Friday Links and Open Thread

  • Thursday’s numbers: Bill O’Reilly-Megyn Kelly-Bret Baier 1-2-3.
  • Video: for obscure blogger’s screen grab.
  • Outnumbered video: on call to end Bengazi probe.
  • Newt Gingrich leaves CNN, goes back to Fox News.  Flashback.
  • Forget the blizzardmobile…CNN unveils the Campaign Camper.
  • Wemple: Media should ignore Sheriff’s plea to not mention name.
  • Joyella: Name the shooter on air? Megyn and Don Lemon disagree.
  • Hemmer, Shep to kick off radio channel.  Randi Kaye moonlighting.
  • Q&A: Bill O’Reilly.  Access Hollywood: Bill O’Reilly on Killing Reagan.
  • Kreskin reviews Killing Reagan: ‘Riveting…a revelation’. Tops NYT list.
  • Backstage pass at Fox & Friends offered to benefit Noreen Fraser Fnd.
  • Wemple: CNN mass-tweets witnesses; ‘excess is their unofficial motto’.
  • Peters: How cable news covered the shooting before knowing anything.
  • Fillmore: Media Buzz begins its third year as #1, growing 14% over 2014.

Updated 5:56 pm  Use our valuable bandwidth to post your cable news comments in today’s open thread.

54 thoughts on “Friday Links and Open Thread”

  1. On reporting news before we know…….I noticed one of the twitter stooges complained Fox didn’t report something that hadn’t been confirmed yet and then turned out to be a lie….GOOD for FOX…..twitter stooges ….not so much……why cant they wait till we know something before they air it?

  2. I can’t rectify Megyn Kelly’s saying that news agencies shouldn’t be reporting the name of the Oregon shooter. I get the motivation behind it, but frankly the foremost motive of a journalist should be to inform their audience.

    Perhaps there’s more of a point to be made about this days later after the info is out, but certainly not in the first hours after the crime. In my book this argument is just another form of journalism cum social advocacy that seems to be indelibly apart of the profession now.

    And while I’m on the subject, if you’re a liberal pundit and you’re doing tweets and cable tv spots bemoaning the NRA and conservative gun rights folks, you need to be reminded that this might be yet another case where nothing short of outlawing guns (or ammo) outright would have worked in this instance.

    We don’t know that for sure, but we well know from recent events that it may be the case. Therefore please tailor your accusations and demands to include Democratic pols and other liberals who might be less than willing to take such a stance. Demand that all Democratic presidential candidates champion bills that would make it hard to impossible for even adults with no criminal background or known history of mental illness to obtain a gun.

    This shouldn’t be too difficult for you. You have the example of western nations that have done just that AND for crap’s sake these are YOUR candidates. Your pols. If you’re serious about wanting this to be the policy of our country too, then quit confining your anger to conservatives and the NRA and show this is more than a partisan demonization tactic by demanding that liberal candidates champion and campaign on such a stance and upon expressed restrictive policies.

    Approach THEM with the argument that people’s lives are at stake therefore it must be championed absolutely and unreservedly (and non-incrementally) NOW. Pressure Dem presidential candidates NOW.

    Then you’ll sound like someone who truly believes what you say, rather than vultures who view these horrible crimes as partisan feeding frenzies only.

    • 1. i agree re: firearms.
      2. the shooter’s name is out so there is no further journalistic reason to repeat it. bury him and his name.
      3. i know roseburg and it’s surrounding area well. i was just there last month. the site of the crime is actually north of roseburg on the north bank Umpqua river. i have many acquaintances and still a few friends from the area. it is the 2nd time there has been a mass shooting somewhere that i am emotionally tied to. Springfield, kip kinkle involved people i actually know including an emergency room trauma surgeon at the closest hospital. you would think out in Oregon one would be insulated. the point is that it is not unfair or anti-jouranlism to take into account the emotional impact on the people in the area. if you have not experienced it count yourself lucky. it is a weird, ethereal feeling of depression and sadness at the stupidity of the event. in short i support erasing the shooter in all respects. burn in hell.

        • “….but frankly the foremost motive of a journalist should be to inform their audience.

          there’s more of a point to be made about this days later after the info
          is out, but certainly not in the first hours after the crime. In my
          book this argument is just another form of journalism cum social
          advocacy that seems to be indelibly apart of the profession now.”

          “journalism cum social advocacy”. since there is no such thing as journalism cum sans social advocacy how about we agree to disagree.

          good journalism to me would be;
          “if you need the name you can find it, we will refer to the shooter as the “deranged murderer” and nothing else” sounds about right to me for airing. now note, i do think info about the deranged murderer’s meds, social net posts, who knew and did nothing, etc are all news. no name or photo of the murderer needed.

          • If you know the name it’s because it was reported by the police to the media as early as possible.

            They then convey that info to the public. That’s the way a free media works. If your argument is that the public should never hear this info over the air, then, yes, this is anti-journalism.

            If your point is that this info should be released when first obtained, then de-emphasized and the shooter not focused upon there after, then you have a more reasonable point….still… don’t make that point as though I had suggested anything otherwise..

          • He probably mistook you for one of his alternate identities and wondered what set-up he had been going for with the typo.

          • i didn’t say anything else because i thought it was all covered. i have been bz with other things. i was polite. i explained how i felt. i posted a link to a shrink who made the point about where science is. it seems to me there is no need for name and photo in broadcast or cable, no need for photo in print. we are not missing anything. if people choose differently i am not gonna march in protest or demand silence. i just think it is not smart and is unhealthy. i got your distinctions. we can agree to disagree on fine points while agreeing in general. i was not looking for a fight cc.nor was my language aggressive.

          • You did all that very astutely and movingly too.

            I don’t know why I took it that you were correcting me rather than explaining your opinion.

            Forgive me, gc.

    • The best argument for releasing the name of the SOB is that someone might have dealt with him in the past and be able to offer information. That, and the obvious public right to know. We wouldn’t want to live in country where the media kept information from the people…..oops, we already do.

      • we keep pertinent info secret that people need to know. true. you make a good point. it should be known. photos and name repeated ad naseum, not so much. just my view from the peanut gallery.

        • The media goes crazy on everything, pounding it into the ground. Except for stories that they actually should be covering in depth.

          • i am speaking only to the known link to notoriety of mass killers and the aspiration of other killers to match or exceed their mentors. it is a known phenomena. recall waters serial mom and her heroes were shown in sarcasm …. but it happens for real. i get all the need to know, right to publish etc. but at some point a dummy light needs to go on. my god, they allowed charlie Manson with a swastika carved on his head to marry a young girl and photo spreads were published. some things do not pass the smell test.

          • As for “Serial Mom” (a great movie), Patty Hearst shouldn’t have worn white shoes after Labor Day.

  3. hmmmmm i responded politely discussing a pertinent journalism issue and it is held for approval?? porque? what did i do?

    Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by johnny dollar’s place.

  4. Fox Business Network online headline:
    “The NFL Went a Full Month Without an Arrest”
    Last time this happened was July, 2009. Somehow this does not make me feel good.

  5. Today’s most popular links:
    5 to kick off
    4 goes back to Fox News
    3 covered the shooting
    2 disagree
    And the most popular link in today’s links…
    1 Video: Julie Banderas poses for obscure blogger’s screen grab.

  6. Anyone check out BriWi’s coverage yesterday? I found it a bit reserved and more tasteful than CNN’s over the top circus coverage. It reminded me a bit of the days when MSNBC was my choice for breaking news because of the synergy between it and NBC. Maybe it can return to that some day. I have my doubts… but a man can dream.

Comments are closed.