View Full Version : VP debate - potential for bias?
I'm sure that journalistic integrity will negate any possible bias - or perhaps should have already resulted in recusal?
ABC News scrambles to downplay Obama’s attendance at VP debate moderator’s wedding
Excerpt:
President Barack Obama was a guest at the 1991 wedding of ABC senior foreign correspondent and vice presidential debate moderator Martha Raddatz, The Daily Caller has learned. Obama and groom Julius Genachowski, whom Obama would later tap to head the Federal Communications Commission, were Harvard Law School classmates at the time and members of the Harvard Law Review.
After TheDC made preliminary inquiries Monday to confirm Obama’s attendance at the wedding, ABC leaked a pre-emptive statement to news outlets including Politico and The Daily Beast Tuesday, revealing what may have been internal network pressure felt just days before Raddatz was scheduled to moderate the one and only vice-presidential debate Thursday night.
Both Politico and The Daily Beast jumped to ABC and Raddatz’s defense. The Huffington Post, a liberal news outlet, joined them shortly thereafter, while calling “unusual” ABC’s attempt to kill the story before it gained wide circulation.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/abc-news-scrambles-to-cover-up-barack-obamas-attendance-at-vp-debate-moderators-wedding/#ixzz28u9T5OCa
Badger52
10-10-2012, 09:26
Not worried about any bias at all. A clear picture of the outcome will be consolidated and presented by the media to the public because....
the SNL crew have shown they are present for duty & up - to - the - task!
:lifter
:munchin
Barbarian
10-10-2012, 09:39
I don't think anything or anyone will be able to help Uncle Joe against Ryan. I plan to be sure not to be drinking any beverages, during the debate, for hilarity will surely ensue. Good times.....
:munchin
Dozer523
10-10-2012, 10:40
I'm sure that journalistic integrity will negate any possible bias - or perhaps should have already resulted in recusal? ] 21years ago? Grounds for recusal? Absolutely!!! And if they have exchanged more than five Christmas (no wait... Kwanzaa or happy holiday) cards nothing short of ritual suicide will do (will that work for you?).
Tony, how tall are you? and do you have pointy ears and a wart on your nose? Live under a bridge? You're a troll about everything!
Now, at least you're set with a Conspiracy Theory IF (big if) the running mate of the guy who attended the wedding 21 years ago somehow does better then Mr Ryan.
Stop posting for a while.
And by way of a serious reply (if ever one was less deserved or was more likely to be ignored) Yes, I think it is a reasonable expectation that professional will behave professionally.
Dozer523
10-10-2012, 10:44
I don't think anything or anyone will be able to help Uncle Joe against Ryan. I plan to be sure not to be drinking any beverages, during the debate, for hilarity will surely ensue. Good times.....
:munchin
Well you're gonna miss out on a fun time. I hope to keep up with AFCHIC at least til the first commercial break. I'm drinking cheaper rum, though. :D
Still waiting for the rules to be posted. Hey Missy, you VOLUNTEERED.
Yes, I think it is a reasonable expectation that professional will behave professionally.
Obama must be one big disappointment then.
ETA: Sorry - got a phone call - my apologies for striking a nerve but it is not trolling by raising an issue of concern in this election cycle - media bias.
You responded, essentially (absent the name calling) that you believe there is a statue of limitations on bias. I really don't know - we'll see. But media bias in this election cycle is a genuine matter of concern.
There used to be a notion of avoiding impropriety when one had even the slightest hint of such. No longer it seems and particularly when the potential media bias issue figures so prominently in many kitchen table discussions.
I submit that raising the discussion of possible bias is not trolling but a legitimate concern...just google media bias and you hit most major periodicals and blogs on both sides of the issue.
Dozer523
10-10-2012, 11:57
I submit that raising the discussion of possible bias is not trolling but a legitimate concern...just google media bias and you hit most major periodicals and blogs on both sides of the issue.
