Ethics in Journalism: Why is the press so gullible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It has been said that it is the duty of newspapers to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
The New York Times and the Washington Post have always done a good job of both.
Slanted news is a myth created by those who do not want to heart the truth, but want to hear their truth.
 
adgloriam said:
40.png
steve-b:
I posted links. Was my name on any of them? No
Click to expand...
You posted about “historical ice ages” not “current global warming” those are different matters altogether.

There has to be some bad faith in confusing the two on purpose…
Click to expand...
Are we currently still in an ice age? No. WHY?

global Ice ages (singular or plural) by definition presume global warmings, before or after or inbetween, took place ALSO, unless the ice age doesn’t end. Ice ages end because warmings take place You need to ask, why did both take place without humans even being here… according to science
 
Last edited:
You’re asking for a definitive answer about an article I’ve read but didn’t write. Personally, I generally agree with the article. I don’t believe man can make a significant change in our climate, good or bad. We can help keep it clean. Sadly, politics has muddled much recent climate research.
 
Economics of supply and demand are not perfect. It does allow us to innovate. “Bees make honey and humans make technology.” It is infused into our beings to create and make things easier. I believe the goal of heaven is to inspire us to create a ,“seamless garment,” of interaction between technology and the human mind. Not some kind of “Skynet” ominous central threat to our existence.

If you watch how technology is developing we are imitating or copying nature. Nature already has the solutions. God made it that way.

When I say Govt. does not produce anything. I mean Govt. takes someone else’s money and resources and uses it to accomplish goals that are not always good, ethical, or will benefit the economy. Usually they hire private industry, researchers, to do the work. They seem to do a great job with defense. Which is the purpose of Govt. Sometimes they offer incentives to innovate, like Govt. grants or prizes to find solutions to health problems or energy resources. The jeep is a govt. sponsored research. I would say that helped the war effort and the economy. There is a website that hosts these ideas. This is a great way to stimulate the economy.
 
Last edited:
Convert3 said:
You’re asking for a definitive answer about an article I’ve read but didn’t write. Personally, I generally agree with the article. I don’t believe man can make a significant change in our climate, good or bad. We can help keep it clean. Sadly, politics has muddled much recent climate research.
Click to expand...
Point being, the article showed people weren’t here to effect all the climate changes we’ve had, (ice ages and warmings) …

In extension,

the same source says this about our atmosphere

Earth’s atmosphere​

Earth’s atmosphere is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth and retained by the Earth’s gravity.

It contains roughly 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen 0.97% argon and carbon dioxide 0.04% trace amounts of other gases, and water vapor.

This mixture of gases is commonly known as air.

The atmosphere protects life on Earth by absorbing ultraviolet solar radiation and reducing temperature extremes between day and night.

The atmosphere has no abrupt cut-off.

It slowly becomes thinner and fades away into space.

There is no definite boundary between the atmosphere and outer space.

Three-quarters of the atmosphere’s mass is within 11 km of the planetary surface.

IOW, atmosphere that ultimately becomes heavy, thins out by itself, and fades away into outer space.
. Earth's atmosphere
 
Last edited:
I’ve never used PM. How does it work? Is it private conversation?

What exactly are you looking for as a more positive outlook?
I believe there are signs for this. It is an intuitive observation and not very easy to logically present. I have often wanted to post a few concepts on CAF but it is so complicated.
Click to expand...
This is interesting. Perhaps we could discuss that over PM? I’m quite interested in hearing what your theory is.
Click to expand...
I have been collecting information about this for about a year. I was going to post it as a question. It is complicated. It would be interesting to know what would be best. It may require more than one posted question.
 
No, that’s actually an excuse used by those who do not want to recognise that a publication is swiftly approaching "rag" territory
[/quote]

Even that is a complement 😆
 
Very well said. Confrontation using whatever correct language regarding whatever “important” issue is little more than anger with words. The New York Times bills itself as “America’s Newspaper of Record.” In other words, it represents the finest in American journalism. Yes, many articles are well written but its slant is painfully obvious. It is radical Leftist, radical “we protect and defend the oppressed” - whether the oppressed know it or not, or like it or not. And all about Radical Change. It will help change America through its articles.

However, when it, and other news outlets, move into the realm of the ridiculous, then they’ve lost their credibility. That is a trend I’m seeing: let’s get really emotional, let’s accuse this or that group of something, and keep at it until the targeted group does something we want. Lately, that desired something is bad/wrong. And shutting people down because they are the enemy, sure, it’s a valid tactic for them.
 
Last edited:
There are private individuals out there with a lot of money who will use it for things that are not good or ethical. And will definitely not benefit the economy, just them.
 
Well, the New York Times is a highly sophisticated rag then. They know exactly what they’re doing - and not doing.
 
If “hate speech” is defined as speech likely to stir up violent acts, then it shouldn’t be protected any more that yelling “fire” to start a stampede or directly calling for illegal violence.
When speech that is unkind or unfairly prejudicial or even uncouth is defined as hate speech, though, that goes too far. We should not try to legislate against every sin that can be committed with the tongue or the pen. Those who want to be above criticism will use that as an inapproproate hiding place.
 
Last edited:
There is a difference between actual newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post, and so-called news periodicals like the National Enquirer.
Politicians hate the media, because politicians want to manipulate the news.
 
And “hiding place” is the correct term. Those who hold influence believe that gives them the right to be little dictators beholden only to those who agree with them.
 
The press isn’t gullible, they know exactly what they are doing. In this case they are trying to divide people.
 
The press reports what the politicians are saying.
It is the politicians who divide us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top