Posted on Jan 1, 2019
Rex Murphy: Time is wrong. Today’s journalists are not ‘guardians of the truth’
1.29K
18
11
5
5
0
This story came from the Canadian Press. There are no safe spaces. This story will infuriate the mainstream media on their bias toward President Trump.
Rex Murphy, the National Post Columnist also forgot to mention Peter Arnett and Dan Rather. Both may have written truthful news but Arnett saying Special Ops soldiers used poison gas in the Vietnam war and Rather said that President W Bush had bad evaluations in the Texas Air National Guard cost them both their careers.
What do you think, Rallypoint?
Happy New Year!!
Rex Murphy, the National Post Columnist also forgot to mention Peter Arnett and Dan Rather. Both may have written truthful news but Arnett saying Special Ops soldiers used poison gas in the Vietnam war and Rather said that President W Bush had bad evaluations in the Texas Air National Guard cost them both their careers.
What do you think, Rallypoint?
Happy New Year!!
Rex Murphy: Time is wrong. Today’s journalists are not ‘guardians of the truth’
Posted from nationalpost.com
Journalism
Time Warner Cable
Ethics
Newspapers
Humor
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 4
4
4
0
Greetings to all in this thread.
While I don't know about the accuracy and quality of Peter Arnett's reporting during his earlier time in VN, can say his later reportage (such as it is) from Baghdad during Saddam's regime was very shoddy and biased, as well as saturated by his self-promotion as fearless global reporter / war correspondent "here on the scene of the shooting."
FWIW, several relatively-objective Iraqi media guys I encountered when I was in Baghdad during Sep-Oct 1991 with the UNSCOM 16 arms control compliance inspection team checking Ira
Regards,
Stephen H. Franke
While I don't know about the accuracy and quality of Peter Arnett's reporting during his earlier time in VN, can say his later reportage (such as it is) from Baghdad during Saddam's regime was very shoddy and biased, as well as saturated by his self-promotion as fearless global reporter / war correspondent "here on the scene of the shooting."
FWIW, several relatively-objective Iraqi media guys I encountered when I was in Baghdad during Sep-Oct 1991 with the UNSCOM 16 arms control compliance inspection team checking Ira
Regards,
Stephen H. Franke
(4)
(0)
LTC Stephen Franke
CORRECTION / COMPLETION (hit wrong key while typing above entry):... checking Iraqi nuclear WMD R&D sites declared pursuant to UNSCR 687, would roll their eyes and laugh whenever any of us mentioned Arnett and his presence in the accredited gaggle of international media reporters still in Baghdad. ** Regards, Stephen H. Franke, San Pedro, California.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
offered IMHO only: to be a guardian of truth, it required that you report the truth regardless. That isn't the case in most mass media. in modern mass media, Bias is what sells their product and generates the drama that allows them to continue to produce their product.
I've yet to find an unbiased media outlet.
I've yet to find an unbiased media outlet.
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Bbc.com, aljazeera.com, nationalpost.com
You can get some different opinions. You may even be able to get some different sports as well. In Canada, we have a Grey Cup. Something different if you're used to the NFL. These guys play for $8,000 a game. When I was at Fort Lewis, a shuttle driver thanked me so much for the Canadian Football League during the last NFL strike. He kept this Saturday because he was able to watch football.
https://youtu.be/VKW64fQwzRc
You can get some different opinions. You may even be able to get some different sports as well. In Canada, we have a Grey Cup. Something different if you're used to the NFL. These guys play for $8,000 a game. When I was at Fort Lewis, a shuttle driver thanked me so much for the Canadian Football League during the last NFL strike. He kept this Saturday because he was able to watch football.
https://youtu.be/VKW64fQwzRc
(1)
(0)
CPL James S.
LTC (Join to see) - I've never been keen on watching sports, to tell the truth. Especially now that I can't play them.