Slow news day, maybe? Pandering to a certain ilk? The sound a dog whistle makes, more like it.
Avoiding your "hint of impropriety" gets tougher and tougher as one ventures farther and farther from beneath the bridge. But, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Can Ms Raddatz moderate (what a choice of roles) under the shadow of partiality or from the depths of a poisoned well?
Thank you for interpreting my post for others (now it fits your purpose) but especially for me. At least now I know what I really meant.
...
Yes, I think it is a reasonable expectation that professional will behave professionally.
Professional like Dan Rather? The New York Times?
Pointing out the moderator of a Vice Presidential debate has more than an official relationship with one ticket is professional journalism, is it not?
If you don't believe that debates can move polls or public opinions - just look at the past couple of weeks.
If you don't think that the moderator of a debate has the opportunity to skew, to some degree, a debate then Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity should be a moderator...not gonna happen.
Debates matter - moderators can matter - elections matter.
We'll see if the referee takes over the game or let's the players play.
Should be a good debate.
Dozer523
10-10-2012, 12:27
If you don't believe that debates can move polls or public opinions - just look at the past couple of weeks.. So that's what I don't believe. Thanks again.
Want to know what I believe?
I believe one can be trusted to do their job.
I believe that Baseball is proof that there is a benevolent God.
Let me return the favor telling you what you believe:
You believe that someone with a professional reputation they have worked years and years and years to build;a reputation for being open, fair, unbiased, honest (which is the coin of the realm in her profession) will toss it all away to throw a debate for a guy who is associated with a guy who attended her wedding 21 years ago when that guy was . . . What? 21 years ago what WAS Mr Obama doing? I have no clue?
Now you know why I think you live under a bridge.
Want to know what I believe?
I believe one can be trusted to do their jobs.
IME, some can...some can't. And, we shall see. I think Raddatz should be fine. But, you just know that if Romney had attended her wedding, etc., it would be big news.
I believe that Baseball is proof that there is a benevolent God.
Baseball is cool but IMHO even cooler when the BoSox are in the mix ! Damn !!
Let me return the favor telling you what you believe:
You believe that someone with a professional reputation they have worked years and years and years to build;a reputation for being open, fair, unbiased, honest (which is the coin of the realm in her profession) will toss it all away to throw a debate for a guy who is associated with a guy who attended her wedding 21 years ago when that guy was . . . What? 21 years ago what WAS Mr Obama doing? I have no clue?
Now you know why I think you live under a bridge.
Sorry, I posted before you modified your post to include the above.
I believe that there is exceptional bias in the media today.
We all have bias.
We do not know whether Raddatz will allow her own personal bias to consciously influence the debate. We shall watch and see.
We do know that having a personal relationship with the president of the United States outside of her role with ABC news has the potential for bias - even subtle bias.
Thus, the issue of a past relationship and potential media bias has been raised. Some think that it is legitimate to raise such an issue and others disagree.
MOO, if Romney had attended Harvard Law with Raddatz and appointed her ex-husband to a federal agency and attend her wedding - I think folks would want to know. I have little doubt that the MSM would run with such a story today.
As stated previously, good or bad, a moderator has the opportunity to skew a debate.
Because Ms Raddatz works for ABC news - IMO if she somehow assists Biden she will be forever elevated as a MSM GAWD...if she hurts him - either actually or merely perceived by the left - (or if she is relatively neutral like Lehrer) she will be forever flogged by Chris Mattews, and many others...what was that risk you mentioned?
Parties of interest in the OP propagate allegations of potential bias against Ms. Raddatz but they do not delve into the content of the reports she's filed as a journalist and then compare those reports to similar reports filed by journalists working for other news outlets with the goal of establishing a pattern of bias in favor of the Democratic Party.
Instead, they stick to a "guilt by association who rubbed shoulders with whom wink wink nudge nudge" approach. (An approach that is the calling card of leftists who want to "prove" that .GOV is in bed with big business.)
Rumor mongering is not research.
