The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
mtierney said:
What do you call news sources which can decide what to report and what to “protect” their audiences from hearing or seeing, based solely on their corporate wisdom?
Trump's speech was reported on.
They decided not to air it "live".
Calling that censorship is ridiculous.
(Apparently) from the article posted by mtierney: "Maddow claimed she was not celebrating the decision to censor Trump's speech, which was not a "glib decision" by the network. She revealed they could reverse that call if Trump said anything 'newsworthy.'"
mtierney's comment on the above? Who on MOL wants their news filtered by these talking head anchors—
reporting only what they believe is appropriate for viewers to know?
Actually, it seems to me that filtering the events of the day is what journalism does. Sounds like news judgment to me. In a political campaign, no one is required to broadcast every rally live. As noted, CNN expected to report anything in the speech that added information. We're all welcome to read a variety of news sources for their variety of filters, and/or judge the content of a source based on what we know about its filters/tendencies.
mtierney said:
What do you call news sources which can decide what to report
J. Jonah Jameson has entered the chat.
Or better yet....
I'll take jobs in journalism for 400, Alex.
mtierney said:
What do you call news sources which can decide what to report
What is an Editor?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/ztfnmnb/revision/1
An editor is the ‘boss’ of a newspaper and is ultimately responsible for what is published. Editors oversee the work of all the newspaper staff. They allocate space for articles, photographs, advertisements, etc and decide which stories make it into each edition.
mjc said:
mtierney's comment on the above? Who on MOL wants their news filtered by these talking head anchors— reporting only what they believe is appropriate for viewers to know?
Actually, it seems to me that filtering the events of the day is what journalism does. Sounds like news judgment to me.
She asks some easy questions, doesn’t she.
mtierney said:
What do you call news sources which can decide what to report and what to “protect” their audiences from hearing or seeing, based solely on their corporate wisdom?
“CNN and MSNBC have refused to air former President Donald Trump's speech to supporters following his court hearing on Tuesday, where he pled not guilty to 37 federal felony counts stemming from his alleged improper retention of classified records.
“CNN anchor Jake Tapper defended the decision not to air the speech, bluntly telling audiences it could be "dangerous" to do so. "We're not carrying his remarks live because, frankly, he says a lot of things that are not true and sometimes potentially dangerous," Tapper told CNN audiences and guest Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. Earlier in the day, Tapper rebuked CNN producers for showing the former President celebrating with his supporters. "The folks in the control room, I don't need to see any more of that," Tapper grumbled in the air. "He's trying to turn this into a spectacle, a campaign ad. That's enough of that."
“Tapper warned audiences that CNN would air a clip of Trump defending himself full of "untrue and unfounded claims about the charges against him and the people he thinks are behind it." MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow announced her network had made the same decision during her Tuesday night show. "We are prepared for his pre-fund-raiser remarks tonight to again, essentially, be a Trump campaign speech. Because of that, we do not intend to carry these remarks live," she began. The primetime host suggested this was to protect the network's reputation and journalistic integrity
"As we have said before in these circumstances, there is a cost to us as a news organization to knowingly broadcast untrue things. We are here to bring you the news. It hurts our ability to do that if we live broadcast what we fully expect in advance to be a litany of lies and false accusations, no matter who says them," she explained.
“Maddow claimed she was not celebrating the decision to censor Trump's speech, which was not a "glib decision" by the network. She revealed they could reverse that call if Trump said anything "newsworthy." CNN's decision comes on the heels of CEO Chris Licht being fired after months of turmoil behind the scenes. Licht irked liberals last month when CNN aired a town hall with Trump. Several of the network's journalists grumbled publicly about the decision.”
Who on MOL wants their news filtered by these talking head anchors— reporting only what they believe is appropriate for viewers to know?
Can this be corporate censorship?
