything."
"We don't know the motive for the attack."
"The police are not releasing any information."

This type of rant went on and on for a full five minutes before I hit the button to change to my local CBS affiliate where Scott Pelley was calmly giving out most of the information Smith didn't seem able to get. I have never seen such a loss of control by a network new anchor nor such a complete hyperventilating moron in my entire life.

I'm reminded today why I don't watch any Fox network programs. What a disgrace!!!

I heard the same thing and had a very different reaction. Smith was telling the truth. At the time they didn't know a lot of that information. Other anchors on other networks (that includes Pelley) were saying what they had heard at the time, but much of that was scanner traffic and has since been proven wrong. I took Smith's rant as more a desire to make sure the only thing he reported was verified fact that won't be later proven to be wrong. In most of these situations the first information you hear will later turn out to be substantially wrong. Smith hates that and wanted to say up front what they knew and what they didn't know. I have no problem with that. Smith and Bret Baier are the only two hosts on Fox News I can really stomach.

 

[landtuna]

Smith was telling the truth.

He didn't claim to know anything. Exactly what was the truth you are referring to?

At the time they didn't know a lot of that information. Other anchors on other networks (that includes Pelley) were saying what they had heard at the time, but much of that was scanner traffic and has since been proven wrong.

And you know this, how? The only item in Pelley's report that turned out to be false was the "third shooter". The police had reported a third person exiting the getaway vehicle then later said that person was not involved. At the time the police referred to this person as a possible third shooter and that is what Pelley reported. I don't think you have any insight as to what CBS News knew or how they obtained it. If so, I would like to hear each and every detail.

I took Smith's rant as more a desire to make sure the only thing he reported was verified fact that won't be later proven to be wrong. In most of these situations the first information you hear will later turn out to be substantially wrong. Smith hates that and wanted to say up front what they knew and what they didn't know. I have no problem with that. Smith and Bret Baier are the only two hosts on Fox News I can really stomach.

No, Smith did not say that. What he said, and repeated several times in his most childish manner, was that the police were not tell them anything. This was obviously untrue as several other news outlets were reporting police information although much of it was described as preliminary and subject to change. If Fox News was indeed not receiving what information was available why have this moron bleating about it on air? Put down the mic and go get your sources working on it then come back when you have something to say besides whining.

People used to blast Keith Olbermann about his emotional rants on Countdown but I don't ever remember him going off because he didn't know something. He would state his point then proceed down a list of backing statements. That is not what Smith did here. Very unprofessional.

 

[Silkie]

Somebody send him a bear video to get him back on track.