SF-TX Hit the nail on the head
".....Dan Rather......."
And Tonyz provided the point
"..........There used to be a notion of avoiding impropriety when one had even the slightest hint of such................."
What was the husbands relationship with the President? Didn't he get a government job?
Hmmm, that seems to be a two-fer.
FWIW, the piece in the OP has been updated to include the following.UPDATE:
Michael Steel, a spokesman for Paul Ryan, told Fox News’ Joy Lin that he has “no concerns” about Raddatz’s conflict-of-interest.
And also, <<LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd_syuD-N_k&feature=related)>>.
My concerns have been somewhat alleviated since the story broke...she's now being watched a bit differently, perhaps, by both sides.
I occasionally enjoyed Martha when she was with WCVB-TV in Boston.
It will, hopefully, be an interesting debate.
Blogged Again?
Riiiggghhhhttt, we should wait for ABC news to objectively discuss their ABC news journalist.
Well, in all fairness, they eventually did, I guess -- once Raddatz's prior relationship with Obama was brought to their attention by a participant in the blogosphere.
In any event, I'm sure that ABC thinks of Martha as "tough and objective." And, they won't be shy about expressing that sentiment...I know, I read it on the Internet. I'm sure that they (ABC) selected Martha because she is "terrific"...I know, I read that on the Internet, too.
By the way, Is ABC where Stephanopoulos, the former WH communications director and Clinton senior advisor for policy and strategy, works? I'm comfortable that ABC thinks of Stephanopolous as tough, fair, objective and terrific, too.
Dozer523
10-10-2012, 15:58
. . . Because Ms Raddatz works for ABC news - IMO if she somehow assists Biden she will be forever elevated as a MSM GAWD...if she hurts him - either actually or merely perceived by the left - (or if she is relatively neutral like Lehrer) she will be forever flogged by Chris Mattews, and many others...what was that risk you mentioned?. So, the well is poisoned.
That was the objective from the start.
Red Sox fan. Figures. :D
90 losses, worst season since 1965. Third highest payroll in the MLB at $173,186,617. Further proof of a benevolent "GAWD".
Well you're gonna miss out on a fun time. I hope to keep up with AFCHIC at least til the first commercial break. I'm drinking cheaper rum, though. :D
Still waiting for the rules to be posted. Hey Missy, you VOLUNTEERED.
I will see if I can come up with something for tomorrow night's festivities. But I will not be partaking. I am sure I would over-imbibe, and I have to be on a plane to Portland at 0600. Hung over and flying used to be ok when I was younger. Now that I have hit 40, not so much :)
Well, if AFCHIC is going to play the "I've reached the age of where I'm too wise to do something unwise" card and risk damaging the GOP mojo for this debate, the rest of us must work together to pick up the shot glass(es) and power Ryan to glorious victory.
So, attached is a set of rules I found on line here (http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/finance/2012/nerdwallets-vice-presidential-debate-drinking-game-2012-nerds-guide-vp-debates-drinking/).
Pakistan requested we stop the drones - so we've canceled the VP debates. ;)
Richard
Ret10Echo
10-11-2012, 06:42
Pakistan requested we stop the drones - so we've canceled the VP debates. ;)
Richard
Finally, something good out of U.S. foreign policy...
I think it would be better to have an episode of "VP Wipeout"... with responses to policy questions required as they navigate the obstacle course.
ZonieDiver
10-11-2012, 07:03
Well, if AFCHIC is going to play the "I've reached the age of where I'm too wise to do something unwise" card and risk damaging the GOP mojo for this debate, the rest of us must work together to pick up the shot glass(es) and power Ryan to glorious victory.
So, attached is a set of rules I found on line here (http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/finance/2012/nerdwallets-vice-presidential-debate-drinking-game-2012-nerds-guide-vp-debates-drinking/).
I'll give the game a shot - so to speak.
Thanks for posting it, Sigaba. Thanks also for the new avatar-tribute to 'Mongo'!
