Are All News Reporters Idiots?

[Kubie]

I can't believe they all are but I'm sure having a hard time with it.
You have probably heard about the shooting at LAX in the El Al Airlines terminal.
After the mayor of LA, the police chief, and the FBI spokeman rushed to give the info to the press and stated what they did know and did not know, the idiot reporters kept asking the same questions, as if maybe they could trip somebody up.

On TV, the same thing. Talk about ASSUMING things. If the reporters and newscasters had their way, they would have this solved on assumption.

Oh well, I realize their ratings are far more important then the truth.

Carl

[jamesrpm]

DITTO

[DrZaius]

Are All News Reporters Idiots?

Yes?

I agree, I hate all these speculations and assumations they make. I would much rather hear little about the event until something conclusive is found.

[Sauron]

Ah! The wonderful world of the press. Must be why we are always complaining and screaming to high heaven about bad news...

[Confused]

Being semi retired I leave the TV on FOX news during the day and get a lot of good laughs listening to the reporters at news conferences. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer is a master in dealing with them.
Chas

[Moth]

Originally posted by DrZaius I agree, I hate all these speculations and assumations they make. I would much rather hear little about the event until something conclusive is found.

Well said. I think there is a flaw inherent in the law that contributes to the problem. It's every bit as true in Canada. Although I condemn censorship, I wouldn't mind seeing laws in place that prohibited speculation by the press.

As far as that goes, a related issue - I don't think the name of a suspect in a crime should be public information - not until someone is convicted of something in a court of law. But their names ARE often public knowledge, and said individual's life can suffer seriously due to the semi-informed opinion of the general populace. Any one of us could be accused of terrible things tomorrow, and in a disturbingly real sense be convicted in our own neighborhood. Isn't "innocent until proven guilty" supposed to be the philosophy? Just my 3 1/2 cents.

[GerBa]

The thing that bothers me the most is how the press will not only speculate about an event without any feeling of responsibility to provide accurate information only when it is available but that they will be on for hours "covering" an event making some of the most asinine comments and getting anybody they can find in front of the camera and try to make them show an emotion about it.

Edit: Yes they are all idiots and yes they should shut up until they have new information.

[SARGE]

In a word, "YES". And while you brought it up:

http://newsmax.com/showinsidecover.s...002/7/4/213539

[Kubie]

Sarge,
I read your link and I get the impression that if the the news doesn't have the answers than someone isn't asking the questions. I say "Baloney".
After 9/11, I have a feeling that there is more going on as far as security is concerned than we'll ever know. News reporters and the press don't need all the information to blab to everybody including the enemy.
Carl

[GerBa]

I once saw a forum type of program on PBS some years ago and on it Dan Rather made the statement that he would make public a list of deep cover operatives of the CIA if he had it because the "publics right to know outweighs any danger that might befall these people" and he felt no obligation to withhold information to the public just because someone might be killed if he published it. I wondered then and wonder today how my knowing that information would be of any possible benefit to me when in fact it would hurt me and my country. That pretty much formed my opinion about most of the news media.

[oryx]

Are All News Reporters Idiots?

Yes. Idiocy is a requirement for becoming a news reporter.

[doctorgonzo]

As a former journalist, I can say that yes, many so called "reporters" are idiots. But that is the nature of the game. TV news is not news at all, it is entertainment pure and simple. And that goes for just about any TV news, cable or broadcast. So it is not really the fault of the "reporters." The transcript of your typical 30 minute news show would fill one third of a newspaper page. When you have that little to work with, factoids and quips are all you get. If you want real news, don't look towards the talking heads.

[Carl Price]

Originally posted by Moth As far as that goes, a related issue - I don't think the name of a suspect in a crime should be public information - not until someone is convicted of something in a court of law. But their names ARE often public knowledge, and said individual's life can suffer seriously due to the semi-informed opinion of the general populace. Any one of us could be accused of terrible things tomorrow, and in a disturbingly real sense be convicted in our own neighborhood. Isn't "innocent until proven guilty" supposed to be the philosophy? Just my 3 1/2 cents.

I AGREE! But actually there is a very good reason for it. Before the Constitution it was comman practice for people to be arrested and held in secret. And they could hold you as long as they wanted without charges. Public knowledge of held suspects is necessary for Habeus Corpus

[doctorgonzo]

Yes, public knowledge of those who are accused of a crime is vital for our criminal system. Otherwise, we will have what Carl just described: secret trials where rights will not be followed. Having the names and information public helps defendents, it doesn't hurt them: maybe somebody will come forward with crucial evidence after hearing of the indictment. While it is true that people are many times convicted of the crime as soon as they are accused, that is not a problem with the system, but a problem with those people who don't understand innocence until proven guilty.

[raftero]

what gets me is you listen to for instance the president for thirty minutes then some reporter comes on and tells what has been said for another thirty minutes, and it may or may not be what was said but what he thinks was implied by what was said. don't they think we can hear.