As for the opinions: I rarely listen to or watch news media, and absolutely never accept a news article as being factual without doing at least a little homework first (unless I'm already well versed in the topic). It's a carryover from the job: accept nothing without verification, then double check that. If it can't be validated, it's nothing but circumstantial and may well be irrelevant or distracting.
As for the opinions: I rarely listen to or watch news media, and absolutely never accept a news article as being factual without doing at least a little homework first (unless I'm already well versed in the topic). It's a carryover from the job: accept nothing without verification, then double check that. If it can't be validated, it's nothing but circumstantial and may well be irrelevant or distracting.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
LTC (Join to see)
Happy New Year!
There are NO unbiased platforms, all is opinion news.
Journalists are guardians of their spin / world view.
Most are incapable of seeing the bias they spit out each day.
It is why most people don't even bother with the major networks or dying MSM.
Of course, the Dems and GOP are bias platforms as well, it would be nice to have a check on both parties as the government spends $4 Trillion a year.
Happy New Year!
There are NO unbiased platforms, all is opinion news.
Journalists are guardians of their spin / world view.
Most are incapable of seeing the bias they spit out each day.
It is why most people don't even bother with the major networks or dying MSM.
Of course, the Dems and GOP are bias platforms as well, it would be nice to have a check on both parties as the government spends $4 Trillion a year.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
I beg to differ with Murphy and others of his ilk. The great majority of legitimate journalists ARE the Guardians of the Truth...and Murphy has it wrong. Watching Fox all day or listening to Murphy, Limbought, Beck, Savage, Levin, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter and any of the rest of their ultra right wing nut lying ilk counterparts do not constitute Legitimate Journalism and certainly are not even close to be "Guardians of the Truth." All of these individuals are proven hypocrites...with one set of journalist standards for themselves and another for everyone else. Bought, paid for and corrupt propagandist do not journalist make...and Murphy is the last individual who should complain about TIME or their choice for man of the Year...as he is a confirmed hypocrite..."after receiving several public complaints in 2014, the CBC's ombudsman investigated claims that Mr. Murphy may have been in conflict of interest by criticizing opponents of the Alberta oil sands in his Point of view segments while receiving money from the oil industry for paid speeches. In the final report and subsequent to an investigation, the CBC's ombudsman, Esther Enkin, did not say whether Murphy's speeches presented a conflict of interest but did conclude that "since taking money leads to a perception of a conflict of interest, CBC management might want to consider, in the review they are undertaking, whether even with disclosure, it is appropriate for CBC news and current affairs staff to get paid for their speaking engagements." Additionally Murphy is a climate change denier....I wonder how much that is due to being a paid front man for the Oil industry. You show me a hypocrite and I'll show you a liar and cheat and thief.
Time's pick for Man of the Year was more about defending Freedom of the Press and Journalist and their work in journalism and those journalists who faced political persecution for their work. in general. And whether Khashoggi was a front man for Qatari Sheik Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani is true or not...in his role as and stringer opinion/editorial writer for the Washington Post...he has perfect right to his opinion or the Sheik opinion as long as he reveals that relationship. And by the way Khashoggi was murdered because he spoke out against the present Saudi leadership and their corruption and support of ultra right religious elements (wahabbist) influence on the Saudi Royal Family.
In December 2018 the Washington Post stated in their article about Khashoggi entitled "Jamal Khashoggi's final months as an exile in the long shadow of Saudi Arabia". The Washington Post -27 December 2018 that Khashoggi's "connections to an organization funded by Saudi Arabia’s regional nemesis, Qatar. Text messages between Khashoggi and an executive at Qatar Foundation International show that the executive, Maggie Mitchell Salem, at times shaped the columns he submitted to The Washington Post, proposing topics, drafting material and prodding him to take a harder line against the Saudi government. Khashoggi also appears to have relied on a researcher and translator affiliated with the organization." Hardly the act of a news organization trying to hide Khashoggi's relationships. Whatever his relations with the Sheik Al Thani or the Qatari Foundation...Khashoggi had a right to give voice to his opinions whether they were influenced or not. That is the purpose of the OP/ED pages in any newspaper or news cast.