1stindoor
10-11-2012, 07:43
I'll give the game a shot - so to speak.
Thanks for posting it, Sigaba. Thanks also for the new avatar-tribute to 'Mongo'!
Like Mongo...Sigaba only pawn in game of life.
Dozer523
10-15-2012, 07:02
My concerns have been somewhat alleviated since the story broke...she's now being watched a bit differently, perhaps, by both sides. . .
It will, hopefully, be an interesting debate.What is that sound? Silence.
What is that sound? Silence.
Biden: rude, disrespectful, angry and experienced at it...
Ryan: young, intelligent, articulate and respectful.
ETA:
IMO, the last debate moderator is now largely irrelevant.
The next presidential debate moderator is feeling some heat from both parties.
In a rare example of political unity, both the Romney and Obama campaigns have expressed concern to the Commission on Presidential Debates about how the moderator of the Tuesday town hall has publicly described her role, TIME has learned.
Read more: http://thepage.time.com/2012/10/14/moderator-role-under-scrutiny-before-the-debate/#ixzz29NZd2J1s
IMO, in moderating a fair debate, among other things neutrality, fairness, and preparation are important.
Dozer523
10-15-2012, 13:43
IMO, the last debate moderator is now largely irrelevant.
IMO, in moderating a fair debate, among other things neutrality, fairness, and preparation are important.
To your first comment
Now it doesn't matter, now. After ... Why doesn't it matter? Cuz your guy didn't need the drop gun you left behind the toilet? After enduring this thread of yours I really want your evaluation of Ms Raddatz's efforts.
To your other comment, do you agree that she met this standard? If not I'm very interested in your critique of her moderating. Try not to muddy the water by commenting on the debaters. :munchin
To your first comment
Now it doesn't matter, now. After ... Why doesn't it matter? Cuz your guy didn't need the drop gun you left behind the toilet? After enduring this thread of yours I really want your evaluation of Ms Raddatz's efforts.
The point of raising the issue of Raddatz's prior relationship with the sitting president was one of transparency - and raising the issue of the mere possibility of impropriety - certainly not one of preparation or competence. To follow your Godfather routine..."I wanted you to see what she's got under her fingernails."
To your other comment, do you agree that she met this standard? If not I'm very interested in your critique of her moderating. Try not to muddy the water by commenting on the debaters.
IMO, Raddatz interrupted Ryan a number of times when he was making his points. That is in the past. I do not blame the referee for the result. It is what it is.
I assume that she was prepared.
As for neutrality - MOO, I would have preferred that there be a Republican, a Democrat and a true Independent on that stage. If not an actual Democrat, Raddataz certainly possess many of the indicia of a Democrat.
With the dominance of 2 party politics - IMO, it might be interesting to watch a debate where a true independent questions/probes/exposes both sides. After all, both sides own the current shit that we are in.
I am not interested in some political "fluffer" from either party moderating such an important debate.
YMMV.
ZonieDiver
10-15-2012, 18:01
IMO, Raddatz interrupted Ryan a number of times when he was making his points.
Are you saying:
A) She didn't interrupt Biden.
B) She didn't interrupt Biden as often.
or
C) What?
Are you saying:
A) She didn't interrupt Biden.
B) She didn't interrupt Biden as often.
or
C) What?
IMO Raddatz stopped Ryan from making his point on a number of occasions. I do not recall how many times nor do I care at this point. Raddatz, during the course of the night, interrupted both men at one point or another. I do not recall how often nor do I care at this point. What impact these interuptions had on either men in the debate I cannot say at this point. Personally, I would have liked to hear Ryan complete his thoughts. YMMV.
The debate was the debate. Raddatz was Raddatz. I was not overly impressed with any of the participants.
This is all water under the bridge.
IMO Raddatz stopped Ryan from making his point on a number of occasions. I do not recall how many times nor do I care at this point. Raddatz, during the course of the night, interrupted both men at one point or another. I do not recall how often nor do I care at this point. What impact these interuptions had on either men in the debate I cannot say at this point. Personally, I would have liked to hear Ryan complete his thoughts. YMMV.