[Computer Hobbyist]

Guys, just keep saying to yourselves as you watch CNN (the Confusion, Nutcase and Ninnie network), the Fox Food Fight Network, BillGatesNews (MSNBC) and the rest, "this is only entertainment. This is only entertainment." Cable news has about as much to do with journalism as Survivor and the other reality shows have to do with real life.

The line has become so blurred between reporting and opinion, that you can take nothing you see or hear on television as true.

To provide you with a short answer to your question--all cable television "reporters" are idiots. Most major network reporters are also idiots and as the good ones retire they are being replaced by idiots. (I think it is in the newscasters union agreement.)

CH

[morriswindgate]

Carl are you dislexic, it should have been written as, "Are all Idiots Reporters?"

[Computer Hobbyist]

Originally posted by doctorgonzo While it is true that people are many times convicted of the crime as soon as they are accused, that is not a problem with the system, but a problem with those people who don't understand innocence until proven guilty.

"Who are these people who don't understand innocence until proven guilty?" he asked retorically. "Mostly, they call themselves journalists," he answered.

CH

[Blakhart]

Heh

[doctorgonzo]

Again, it's all entertainment and marketing. "Prominent Politician Indicted for Selling Drugs, Slapping Mother Theresa, and Clubbing Baby Seals" on page one of the paper will convince more than a few people to buy. "Charges dismissed for lack of evidence" just isn't as sexy, so it will be found in the corner of page 60, if it is written at all.

[Computer Hobbyist]

Originally posted by morriswindgate Carl are you dislexic, it should have been written as, "Are all Idiots Reporters?"

Morris, I am shocked that you would ask such a question. Have you no sensitivity. Most idiots would never stoop so low.

CH

[calmius]

You know what reporter journalist I hate the most? Connie Chung from CNN. First of all she's acting like she's dumb. There was an interview with a guy who was telling how he had a surgery that tightened his stumach so he would lose weight. He said he now eats 2000 calories less per day than before. And she asks him "Exuse me, I don't know what that all means. Could you please explain in simple language?" Now, anyone who doesn't know what calories is is a retard. Second, she's old and ugly and she's dressing up like she's a young and vibrant reporter if you know whta I mean.

[ozzfreak]

Here is yet another example..........

it says

Citing a person familiar with the document, the newspaper said the highly classified plan calls for air, land and sea-based forces to attack from three directions in a campaign to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

That is one thing that bugs the tar out of me. Giving out highly classified, or even classified information at that. I remember the white house downing the press after 9/11 because of that. They did better for a small bit, but as you can see, are right back at there old crap.

Oz

[doctorgonzo]

Originally posted by ozzfreak That is one thing that bugs the tar out of me. Giving out highly classified, or even classified information at that. I remember the white house downing the press after 9/11 because of that. They did better for a small bit, but as you can see, are right back at there old crap.

This "latest revelation" from the Pentagon about our plans to invade Iraq is nothing more than propaganda. In this case, the media is dutifully playing along. Of course the real plans aren't going to be revealed to the media. However, telling Saddam that we will attack on all three sides will either: 1) make him spread out his defense around his entire country; or 2) lead him to making no changes. If it is #2, we haven't lost anything. If it is #1, we have spread him too thin, which is to our advantage. What is sad about the media in this case is that so few of them even realize how they are being used.

[Computer Hobbyist]

Why are we talking about invading Iraq anyway? Don't we have the guy pretty much bottled up? What is there to gain?

Anyway, what does a leak from the administration have to do with the obvious truth that reporters are idiots. If the leak is intentional (most are) then the reporters are playing willing dupes. If they leak is not intentional, then the reporter is an idiot for spreading information that may result in the unnecessary deaths of both Iraqis and Americans.

CH

[alan]

Don't forget last month is was the classified directive to aid in any efforts to assasinate Saddam Hussein that every Senator and Congressman publicly supported.

[Sauron]

Actually I like the part about how : Innocent till proven guilty. That doesn't matter anymore, the media tells everyone who they think is guilty, and a lot believe in them also. Like a popular saying : Its the news! It must be true!

[Computer Hobbyist]

Originally posted by Sauron Actually I like the part about how : Innocent till proven guilty. That doesn't matter anymore, the media tells everyone who they think is guilty, and a lot believe in them also. Like a popular saying : Its the news! It must be true!

I am shocked. Shocked I tell you. Sauron do you really mean to imply that the media doesn't know everything? As you said "its the news! It must be true!"

My take on most everything that happens on talk radio and cable "news" is that what ever you hear most probably isn't the news and it nearly certainly isn't true.

CH

[Kubie]

Carl are you dislexic, it should have been written as, "Are all Idiots Reporters?"

Morris,
I understand what you're saying, but I didn't want to hurt a PC Mechanic's feelings if he/she was an idiot reporter.
Carl

[AzCoastie]

Yes, they're idiots!

Put it this way, I'd get telephone calls from reporters asking questions of the search and rescue cases I've run... They'd ask if anyone died... If we saved everyone, they didn't want the story... Only if someone died! What a bunch of crap!