Is this practice carried on in other news stories broadcast by these cable outlets? Who remembers the Wuhan lab leak? Just this week reports are popping up that the virus which killed millions of humans worldwide, did have its origin in that lab. What if political concerns/fallout preempted the need for the public to know the source of this horrific pandemic?
Can this be called political censorship?
Dr. Fauci has a lot of explaining to do.
That is why I read and/watch both liberal and conservative news sources — trusting my own “filtering” system over censorship.
why does Dr. Fauci need to explain this to you?
nohero said:
Trump's speech was reported on.
They decided not to air it "live".
Calling that censorship is ridiculous.
The network made the decision that viewers did not need to hear the parts that TPTB thought might confuse or stir them up — CENSORSHIP 101
mtierney said:
nohero said:
Trump's speech was reported on.
They decided not to air it "live".
Calling that censorship is ridiculous.
The network made the decision that viewers did not need to hear the parts that TPTB thought might confuse or stir them up — CENSORSHIP 101
I was talking about what actually happened.
[Edited to add] Since there was no link provided, possible sources of the text that Ms. Mtierney had posted -
https://www.blabber.buzz/conservative-news/1049961-cnn-and-msnbc-refuse-to-air-dangerous-trump-speech
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-msnbc-refuse-air-potentially-dangerous-trump-speech-supporters
Hard to believe that only yesterday mtierney was complaining Trump gets too much coverage.
He flew to Florida, got fingerprinted, pled "Not Guilty" to everything, then flew to NJ and confessed to everything. What a waste of air fuel.
ridski said:
Hard to believe that only yesterday mtierney was complaining Trump gets too much coverage.
Her filtering system is nothing if not transparent.
mtierney said:
The network made the decision that viewers did not need to hear the parts that TPTB thought might confuse or stir them up — CENSORSHIP 101
I am curious mtierney. What did you think of FOX's coverage of the Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network?
mtierney said:
That is why I read and/watch both liberal and conservative news sources — trusting my own “filtering” system over censorship.
The NY Times is, at best, a centrist new source. I am not aware of any journals that are as far to the left as the National (Socialist) Review is to the right. I suppose they exist but I would think that degree of absurd mindless partisanship would make them as unreadable as FOX News is unwatchable.
ml1 said:
why does Dr. Fauci need to explain this to you?
I suspect Dr Fauci could take a whole afternoon to explain things to mtierney but I doubt he could make her understand. It's like what Dorothy Parker said about Horticulture.
ridski said:
Hard to believe that only yesterday mtierney was complaining Trump gets too much coverage.
He flew to Florida, got fingerprinted, pled "Not Guilty" to everything, then flew to NJ and confessed to everything. What a waste of air fuel.
well apparently after the courthouse he went to a restaurant to eat. Upon entering the restaurant he shouted “food for everyone in here”….but left without paying for everyone’s meal that was there. I’m not even sure he paid for his and his butler…
There’s an article in (my) this morning’s Guardian that apparently there wasn’t even any food delivered to the diners. I haven’t read it so I’m not sure…
Jaytee said:
well apparently after the courthouse he went to a restaurant to eat. Upon entering the restaurant he shouted “food for everyone in here”….but left without paying for everyone’s meal that was there. I’m not even sure he paid for his and his butler…
Mtierney, over here and in other western culture nations, media choose not to publish full details including names of certain crimes/criminals, suicides, rapes, DV, motor vehicle incidents etc so as to avoid creating reader/viewer distress. Here we even preface certain reports with ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are warned this report contains images of people who are deceased. Names are used with permission of the family’. OR ELSE NO IMAGES OR NAMES ARE USED, not even aliases.
It is not uncommon for very brief references, if that, to be unmentioned in bulletins about various developing situations precisely to avoid speculation, rumours, ‘tourists’, and especially to avoid undue reaction by those directly involved.
DaveSchmidt said:
ridski said:
Hard to believe that only yesterday mtierney was complaining Trump gets too much coverage.
Her filtering system is nothing if not transparent.