The debate was the debate. Raddatz was Raddatz. I was not overly impressed with any of the participants.
This is all water under the bridge.
I will say it because no one else will, you are an idiot. You made suppositions about the moderator before the debate saying she couldn't be objective. Now that people are pointing out that may not be the case you are saying you don't care how she acted. So either you were wrong before the debate, or disengenuous after the fact. Either way, IMO you are incapable of making a coherent argument in support of your hypothesis.
Dozer523
10-16-2012, 04:12
I will say it because no one else will, you are an idiot. You made suppositions about the moderator before the debate saying she couldn't be objective. Now that people are pointing out that may not be the case you are saying you don't care how she acted. So either you were wrong before the debate, or disengenuous after the fact. Either way, IMO you are incapable of making a coherent argument in support of your hypothesis.excuse me. Excuse me! No one else has called him an idiot? I direct you to post #4 . . . .
Oh sorry, you're right I'm wrong; I called him a troll.
Dozer523
10-16-2012, 04:37
I do not recall how many times nor do I care at this point.
I do not recall how often nor do I care at this point.
What impact these interruptions ...I cannot say at this point.
Personally, I would have liked to ....
This is all water under the bridge. This isn't the time to practice your Congressional testimony
This is your thread you picked the tune; now it's time to pay the band
You say you do not care now. Really you just don't want to be held responsible for your actions. What you did here was a deliberate attempt to pre-spin this event by questioning a professional's integrity on the flimsiest basis. What you did here was wrong.
But now, after you failed to achieve your goal of destroying her integrity it all becomes a small thing to you. We are talking about Integrity. Integrity is not a small thing. Tonyz, I'm talking about YOUR integrity. I'm sure that journalistic integrity will negate any possible bias - These are your words that opened this thread.
Time to man up.
Time to accept the consequences, take responsibility and make amends.
A post addressed to Ms Raddatz is the proper way to close this thread.
This isn't the time to practice your Congressional testimony
This is your thread you picked the tune; now it's time to pay the band
You say you do not care now. Really you just don't want to be held responsible for your actions. What you did here was a deliberate attempt to pre-spin this event by questioning a professional's integrity on the flimsiest basis. What you did here was wrong.
But now, after you failed to achieve your goal of destroying her integrity it all becomes a small thing to you. We are talking about Integrity. Integrity is not a small thing. Tonyz, I'm talking about YOUR integrity. These are your words that opened this thread.
Time to man up.
Time to accept the consequences, take responsibility and make amends.
A post addressed to Ms Raddatz is the proper way to close this thread.
Being informed as to the possible direction of a moderator's political leanings may be of interest - even if you do not "see" a bias.
If that is not of interest to you - so be it.
But, your personal attacks on the report and those who report is also of interest.
That debate is over.
I posted the information that the MSM was reluctant to post. The information regarding a prior relationship between the moderator and the president - may or may not go to a bias. The potential for bias based on a prior relationship was raised as a discussion question and I take responsibility for raising that question in the first post.
FWIW if Romney had gone to law school with the moderator - had appointed the moderators ex and had attended the moderator's wedding I think folks should know - and I think a discussion of possible bias based on a past relationship is fair game. YMMV.
I will say it because no one else will, you are an idiot. You made suppositions about the moderator before the debate saying she couldn't be objective. Now that people are pointing out that may not be the case you are saying you don't care how she acted. So either you were wrong before the debate, or disengenuous after the fact. Either way, IMO you are incapable of making a coherent argument in support of your hypothesis.
I posted a report for discussion on both sides of the issue. I raised a question that the MSM appeared reluctant to address. The MSM should have done the right thing and reported that prior relationship.
IMO, that fact that people may or may not be able to point to bias should not negate the publishing of information that there was a prior relationship.
