Canis wrote:Dont laugh yourself into naivity again Puff...
our past discussions show who has been the naive one
Dont kid yourself into false conclusions. You have a knack for skirting the points I make in order to find some contradiction in my posts, which add nothing to the conversation at hand. Scraping the barrel will get you nowhere.
oh bullshit that's your m.o. not mine.
god this thread is a perfect example of your ridiculous and narrow focus.
Canis in this thread: nevermind the use of chemical weapons, the reporters are trying to make the U.S. look bad! the reporters are bad! self defense? LOL
canis quote: I mentioned the use of phosphorous was a bad thing and should be investigated. However, I was voicing my disapproval of their journalistic tactics. I think their casting of a negative light on what's clearly self-defense (in some of the reported cases - others, such as the helicopter attack, are clearly american aggression) is sensationalism...
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
our past discussions show who has been the naive one
Dont kid yourself into false conclusions. You have a knack for skirting the points I make in order to find some contradiction in my posts, which add nothing to the conversation at hand. Scraping the barrel will get you nowhere.
oh bullshit that's your m.o. not mine.
god this thread is a perfect example of your ridiculous and narrow focus.
Canis in this thread: nevermind the use of chemical weapons, the reporters are trying to make the U.S. look bad! the reporters are bad! self defense? LOL
canis quote: I mentioned the use of phosphorous was a bad thing and should be investigated. However, I was voicing my disapproval of their journalistic tactics. I think their casting of a negative light on what's clearly self-defense (in some of the reported cases - others, such as the helicopter attack, are clearly american aggression) is sensationalism...
i mean what the fuck is your brain damage?
Clearly you're at odds with what I have to say, so I suggest you dont read my posts anymore. It will save you the frustration. I voiced my opinion about the video, and then had a rather pleasent discussion with Rook about it and we found that we agreed about the content. You on the other hand seem to have some engrained desire to point out flaws, attack people personally, and attempt to belittle them instead of discussing things. The only "brain damage" here is on your behalf.
I disagree with Canis on the use of "wailing music" in the video. This is an extended journalistic documentary, it's not meant to be unbiased in the way a three minute top news story is. It's meant to persuade, but backed up by evidence.
mjrpes wrote:I disagree with Canis on the use of "wailing music" in the video. This is an extended journalistic documentary, it's not meant to be unbiased in the way a three minute top news story is. It's meant to persuade, but backed up by evidence.
I think its not a part of unbiased journalism. I believe its not up to the journalists to affect the presentation of news in any way other than how it was, especially in sensationalistic ways. Its the same tactics used by Fox, CNN, and other crap news agencies who're pushing the latest shock-factor to gain publicity.
Canis wrote:
...the presentation of news in any way other than how it was...
Editorializing vs reporting. Many mainstream journalists talk and comport themselves as if there is a sharp distinction between these activities....I'm just not sure they are right, at least when we move into the realm of stories that involve an obvious moral context or emotionally provocative elements. It is a deep swamp once you get into it.
Canis wrote:
Dont kid yourself into false conclusions. You have a knack for skirting the points I make in order to find some contradiction in my posts, which add nothing to the conversation at hand. Scraping the barrel will get you nowhere.
oh bullshit that's your m.o. not mine.
god this thread is a perfect example of your ridiculous and narrow focus.
Canis in this thread: nevermind the use of chemical weapons, the reporters are trying to make the U.S. look bad! the reporters are bad! self defense? LOL
canis quote: I mentioned the use of phosphorous was a bad thing and should be investigated. However, I was voicing my disapproval of their journalistic tactics. I think their casting of a negative light on what's clearly self-defense (in some of the reported cases - others, such as the helicopter attack, are clearly american aggression) is sensationalism...
i mean what the fuck is your brain damage?
Clearly you're at odds with what I have to say, so I suggest you dont read my posts anymore. It will save you the frustration. I voiced my opinion about the video, and then had a rather pleasent discussion with Rook about it and we found that we agreed about the content. You on the other hand seem to have some engrained desire to point out flaws, attack people personally, and attempt to belittle them instead of discussing things. The only "brain damage" here is on your behalf.
yes how pleasant to comfortably discuss women and children being melted by American weapons. Sleep well tonight apologist.
mjrpes wrote:I disagree with Canis on the use of "wailing music" in the video. This is an extended journalistic documentary, it's not meant to be unbiased in the way a three minute top news story is. It's meant to persuade, but backed up by evidence.
I think its not a part of unbiased journalism. I believe its not up to the journalists to affect the presentation of news in any way other than how it was, especially in sensationalistic ways. Its the same tactics used by Fox, CNN, and other crap news agencies who're pushing the latest shock-factor to gain publicity.
The images of decomposing bodies were themselves the shock-factor; the music was the producer's way of influencing our interpretation of that shock-factor. The effect is to make us pause and notice that these people are dead, horribly dead, and probably suffered horribly. I don't believe the producers sensationalize the story by their attempt to make us pause and reflect on horrible deaths like this.
