Karel Kriz wrote:
> In article
> <3a88a2c3-a32a-4abb-9abb-9481b2df0940@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> kujebak <kujebak@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 7, 8:52=EF=BF=BDam, Karel Kriz <ka...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <1a9577cd-7c0a-45ab-898d-efd61dd72...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > >
> > > =EF=BF=BDkujebak <kuje...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > =EF=BF=BD... regarding ****trayal of America's minorities in the
cont=
ext of
> > > > 9/11:
> > >
> > > >http://www.spj.org/divguidelines.asp
> > >
> > > Did O'Reilly resign from this association? When did that happen?
> > > For once I have to agree that I find the tone of this article a tad
> > > offensive. Obviously the guidelines were ineffective and
unenforcable
> > >
> > > k
> >
> > Ineffective and unenforceable? The SPJ sets "editorial guidelines"
> > for mainstream media journalism through which they establish what,
> > and how things are re****ted in newspapers and television. They
> > enforce compliance through peer review, much in the same way
> > as the A.M.A. (and the insurance companies) maintain control of our
> > health care, and the N.E.A. of our public education. This point is
> > very
> > im****tant, in case it has eluded you, because it is exactly how the
> > communist party apparatus kept its own member****p in line in order
> > to stay in charge for forty years in former Czechoslovakia. There are
> > a few segments of the news industry, namely the internet, and talk
> > radio, which are not under editorial influence of the SPJ. In
> > reference
> > to O'Reilly, (and, BTW, I'm sure you realize that he is really not a
> > jour-
> > nalist, but merely an "infotainer") are you implying Fox is a part of
> > the
> > mainstream media? If so, you just made my day ;-)
>
> As usual, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The media cannot
> be centrally controlled, except by those who own it. These are
> guidelines, misguided guidelines, but they are not a law and as such are
> unenforceble as they would violate the 1st Amendment. You really ought
> to try stop thinking in terms of grand conspiracies whether it's the
> press, the schools or the scientists. It's kooky.
Oh, c'mon, you know darn well there is no such thing as freedom
of speech when it comes to politically incorrect content. Take James
Watson's recent revelation that genetics may have something to do
with reasoning, and self-management. How far did that story go?
I bet you didn't even hear about it. I didn't say SPJ "controlled"
the
media.
>
> And O'Reilly, he does claim to be have a journalistic pedigree...maybe
> some kind of a correspondence course, who gives a s***.
Well he used to be an anchorman at some East Coast TV
station before he fell in love with himself on Fox ;-)
>
> As for mainstream media, as Fox has its own network, it is part of the
> mainstream media. It's one sided, bigoted, uneven, shrill and tasteless
> part of the mainstream media. It is generally avoided in this house.
I would really like to know what specifically you find bigoted and
tasteless in Fox's news re****ting. News is news. It's not meant
to make the viewer feel good about it. Is that what you're looking
for?
>
> Here's another question that's been puzzling me. Was William F. Buckley
> a raving queen? There are many indications that he was. But he was a
> smart man and a reasonable one. Now the conservative movement is
> imploding because of loud mouths like Limbaugh and know-nothings like
> Hannity. Buckley had class and a brain and that is hard to find among
> conservatives these days.
I didn't really know the guy that well. I always thought he
was way too verbose for his own good :-)
>
> K
|