My argument was for disclosure of a past relationship...with potential for bias raised as a question...if that is not coherent enough for you...
I posted a report for discussion on both sides of the issue. I raised a question that the MSM appeared reluctant to address. The MSM should have done the right thing and reported that prior relationship.
IMO, that fact that people may or may not be able to point to bias should not negate the publishing of information that there was a prior relationship.
My argument was for disclosure of a past relationship...with potential for bias raised as a question...if that is not coherent enough for you...
You basically stated there was no way this professional would be able to be objective due to someone who wasn't even on the stage that night being a guest at her wedding 21 years ago. You stated her husband's relationship with the POTUS would color her views.
Did you actually do any real digging on this? The reason I ask is that she has an ex-husband, not a husband. I think that is valuable information as well. It might go to show there was no bias on her part. I have been around alot of divorced couples and they don't usually keep the ex-spouses friends. But you didn't do that research because it may prove your hypothesis wrong.
And even after all was said and done you couldn't admit that maybe your hypothesis was wrong. Sounds like something my children do when things don't go their way.
You basically stated there was no way this professional would be able to be objective due to someone who wasn't even on the stage that night being a guest at her wedding 21 years ago. You stated her husband's relationship with the POTUS would color her views.
Did you actually do any real digging on this? The reason I ask is that she has an ex-husband, not a husband. I think that is valuable information as well. It might go to show there was no bias on her part. I have been around alot of divorced couples and they don't usually keep the ex-spouses friends. But you didn't do that research because it may prove your hypothesis wrong.
And even after all was said and done you couldn't admit that maybe your hypothesis was wrong. Sounds like something my children do when things don't go their way.
I raised an issue. A reasonable response might have been:
1). The relationship did not exist; or
2). The relationship did exist - but was so distant and trivial as to be a non-issue.
Or, perhaps, you could have responded that such a disclosure of a prior relationship might unfairly prejudice the jury of public opinion.
But, these discussions of bridges, warts, trolls, guns, idiots and children appear to speak more of the commentators than to the issue itself.
Have you never inquired about prior relationships or activities when considering someone for a position or a clearance - even if to ultimate dismiss the issue as to be no longer relevant ?
All I can say is wow, just wow.
I'm sure that journalistic integrity will negate any possible bias - or perhaps should have already resulted in recusal?
BMT merely posts items to "raise an issue" - adding the sardonic bit of opinion to a posted item is not "merely raising an issue" as you are fixed on trying to convince everyone here.
Ricshard :munchin
I take exception to referring to journalists/journalism as a profession.
With a profession defined as: (a) a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation (b) the whole body of persons engaged in a calling (c) containing a enforced standard level of education, ethics, and practice.
BMT merely posts items to "raise an issue" - adding the sardonic bit of opinion to a posted item is not "merely raising an issue" as you are fixed on trying to convince everyone here.
Ricshard :munchin
Richard, you are correct. I raised an issue and expressed an opinion - on a couple of occasions in this thread. I thought that was self evident. Guilty as charged.
MOO, I do think that we, as a country, might benefit if more folks would consider recusing themselves, on occasion. Don't get me started on Justice Kagen and the Obamacare decision...for another day.
MOO, I do not think Raddatz should have accepted the gig. However, If she accepts the gig, folks should be aware of her prior relationship with the president - and arrive at their own conclusion.
Same thing if Romney had attend law school with Raddatz, appointed her ex and attended her wedding.
This has been an interesting discussion. The moderator, the moderator, the mean man questioned the moderator...while the world burns and this administration continues to cover up arguably criminally negligent behavior.
All water under the bridge.
ZonieDiver
10-16-2012, 11:41
All water under the bridge.
That's an interesting phrase to use, considering Dozer's characterization!
Seen any billy goats lately?
That's an interesting phrase to use, considering Dozer's characterization!
Seen any billy goats lately?
