Comments on: More on white space and motives… http://rhetorica.net/archives/2437.html Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:09:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Academy of Harvested Discourse http://rhetorica.net/archives/2437.html/comment-page-1#comment-2407 Academy of Harvested Discourse Mon, 19 Jul 2004 05:30:15 +0000 http://localhost/wpp3/?p=2437#comment-2407 <strong>Social Ramifications of Journalism</strong> <a title="Rhetorica: Press-Politics Journal: More on white space and motives..." href="http://rhetorica.net/archives/002437.html" rel="nofollow">Rhetorica: Press-Politics Journal: More on white space and motives...</a> "Gans argues the kind of information journalist... Social Ramifications of Journalism

Rhetorica: Press-Politics Journal: More on white space and motives…

“Gans argues the kind of information journalist…

]]> By: rebecca plasma http://rhetorica.net/archives/2437.html/comment-page-1#comment-2405 rebecca plasma Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:57:43 +0000 http://localhost/wpp3/?p=2437#comment-2405 I couldn't agree more with both you and the so metimes wacky Herbert Gans. The only way you and I differ is that you think a "fire" can be lit under journalists by independent means, and I think only the courts can provide the "fire", but, as they say, reasonable people can disagree. A prime example of the idea you (and Jamieson) promote, that the press should question the assertion and "facts" of campaign speeches is Kerry's remarks to the NAACP yesterday. The press was full of Kerry's comments that he would meet with groups that disagreed with him (NRA? KKK? - he didn't say) instead of honing in on the really provocative thing he did say, which is that we should call the situation in Sudan as "genocide", which means we are legally obligated to military intervention (which is why Clinton didn't want to call Rwanda genocide). Of course, he called for international intervention, but we all know how that worked in Rwanda, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc., etc. Only Fox News focused on this aspect, all others were all about Kerry dissing Bush (ZZZzzzzzz). But what I find deliciously ironic is that the press is hoist on its own petard, so to speak. To paraphrase your own comments on another post, many people believe journalists covering politics have an ulterior motive that is hidden yet nakedly political. In other words, the press is not "politically useful", but instead "politically expedient". The motives of the press are as much under suspicion by the public as the motives of politicians. If you lie (lay?) down with dogs, etc. Hee!Hee! I couldn’t agree more with both you and the so metimes wacky Herbert Gans. The only way you and I differ is that you think a “fire” can be lit under journalists by independent means, and I think only the courts can provide the “fire”, but, as they say, reasonable people can disagree. A prime example of the idea you (and Jamieson) promote, that the press should question the assertion and “facts” of campaign speeches is Kerry’s remarks to the NAACP yesterday. The press was full of Kerry’s comments that he would meet with groups that disagreed with him (NRA? KKK? – he didn’t say) instead of honing in on the really provocative thing he did say, which is that we should call the situation in Sudan as “genocide”, which means we are legally obligated to military intervention (which is why Clinton didn’t want to call Rwanda genocide). Of course, he called for international intervention, but we all know how that worked in Rwanda, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc., etc. Only Fox News focused on this aspect, all others were all about Kerry dissing Bush (ZZZzzzzzz). But what I find deliciously ironic is that the press is hoist on its own petard, so to speak. To paraphrase your own comments on another post, many people believe journalists covering politics have an ulterior motive that is hidden yet nakedly political. In other words, the press is not “politically useful”, but instead “politically expedient”. The motives of the press are as much under suspicion by the public as the motives of politicians. If you lie (lay?) down with dogs, etc. Hee!Hee!

]]> By: Stumax.com http://rhetorica.net/archives/2437.html/comment-page-1#comment-2406 Stumax.com Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:30:50 +0000 http://localhost/wpp3/?p=2437#comment-2406 <strong>Nothing to See Here - No Pictures! No Pictures! edition</strong> More stuff you _should_ be reading instead of this lousy blog... * Colin Powell is "such a disappointment":http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_07_11_atrios_archive.html#108993225319152452 to me. I think I would have voted for him at one point. Guess it ... Nothing to See Here – No Pictures! No Pictures! edition

More stuff you _should_ be reading instead of this lousy blog… * Colin Powell is “such a disappointment”:http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_07_11_atrios_archive.html#108993225319152452 to me. I think I would have voted for him at one point. Guess it …

]]>