[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by anothersteve

Washington Post's headline called Baghdadi an "austere religious scholar at the helm of Islamic State". Before it was retracted.

Steve

Some of these terrorists do spend a great deal of time reading The Koran while cutting off people's heads in their spare time.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by ts12755

Amazon's Washington Post portrayed Al Bagdaddi, the ISIS leader killed as Jesus Christ himself... Shame on that newspaper and its American and Christian hatred.

Oh, and just to be accurate, the Post is NOT owned by Amazon.

It is owned by Jeff Bezoz and tht is a huge difference.

To be accurate, it is owned by a holding company established by Bezoz

[vzw1pr]

The news is not something you can believe without doing a lot of homework trying to figure out what is acturally true it's filled with lies and half-truths journalists are not objective and have not been trained by universities to "just give the facts". The end justifies the means for way too many people.

[Bay Kid]

Originally Posted by vzw1pr

The news is not something you can believe without doing a lot of homework trying to figure out what is acturally true it's filled with lies and half-truths journalists are not objective and have not been trained by universities to "just give the facts". The end justifies the means for way too many people.

And that is why no news is good news.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by Bay Kid

And that is why no news is good news.

That is an extremely scary post.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by vzw1pr

The news is not something you can believe without doing a lot of homework trying to figure out what is acturally true it's filled with lies and half-truths journalists are not objective and have not been trained by universities to "just give the facts". The end justifies the means for way too many people.

Can you supply a link to n example of this

News....NOT opinion.

You need to be able to identify the difference.

[collie1228]

Originally Posted by Bucco

Oh, and just to be accurate, the Post is NOT owned by Amazon.

It is owned by Jeff Bezoz and tht is a huge difference.

To be accurate, it is owned by a holding company established by Bezoz

Of course you are correct, but I fail to see the distinction. Both the Post and Amazon are controlled by Bezos, and I have no idea if he gets involved with day-to-day operations at the Washington Post, but I have always wondered why one of the richest people on earth would want to own a newspaper, which is a losing proposition as a business. I think it's fair to wonder if he wants the megaphone.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by collie1228

Of course you are correct, but I fail to see the distinction. Both the Post and Amazon are controlled by Bezos, and I have no idea if he gets involved with day-to-day operations at the Washington Post, but I have always wondered why one of the richest people on earth would want to own a newspaper, which is a losing proposition as a business. I think it's fair to wonder if he wants the megaphone.

I implore you to READ....especially, the way news is managed there, the Times, etc.

You are making extremely general, unfair and untrue comments.

Please read beyond what is preached to you.

Thanks. I think you might b impressed with the journllistic efforts by these papers.

It is so good, in fact, that each time n error is made, Some make a really big deal of it. And that is very rare. And always prompted by the same source.

The Post and the Times, and some others, always acknowledge and apologize if necessary...correct. The source that complains, based on corrections and apologizes has NEVER been wrong

To respond directly to the question....why.

Simple, newspapers were (are) floundering relative to the print. Bezoz he the money and savvy online to save a longtrusted corporation. He brought the paper an online presence. Very little, if any impact on the news coverage or editorial base.

Bottom line is the bottom line...good financial opportunity, but NOT some devious conspiracy.

[anothersteve]

All's it takes from a "news" source is an apology or retraction.... and it's back to unicorns and puppies.
Steve

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by anothersteve

All's it takes from a "news" source is an apology or retraction.... and it's back to unicorns and puppies.
Steve

Not sure about your adjectives, but yes......that is how mature adults run business.

As to your little adjective used, have you ever checked the source of that particular phrase ? Interesting to read

ALSO.....since the title and subject of this thread is NEWS. Other than a very ill advised headline, were any actual FACTS reported in correctly based on your reading.

[clwahlstrom]

Pretty hard to do.

[Dilligas]

News broadcasts are in the business of selling air time and getting viewers, and will modify their reporting enough to sensationalize it for more viewers. When I hear a news, sports, or weather broadcast that starts or ends with ...."you heard it first....." I turn it off. I found channel 15 on DirecTV has a newscast from Paris, France in english reporting events of the world. The reporting is straight facts without opinion by the station. Refreshing when comparing the same content to US networks. I also dispise that mass media takes political sides (right or left) and slant their reporting with that in mind. All you can do now adays is watch and make your own opinion.

"If You Don’t Read the Newspaper You Are Uninformed, If You Do Read the Newspaper You Are Misinformed"......Mark Twain

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by Dilligas

News broadcasts are in the business of selling air time and getting viewers, and will modify their reporting enough to sensationalize it for more viewers. When I hear a news, sports, or weather broadcast that starts or ends with ...."you heard it first....." I turn it off. I found channel 15 on DirecTV has a newscast from Paris, France in english reporting events of the world. The reporting is straight facts without opinion by the station. Refreshing when comparing the same content to US networks. I also dispise that mass media takes political sides (right or left) and slant their reporting with that in mind. All you can do now adays is watch and make your own opinion.

"If You Don’t Read the Newspaper You Are Uninformed, If You Do Read the Newspaper You Are Misinformed"......Mark Twain

VERY CLOSE to true.

I watch very little television news as you are correct...they are vying for viewers. I watch because you never know when you hear something a bit different, but mostly I rely on the WORLDS best coverage of news.....NYTIMES and WASHINGTON POST to begin with but not exclusive. I am old thus I have read over the journalistic protocals of most, and find those two plus a few others obviously to closely match, NOT MY LEANINGS, but the pursuit of facts that I am looking for.

Of course we then need to insure we read and insure understanding.

I will object to any media source that openly entertains a "state run" or "party run" approach to the news or anything.

CABLE NEWS SHOWS are not my cup of tea, nor should anyone rely on them to present actual facts......it is easier but much less accurate.

If someone relies solely on CABLE for news, they have no part in any conversation on issues, WHICH BY THE WAY IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by mikemalloy

Just this month NBC has been getting further criticized for sitting on the Harvey Weinstien story. Meanwhile ABC got caught showing film clips of a range in Ky. and claiming it was Syria. The NY Times got a Pulitzer for 2 yrs. of complete fiction quoting "unnamed sources." They are nothing more that a house organ of the party. They are the American Pravda. They are an enemy of the People.

Seems kind of a simplistic take on the media.

[merrymini]

So sad that news reporters look to the edges and not the middle. The fringe gets all the attention making it difficult to trust anything they present.