Journalism, Cuomo and reality

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I'm gonna go ahead and do a little crowd-sourcing for my info!

I recently watched a TED-talk about how there is no such thing as objective journalism. (source) He discusses how the history of journalism and how it's always been about selling the most papers and making that money and who gives a fuck if it's true!

Well, OK. So after I watched that, I went ahead and browsed some news headlines. I saw one that caught my eye, primarily, cause it seemed very much at odds with what I would expect. Here's the headline:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo says gun-loving pro-lifers not welcome in New York, right explodes

As a NYer, this seemed very very odd. Gov Cuomo is a pretty shrewd politician and this year he is up for re-election. It's a not private secret that Cuomo might eye the 2016 nod for President, so he totally wants to be a sitting Gov for that--looks better to the voters and all.

So why the hell would Cuomo alienate two big voting blocks in an election year? NYC might be super-liberal, but upstate NY is kinda rednecky. They love their guns and lotta folks hate on abortion. So what gives Herr Gov?

Well, as I read the article (found here source ) it seemed odder and odder, but I mean, it's possible he said such things. So I go ahead and click on the video link that you will see on that website. It's not actually video, just a still picture while some audio plays. This is unfortunate. I must admit here I have not heard Gov. Cuomo make many speeches. None in person and only bits here and there from his State of the State or whatnot. But as I listened to the embeded audio I became more and more skeptical that this voice was the voice of Andrew Cuomo. (The article already lost some credibility when in the first line it said his name was "Gov. Chris Cuomo")

I'm about ready to reject the entire so-called news story. I don't want to believe that they made the entire thing up--but I really don't see much choice. I went and found a video with audio of Cuomo talking (I do know what the guy looks like!) and the voice and cadence don't seem to mesh with the voice of the fellow who is alienating pro-life, pro-gun voters.


I am willing to be wrong.
A) Do any of you think that Cuomo did make such comments? Why?
B) If Cuomo did make such comments, I gotta lose some respect for his political prowess (not that he's my favorite politician, but I did at least think he knew what he was doing, even if I didn't like what he was doing) cause it seems really dumb to make those sorts of statements in an election year. Do any of you see his comments in a different light?
C) Objective journalism might not exist; but we can all agree that news isn't news if its totally false, right? Then it's just fiction? And while journalism may be heavily editorialized it should at least have some grounding in fact, otherwise, it's like Glenn Beck's chalkboard--worthless.

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Anyone can if they put the work in.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Okay, but not you.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If you say so.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I'm just saying you're not quite the unbiased observer you make yourself out to be. Whenever you say someone 'gets it wrong', you usually have nothing to back it up but vague colloquialisms like "missed the boat" and "doesn't pass the smell test."

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Well, you're not being honest right now. I have my biases, but my point is that anyone, myself included, is able to look at the facts of something and come to a conclusion.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Whereas you routinely shoot down investigative journalism via guilt-by-association. The number of sources you've hand-waved away is astronomical.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Well, not "waved away," but actually tossed aside for good reason. I'm sorry I have standards.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Having "standards" is not the same as having good standards.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Thus my railing against bad sources for information.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Thus your railing against sources that are inconvenient to your preconceived and, as past experience has consistently shown, highly partisan narrative.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Well, when you align your positions with good sources, that tends to happen. Sources that are "inconvenient" also happen to be ones that consistently make things up.

As past experience has shown.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Well, as past experience has shown, no source would ever put a dent in your stone-carved deeply partisan preconceptions, regardless of the nature and essence of said source.

The only true sources are the ones that you approve, because you can't ever be wrong, only everyone else can be wrong - and your only mistake is giving them too much credit. Amirite?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Not sure what past experience you refer to, sadly. So no, you aren't.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

But of course!

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

"Good reason" normally being where the source is hosted, who wrote it, and of course as I said before, it not passing the 'smell test'.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Are you saying that outlets and reporters that do not have a reputation for accuracy should be accepted anyway?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

If that was all you were dismissing... It seems that you've thrown out everything peristaltor(sp?) has ever offered you, and he's not exactly giving you motherjones.net.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I wish he was giving me Moter Jones, at least they have standards. His sources are terrible.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I rest my case. It's actually impossible to find a source that backs up a viewpoint you don't support. Prove me wrong.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'm fine with actual journalism like Mother Jones, and I have little in common with their viewpoint.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

You're really good at diversion. I'm making a point about how you will ignore a source that runs counter to your ideology, and instead of linking to a conversation where you accepted the facts presented in a source, you talk about something irrelevant.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Well, your point is demonstrably false. If giving "a source that runs counter to" my ideology is irrelevant, it calls into question how serious your criticism was to begin with.