Yup, now that is funny. :D
IRT to the definition of profession offered in post #39, FWIW, a literature review of sociological definitions of "profession" can be found in R.D. Hughes's doctoral dissertation, "Transforming Professions: A Case Study of Social Work in the Australian Defence Organization" (2006), pages 41-62. This document is available here (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdlibrary.acu.edu.au%2Fdigitalthes es%2Fpublic%2Fadt-acuvp123.25102006%2F02whole.pdf&ei=yKV9UKTWBYS-2AWSooD4BA&usg=AFQjCNFM4x1-a2db4Mm1nIMjc1hX6wzBlQ).
The short version is, "It's complicated." A thumbnail is that there's no single acceptable definition of what constitutes a profession because various professions define themselves (a) after the fact, (b) in a manner that justifies a monopolization of a field of knowledge/expertise, and (c) so that a particular profession can corner a sector of the political economy. (A fourth part of her definition centers around a profession's role as an agent of cultural hegemony. YMMV.)
IRT to the definition of profession offered in post #39, FWIW, a literature review of sociological definitions of "profession" can be found in R.D. Hughes's doctoral dissertation, "Transforming Professions: A Case Study of Social Work in the Australian Defence Organization" (2006), pages 41-62. This document is available here (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdlibrary.acu.edu.au%2Fdigitalthes es%2Fpublic%2Fadt-acuvp123.25102006%2F02whole.pdf&ei=yKV9UKTWBYS-2AWSooD4BA&usg=AFQjCNFM4x1-a2db4Mm1nIMjc1hX6wzBlQ).
The short version is, "It's complicated." A thumbnail is that there's no single acceptable definition of what constitutes a profession because various professions define themselves (a) after the fact, (b) in a manner that justifies a monopolization of a field of knowledge/expertise, and (c) so that a particular profession can corner a sector of the political economy. (A fourth part of her definition centers around a profession's role as an agent of cultural hegemony. YMMV.)
Thanks Sig, but at 415 pages - no thanks. I'm still wading through 47,683 pages of new regulations over at HHS...
In short, they saying we don't need no stinkin' standards.
Dozer523
10-16-2012, 15:10
I take exception to referring to journalists/journalism as a profession.
With a profession defined as: (a) a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation (b) the whole body of persons engaged in a calling (c) containing a enforced standard level of education, ethics, and practice.My Journalism Major from the school "those kids at Columbia couldn't get in to" will whup up on you if she reads this
BMT merely posts items to "raise an issue" - adding the sardonic bit of opinion to a posted item is not "merely raising an issue" as you are fixed on trying to convince everyone here.
The admins here in the past have directed that merely posting a link or article without any commentary by the poster should be avoided as much as possible. Thus, whether we agree with the opinion or not, the poster is indeed following PS.com protocol here.
Dozer523
10-16-2012, 15:25
I raised an issue. A reasonable response might have been:
1). The relationship did not exist; or
2). The relationship did exist - but was so distant and trivial as to be a non-issue.That is what I said in my initial post
Or, perhaps, you could have responded that such a disclosure of a prior relationship might unfairly prejudice the jury of public opinion.why would I say that? I didn't believe it and it didn't turn out to be true. My "benefit of the doubt" was not in vain. If (BIG IF) your issue had occurred then it could/should have been raised with a vengeance. do not flatter yourself that bringing it to the fore prevented it from happening. I've been of a few missions that never should have worked but . . . they did!
But, these discussions of bridges, warts, trolls, guns, idiots and children appear to speak more of the commentators than to the issue itself. Yeah, we're astute observers of the human condition lol
Have you never inquired about prior relationships or activities when considering someone for a position or a clearance - even if to ultimate dismiss the issue as to be no longer relevant ? to myself, but never on a public forum such as this. unless, asking your height, facial features and living arrangement counts. dang, then, once.
All I can say is wow, just wow. It's not my fault you don't get it.
Buh-bye
ZonieDiver
10-16-2012, 15:26
The admins here in the past have directed that merely posting a link or article without any commentary by the poster should be avoided as much as possible. Thus, whether we agree with the opinion or not, the poster is indeed following PS.com protocol here.