You always know you're getting it straight from the Fox's mouth.
Joanne, you have me stumped! Seems Australia is woke about every thing.
getting back to the recent topic …
Today, the president spoke at great length, in a manner which further reinforces concerns about his health and mental state. It was a jaw dropping performance, with his whispering, shouting out, and weird references to his experience. He appeared very agitated, rather than his usual sleepy speaking style.
How God Bless the Queen came to be spoken, or why, remains unexplained.
https://nypost.com/2023/06/16/biden-bizarrely-ends-gun-control-speech-with-god-save-the-queen/
How this will play in tomorrow‘s news will be interesting.
mtierney said:
Developing story…
OK, I formatted that for you because your link is just pathetic.
The Telegraph: Three things to watch as US intelligence prepares for Covid ‘lab leak’ reveal
I'm thinking this will be more todo about nothing but, who knows.
mtierney said:
Joanne, you have me stumped! Seems Australia is woke about every thing.
Or, maybe, just polite and respectful of others?
mtierney said:
How God Bless the Queen came to be spoken, or why, remains unexplained.
Biden has the extremely odd habit of ending his remarks with cryptic phrases whose significance is mostly legible only to him. "God save the queen" is also what he said right after certifying Trump's election in 2017. He seems to use it to mean something like, "God help us all." https://t.co/JkwD7LMSF5
— Yoni Appelbaum (@YAppelbaum) June 16, 2023
Mtierney, the respectful conventions are several decades old - from at least the ‘70 s and ‘80s if not earlier, depending on which we’re speaking of. ‘Woke’ is recent term. Hardly the same when speaking of journalistic practice that, incidentally, Rupert Murdoch (old grumpy face) has to follow here.
joanne said:
Mtierney, the respectful conventions are several decades old - from at least the ‘70 s and ‘80s if not earlier, depending on which we’re speaking of. ‘Woke’ is recent term. Hardly the same when speaking of journalistic practice that, incidentally, Rupert Murdoch (old grumpy face) has to follow here.
That's how the word "woke" works, now. Things you might think of as decency and empathy are labeled "woke" by people for whom the word means "everything I don't like".
mtierney said:
Joanne, you have me stumped! Seems Australia is woke about every thing.
getting back to the recent topic …
Today, the president spoke at great length, in a manner which further reinforces concerns about his health and mental state. It was a jaw dropping performance, with his whispering, shouting out, and weird references to his experience. He appeared very agitated, rather than his usual sleepy speaking style.
How God Bless the Queen came to be spoken, or why, remains unexplained.
https://nypost.com/2023/06/16/biden-bizarrely-ends-gun-control-speech-with-god-save-the-queen/
How this will play in tomorrow‘s news will be interesting.
I wish you'd pick what you believe Biden actually is: He's either a senile old fart unfit to be President of the Fart Society, or he's an evil dictator and criminal mastermind running multiple shell companies funneling cash from corrupt foreign governments while simultaneously hunting down his political opponents and indicting them all.
I thought it was established that he was speaking to someone close by in the audience?
BBC article explained, with brief clip.
joanne said:
I thought it was established that he was speaking to someone close by in the audience?
That’s what the White House said overnight.
"He couldn’t do the full rope line due to weather, and was commenting to someone in the crowd," Dalton wrote in an email.
https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/joe-biden-ct-speech-god-save-the-queen-man-18157411.php
DaveSchmidt said:
joanne said:
I thought it was established that he was speaking to someone close by in the audience?
That’s what the White House said overnight.
"He couldn’t do the full rope line due to weather, and was commenting to someone in the crowd," Dalton wrote in an email.
https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/joe-biden-ct-speech-god-save-the-queen-man-18157411.php
As usual, it's a distraction from the substance of what Biden was speaking about. The actual end of his speech -
God bless you all. And may God protect our troops.
We can get this done. (Applause.) Thank you, thank you, thank you. I mean it. Thank you.
