‘New Rules of Journalism Set Forth by Jorgé Ramos’

J$P Video! Joe Concha explains the media pressure on debate moderators:

From Media Buzz 25 September 2016

17 thoughts on “‘New Rules of Journalism Set Forth by Jorgé Ramos’”

  1. This folks is an excellent example of the pot calling the kettle black.

    Few media critics have been ‘more’ biased.

    By this I mean ‘more’ pro Fox News and anti CNN / MSNBC than friend of the blog, Mr. Joe Concha, whose columns appear almost daily at the right-leaning (for the most part) website named The Hill.

    Think of how burdensome it must be as a TV media analyst going through life buying into the narrative that you are on the wrong side of the media landscape and more importantly, public opinion.

      • Anything positive on a CNN person not involved in non-political shows.

        OTOH, I’m told the last time you claimed to have finally said something negative about Fox News it was a guest on a panel you were criticizing.

        So if I have this right…
        One time complimenting a CNN host was about one who does a non-political show about cuisines and cultures.

        One time criticizing Fox News was about a guest not a regular.

        • One time? I can send example after example of positive and negative coverage of CNN, Fox and MSNBC. Just call ’em as I see them. You do something well? I’ll praise. Screw up? I’ll call it out. Network is irrelevant.

          And again, you have zero ability to debate one point in the clip while using it as an excuse to attack. Must be nice being a full time sock troll.

          • “I can send example after example of positive and negative coverage of CNN, Fox and MSNBC.”

            Go for it Joe. I’ll wait. You know full well in your time at The Hill your evidence is very thin.

          • You have a computer, Troll. Find it yourself. Not here to serve you. I work. Unlike you who spends his days and nights changing screen names while attacking people without foundation.

            In the meantime, are you going to get around to pointing out your problem over the video above you’re criticizing.

          • Ah, the old attack and deflect trickery you’re so good at.

            So I will consider your answer non-responsive counselor. There are very few times in recent history you had anything negative to say about Fox News.

            As the old axiom goes, the first commenter to resort to name calling is in almost every case losing the debate/argument/discussion.

            Enjoy the debate (< 85M viewers) and the World Series (Bosox over the Cubbies in six) when we get there.

          • Are you well? You started this entire exchange with personal attacks. Again, you’re not worth even one more response.

          • If calling someone unfairly biased is a personal attack as opposed to calling someone a troll, we’re in parallel universes.

            Nice try though.

          • Based on what? The clip above you willingly won’t address?

            You also called the Hill a right wing publication. Care to back that up?

            And why aren’t you using your other name? How old are you?

  2. I think if there is a case to be made that there is ever any validity to the public being protected from itself by our ever so smarter and knowing overlords, it should have been done in the primary by the media and by the Republican Party.

    That’s arguable. However, when it is argued it’s used to bludgeon the media (Fox News In particular) for giving too much attention to Trump as a ratings ploy and/or for partisan political advocacy.

    This ignores the fact that the media…our intelligentsia…has itself, adopted such an extremist sort of politics that makes imbues opposition with the added legimacy of being especially necessary.

    In a country where our overlords slander arguments against open borders as xenophobia, and fears over the importation of hundred of thousands into our culture as nothing short of cruelty and racism, push-back becomes such an imperative that it turns a Donald Trump into the proportional absurdist counter to the absurdist extremes of the left.

      • I had read that a while back.

        If Trump wins or loses, you can count on a collective bit of finger pointing, bloodletting, and garment-rending repentance among the intelligentsia via symposiums, election postmortems, etc.

        They kill me.

Comments are closed.