I think most of us agree with the fact that the poster was well within protocol, and his rights as an individual, to post the comment(s) he did, sardonic or not. What some of us would like is for him to step up and:
a) admit he was wrong, or partially wrong, in his characterization of the moderator,
or
b) provide specific examples - such as the number of times each candidate was interrupted - to back up his claims.
Stating that it's "water under the bridge" or that "I've moved on" sounds more like what the Ds do when things don't go their way.
As for me, I'll paraphrase Adlai Stevenson at the UN in October, 1961:
"Don't wait for the translation. Answer 'yes' or 'no'. I'm prepared to wait until hell freezes over."
My Journalism Major from the school "those kids at Columbia couldn't get in to" will whup up on you if she reads this
I would prefer that she whup up on her peers and begin a reconstitution of what was once a fine and honorable profession.
The admins here in the past have directed that merely posting a link or article without any commentary by the poster should be avoided as much as possible. Thus, whether we agree with the opinion or not, the poster is indeed following PS.com protocol here.
Yep - but commentary does not necessarily mean opinion and nobody in this thread claimed anybody has not followed protocol.
Richard
mark46th
10-16-2012, 19:18
Candy Crowley and the women only get the "Town Hall and Veep debates" whining crowd has been driving me up a wall. It's a Presidential Debate" not a "look at me" moment, you self-serving twits......
Candy Crowley and the women only get the "Town Hall and Veep debates" whining crowd has been driving me up a wall. It's a Presidential Debate" not a "look at me" moment, you self-serving twits......I wish both men would answer the questions as asked.
mark46th
10-17-2012, 08:07
Sig- They are politicians.
ZD -- entire post --
FWIW, I recognize that this may not satisfy everyone.
IMO, there was no obvious evidence of bias by the ABC News moderator in the VP debate, at issue. And, my personal commentary accompanying my OP may reasonably be interpreted to mock most in the MSM. Screw them.
As a guest on this board, my apologies to QPs who took offense. My sardonic humor was clearly directed toward a MSM that I hold in low regard. A close reading of the entire post suggests a more benign attitude toward Raddatz, herself. My apologies to her family or fans who are QPs on this board, or otherwise. Raddatz is a national figure, a prominent member of ABC News and she was arguably a major participant in an important national event. Thus, IMO, her background and certainly her past personal interactions with an incumbent president, were, as they say...newsworthy. Especially, on a public forum.
Moreover, no serious commentator can deny the existence (or, at the very least, the perception...by many) of bias by the MSM during Obama's first election run, first term, and subsequent re-election run.
MOO, I stand by my firm belief that moderators of the VP or P debates should be, to the best of our ability to really know, unclouded by personal bias or conflicts of interest. Disclosure of information that may suggest potential for bias should be considered newsworthy. I submit that folks should have the facts in hand and make their own decisions as to relevance or materiality. I recognize that opinions on this matter may differ.
Finally, in our democratic republic in which the legitimacy of our government is dependent on the consent and approval of the governed, public confidence in our MSM, and members of our press -- that moderate such important debates -- is imperative.
MOO, it is not merely enough that moderators be impartial; the public must perceive them to be so.
YMMV
Dozer523
11-09-2012, 17:33
FWIW, I recognize that this may not satisfy everyone. . . .
MOO, it is not merely enough that moderators be impartial; the public must perceive them to be so.
YMMV look who's back.
Who left the door open? Damn kids!
ZonieDiver
11-10-2012, 10:23
it is not merely enough that moderators be impartial; the public must perceive them to be so.
I think the vast majority of the American public perceived her to be so. I did. I had watched many of her news reports, and never found her to be apparently 'biased' in her reporting.
I don't think ANYone can be devoid of personal biases. All I ask is that they NOT let it interfere with their decision-making processses, whether they are members of the MSM or people who post in this forum.