And as far as Legitimate journalist and their companies go like TIME, NYT, WP etc...when someone gets a hard news story wrong.... they print a retraction and if it is not a mistake but an out and out falsehood...the reporter who wrote the story or series IS FIRED and their careers are done. So the charges of "bias" is a bunch of hog wash.
That said...there IS a difference between hard news reporting and Opinion/Editorial writing...which are all opinions on one subject or the other...and certainly there is bias in these OP/ED pieces in one way or the other. And the one of the things I don't like in all news these days is the sometime bleed over between OP/ED and hard news. They should be strictly separated. Sometimes they are not.
As far as a "bias" against Trump...that is another bunch of hog wash. Trump is proven liar, cheat and thief. And he is a draft dodging, crotch grabbing, grifter, fraud and is owned by Putin and his Russian oligarch/mobster friends. The Liar-in-Chief is there for all to see...he lies...everyday...even when telling the truth would serve him better. And if there is a legitimate journalist that knowingly falsify's a story about him...he will be fired and a retraction printed...and that is difference between legit journalism THE Guardians of the Truth...and the bought, paid for and corrupt hacks mentioned above...who rarely if ever retract squat or are fired for filing false stories.
Time's pick for Man of the Year was more about defending Freedom of the Press and Journalist and their work in journalism and those journalists who faced political persecution for their work. in general. And whether Khashoggi was a front man for Qatari Sheik Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani is true or not...in his role as and stringer opinion/editorial writer for the Washington Post...he has perfect right to his opinion or the Sheik opinion as long as he reveals that relationship. And by the way Khashoggi was murdered because he spoke out against the present Saudi leadership and their corruption and support of ultra right religious elements (wahabbist) influence on the Saudi Royal Family.
In December 2018 the Washington Post stated in their article about Khashoggi entitled "Jamal Khashoggi's final months as an exile in the long shadow of Saudi Arabia". The Washington Post -27 December 2018 that Khashoggi's "connections to an organization funded by Saudi Arabia’s regional nemesis, Qatar. Text messages between Khashoggi and an executive at Qatar Foundation International show that the executive, Maggie Mitchell Salem, at times shaped the columns he submitted to The Washington Post, proposing topics, drafting material and prodding him to take a harder line against the Saudi government. Khashoggi also appears to have relied on a researcher and translator affiliated with the organization." Hardly the act of a news organization trying to hide Khashoggi's relationships. Whatever his relations with the Sheik Al Thani or the Qatari Foundation...Khashoggi had a right to give voice to his opinions whether they were influenced or not. That is the purpose of the OP/ED pages in any newspaper or news cast.
And as far as Legitimate journalist and their companies go like TIME, NYT, WP etc...when someone gets a hard news story wrong.... they print a retraction and if it is not a mistake but an out and out falsehood...the reporter who wrote the story or series IS FIRED and their careers are done. So the charges of "bias" is a bunch of hog wash.
That said...there IS a difference between hard news reporting and Opinion/Editorial writing...which are all opinions on one subject or the other...and certainly there is bias in these OP/ED pieces in one way or the other. And the one of the things I don't like in all news these days is the sometime bleed over between OP/ED and hard news. They should be strictly separated. Sometimes they are not.
As far as a "bias" against Trump...that is another bunch of hog wash. Trump is proven liar, cheat and thief. And he is a draft dodging, crotch grabbing, grifter, fraud and is owned by Putin and his Russian oligarch/mobster friends. The Liar-in-Chief is there for all to see...he lies...everyday...even when telling the truth would serve him better. And if there is a legitimate journalist that knowingly falsify's a story about him...he will be fired and a retraction printed...and that is difference between legit journalism THE Guardians of the Truth...and the bought, paid for and corrupt hacks mentioned above...who rarely if ever retract squat or are fired for filing false stories.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google