Then he bantered with the audience.
Now, as you — some of you know, I’d usually come down and say hi to all of you. They tell me there’s a storm coming in. Is that right? It’s still — is that still the deal?
AUDIENCE: Nooo —
THE PRESIDENT: If that’s the truth, now, don’t make a lie — (laughter) —
As that — as that scene in the John Wayne movie, “Don’t make me a dog-faced, lying pony soldier.” (Laughter.)
All right, well, I tell you what — here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to ask the White House photographer to come up. And what I’m going to do is I’m going to stand — I can’t — I usually shake everybody’s hand. But I’m going to stand in front of each section. No, I really mean it. And then — and if you can see the camera, they can see you. And it’s the least consequential part of this whole meeting for you, I promise.
All right? God save the Queen, man. (Applause.)
The substance is what the conservatives hate of course, such as this -
Just imagine how many more people would be dead if the tobacco industry — if the tobacco industry was immune from liability, you couldn’t sue the tobacco industry. I’m being deadly earnest. Think about the number of people who would be dead today that are alive because we could sue them and they paid billions of dollars for their — for the damage they were doing.
Well, ladies, we need to end immunity for the gun manufacturers. (Applause.) We’ve got to hold them accountable.
Dog bites man. Mtierney shares misleading and dishonest news about Democrats. More at 10.
For Sale
-
2007 Honda Fit $4,400
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
What do you call news sources which can decide what to report and what to “protect” their audiences from hearing or seeing, based solely on their corporate wisdom?
“CNN and MSNBC have refused to air former President Donald Trump's speech to supporters following his court hearing on Tuesday, where he pled not guilty to 37 federal felony counts stemming from his alleged improper retention of classified records.
“CNN anchor Jake Tapper defended the decision not to air the speech, bluntly telling audiences it could be "dangerous" to do so. "We're not carrying his remarks live because, frankly, he says a lot of things that are not true and sometimes potentially dangerous," Tapper told CNN audiences and guest Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. Earlier in the day, Tapper rebuked CNN producers for showing the former President celebrating with his supporters. "The folks in the control room, I don't need to see any more of that," Tapper grumbled in the air. "He's trying to turn this into a spectacle, a campaign ad. That's enough of that."
“Tapper warned audiences that CNN would air a clip of Trump defending himself full of "untrue and unfounded claims about the charges against him and the people he thinks are behind it." MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow announced her network had made the same decision during her Tuesday night show. "We are prepared for his pre-fund-raiser remarks tonight to again, essentially, be a Trump campaign speech. Because of that, we do not intend to carry these remarks live," she began. The primetime host suggested this was to protect the network's reputation and journalistic integrity
"As we have said before in these circumstances, there is a cost to us as a news organization to knowingly broadcast untrue things. We are here to bring you the news. It hurts our ability to do that if we live broadcast what we fully expect in advance to be a litany of lies and false accusations, no matter who says them," she explained.
“Maddow claimed she was not celebrating the decision to censor Trump's speech, which was not a "glib decision" by the network. She revealed they could reverse that call if Trump said anything "newsworthy." CNN's decision comes on the heels of CEO Chris Licht being fired after months of turmoil behind the scenes. Licht irked liberals last month when CNN aired a town hall with Trump. Several of the network's journalists grumbled publicly about the decision.”
Who on MOL wants their news filtered by these talking head anchors— reporting only what they believe is appropriate for viewers to know?
Can this be corporate censorship?
Is this practice carried on in other news stories broadcast by these cable outlets? Who remembers the Wuhan lab leak? Just this week reports are popping up that the virus which killed millions of humans worldwide, did have its origin in that lab. What if political concerns/fallout preempted the need for the public to know the source of this horrific pandemic?
Can this be called political censorship?
Dr. Fauci has a lot of explaining to do.
That is why I read and/watch both liberal and conservative news sources — trusting my own “filtering” system over censorship.