Canis wrote:
...the presentation of news in any way other than how it was...
Editorializing vs reporting. Many mainstream journalists talk and comport themselves as if there is a sharp distinction between these activities....I'm just not sure they are right, at least when we move into the realm of stories that involve an obvious moral context or emotionally provocative elements. It is a deep swamp once you get into it.
Its something that frustrates me immensely, as I cannot trust any source of news to be impartial and unbiased.
- Unbiased: wire services.. this is what happened
- Investigative: this is what should happen
- Biased: this is what often happens
Everything humans report on, except maybe the dry, boring wire service reporting is biased. The first thing I try to find out when I read a history book for class is 'what is the ideology of the historian?' Journalism is worse because there's less accountability. Read an issue of time and then read an issue of [insert scholarly journal here] and you'll see what I mean.
mjrpes wrote:I disagree with Canis on the use of "wailing music" in the video. This is an extended journalistic documentary, it's not meant to be unbiased in the way a three minute top news story is. It's meant to persuade, but backed up by evidence.
I think its not a part of unbiased journalism. I believe its not up to the journalists to affect the presentation of news in any way other than how it was, especially in sensationalistic ways. Its the same tactics used by Fox, CNN, and other crap news agencies who're pushing the latest shock-factor to gain publicity.
The images of decomposing bodies were themselves the shock-factor; the music was the producer's way of influencing our interpretation of that shock-factor. The effect is to make us pause and notice that these people are dead, horribly dead, and probably suffered horribly. I don't believe the producers sensationalize the story by their attempt to make us pause and reflect on horrible deaths like this.
I dont agree. I think the pictures are horrible enough. To put emphasis on it throws it out of proportion. To me that's just cheap tactics because they know folks will be emotionally affected by the scenes. Its shock value, and nothing more. Legitimate journalism would give a warning and describe the context of the pictures appropriately, and not throw the other frills into the mix.
Dave wrote:As I see it, there are 3 types of journalists:
- Unbiased: wire services.. this is what happened
- Investigative: this is what should happen
- Biased: this is what often happens
Everything humans report on, except maybe the dry, boring wire service reporting is biased. The first thing I try to find out when I read a history book for class is 'what is the ideology of the historian?' Journalism is worse because there's less accountability. Read an issue of time and then read an issue of [insert scholarly journal here] and you'll see what I mean.
I agree, but I feel there is very little unbiased (as you define it) journalism out there. Most journalism fits into "Investigative" and "Biased", where they choose what to show and present it in a way that supports their take on it.
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
oh bullshit that's your m.o. not mine.
god this thread is a perfect example of your ridiculous and narrow focus.
Canis in this thread: nevermind the use of chemical weapons, the reporters are trying to make the U.S. look bad! the reporters are bad! self defense? LOL
canis quote: I mentioned the use of phosphorous was a bad thing and should be investigated. However, I was voicing my disapproval of their journalistic tactics. I think their casting of a negative light on what's clearly self-defense (in some of the reported cases - others, such as the helicopter attack, are clearly american aggression) is sensationalism...
i mean what the fuck is your brain damage?
Clearly you're at odds with what I have to say, so I suggest you dont read my posts anymore. It will save you the frustration. I voiced my opinion about the video, and then had a rather pleasent discussion with Rook about it and we found that we agreed about the content. You on the other hand seem to have some engrained desire to point out flaws, attack people personally, and attempt to belittle them instead of discussing things. The only "brain damage" here is on your behalf.
yes how pleasant to comfortably discuss women and children being melted by American weapons. Sleep well tonight apologist.
Pleasant discussions are those that flow well, get ideas out, and show mutual understanding of the various approaches to an issue. It has nothing to do with the topic matter being discussed. If you want that to be "pleasant" then limit yourself to small-talk. Enjoy discussing the weather or the latest sports events, where the topics have no enriching impact on anyone's lives...
Canis wrote:
Clearly you're at odds with what I have to say, so I suggest you dont read my posts anymore. It will save you the frustration. I voiced my opinion about the video, and then had a rather pleasent discussion with Rook about it and we found that we agreed about the content. You on the other hand seem to have some engrained desire to point out flaws, attack people personally, and attempt to belittle them instead of discussing things. The only "brain damage" here is on your behalf.
yes how pleasant to comfortably discuss women and children being melted by American weapons. Sleep well tonight apologist.
Pleasant discussions are those that flow well, get ideas out, and show mutual understanding of the various approaches to an issue. It has nothing to do with the topic matter being discussed. If you want that to be "pleasant" then limit yourself to small-talk. Enjoy discussing the weather or the latest sports events, where the topics have no enriching impact on anyone's lives...
uh
keep going you're making even less sense now.
i do like how you avoided discussion of the issue though just like you always do, (doing exactly what you initially accused me of always doing)
Well the simple fact of the matter is that it did happen. If you want to get upset at the way it was presented, then that is a bit of a different discussion, because I personally believe that the topic of presentation style is just a distraction from the real issue here.
