[DeanFL]

.
.
From a major Network News "Journalist" on NBC NIGHTLY NEWS. This is the man responsible to edit and deliver NEWS. But listen to this direct from his mouth>

NBC's Lester Holt says we don’t need to hear both sides to define truth: ‘Fairness is overrated’

NBC News anchor Lester Holt received the Edward R. Murrow Lifetime Achievement Award from Washington State University Tuesday evening, an honor given to those who demonstrate a commitment to excellence.

In his acceptance speech, the longtime journalist offered his advice to others in the field, emphasizing the value of truth-telling.

"I think it’s become clear that fairness is overrated ... the idea that we should always give two sides equal weight and merit does not reflect the world we find ourselves in," Holt said on Tuesday night while accepting an award at the 45th Murrow Symposium.

"Decisions to not give unsupported arguments equal time are not a dereliction of journalistic responsibility or some kind of agenda. In fact, it's just the opposite. Providing an open platform for misinformation, for anyone to come say whatever they want, especially when issues of public health and safety are at stake, can be quite dangerous."

"Our duty is to be fair to the truth. Holding those in power accountable is at the core of our function and responsibility," he said. "We need to hear our leader's views, their policies and reasoning. It's really important, but we have to stand ready to push back and call-out falsehoods."
.
.
"Providing an open platform for misinformation" "Misinformation" - In WHOSE Opinion????
.
NBC's Lester Holt Emphasizes 'Regard for Truth' as He Accepts Edward R. Murrow Award

[Stu from NYC]

So when it is the journalists idea of the truth it is ok to give a one sided report of the news.

Scary.

[Number 10 GI]

Exactly what the old Soviet Union newspaper, Pravda, did in it's reporting. Did this so-called journalist work there early in his career?

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Not surprising. That is how these people think. "Your opinions are just that, opinions. My opinions are simply the way things are."

They also believe that pretty much everyone in the world agrees with them and are genuinely surprised that people hold different opinions.

The job of these people should simply be to report on what's going on not to express their opinions. Of course, even if they do only report what's going on, they choose to decide what is it that is important enough for them to report on and what is not. That is why we often don't see or hear stories in the media about things that we believe are important.

I believe in the first amendment and the importance of a free press, but things have gotten to the point where the press is not just free, they are a controlling force in this country.

I wish I had a solution to this problem but I don't. There's always a fine line between controlling something and violating the constitution.

Same with the second amendment. We all want to keep guns out of the hands of people that use them to do bad things, but how do we do that without violating the rights of good law abiding citizens.

These are not easy questions. I think that 24 cable news and social media both hurt and help the situation. It's up to the people to get on social media and speak out against abuses of power by the media.

[jimbomaybe]

there are news outlets and commentators that tell you upfront where they are coming from, what has been called the "mainstream media " has for years pretended to be unbiased and have massaged public opinion due to the tendency of people not to listen carefully or use critical thinking .Journalism is dead, decades ago someone questioned new journalism grads and found 80% wanted to "change " the would distinctly different from telling people what was happening , and the internet is much worse, find and watch "The Creepy Line " video , it gives some insight as to how your searches are steered

[blueash]

So in a discussion of the shape of the earth the media should give equal time to those who believe it is round [ish] and those it is flat? This is the kind of situation Holt is discussing. When one side has no credible evidence and the other side has an overwhelming amount of evidence, the credible evidence should be all that is presented perhaps with a brief mention that not everyone accepts that conclusion.

You need to understand what Holt meant by "fairness" It is not fair to crazies refuse airtime to the flat-earthers. But it is not fair to the viewer to present flat earthism as an equally supported position by giving it equal time.

It is not fair to be compelled to tell how some believe that Hugo Chavez controlled our last election or that someone ran a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza parlor or that there is a world wide Jewish scheme to control everything [see Henry Ford]. Some beliefs do not deserve to be treated "fairly". That is what Holt meant. Lies do not deserve fair airtime.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by blueash

So in a discussion of the shape of the earth the media should give equal time to those who believe it is round [ish] and those it is flat? This is the kind of situation Holt is discussing. When one side has no credible evidence and the other side has an overwhelming amount of evidence, the credible evidence should be all that is presented perhaps with a brief mention that not everyone accepts that conclusion.

You need to understand what Holt meant by "fairness" It is not fair to crazies refuse airtime to the flat-earthers. But it is not fair to the viewer to present flat earthism as an equally supported position by giving it equal time.

It is not fair to be compelled to tell how some believe that Hugo Chavez controlled our last election or that someone ran a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza parlor or that there is a world wide Jewish scheme to control everything [see Henry Ford]. Some beliefs do not deserve to be treated "fairly". That is what Holt meant. Lies do not deserve fair airtime.

Thanks for an accurate well written understanding of his remarks.

Problem for many on this forum, without lies, they believe in zero. Nothing. Again, these are National Enquirer readers almost to a tee.

Reading this thread and the inane stupid comments ref The Daily Sun, I am convinced that these people don't like the media because it is over their head.

Or, they just do not care to even try.

I am convinced we have slipped into 3rd world status the last few years, and in reading the foreign press, and hearing from a few friends in Europe and Asia, we (Americans) are considered dullards who live to hate (skin color, heritage, political party...matters not). We are considered a nation of know nothing's who follow the loudest and most bizarre folks. Remember the folks who were attracted by this stupid headlines on the Enquirer...we have become a nation of them.

The fact that Lester Holt made comments that were so grossly misunderstood and then posted about is a testimony to our lows.

Rejecting truth for gross accusations and conspiracy theories and allowing that to be your entire basis, and then to post on here about it is simply scary.

[roscoguy]

Originally Posted by DeanFL

.
.
Lester Holt - "fairness is overrated". This is downright SCARY

Nah, what's kinda scary is that you seem to have taken little parts of Mr. Holt's acceptance speech out of context & directly counter to his explanation of what he meant.

"I think it's become clearer that fairness is overrated," he said."Before you run with or tweet that headline, let me explain a bit. The idea that we should always give two sides equal weight and merit does not reflect the world we find ourselves in. That the sun sets in the west is a fact. Any contrary view does not deserve our time or attention." (This quote is also directly from the Yahoo! article you linked to in your OP.)

Other parts of the article you quoted, but didn't highlight, is that he specifically mentioned not giving "unsupported arguments equal time" and that "Our duty is to be fair to the truth." Both seem to be pretty important pieces of his speech. Finally, misinformation should not be a matter of opinion. If there are no demonstrable facts presented, or at least scientific consensus, then it is opinion.

[DeanFL]

Originally Posted by roscoguy

Nah, what's kinda scary is that you seem to have taken little parts of Mr. Holt's acceptance speech out of context & directly counter to his explanation of what he meant.

"I think it's become clearer that fairness is overrated," he said."Before you run with or tweet that headline, let me explain a bit. The idea that we should always give two sides equal weight and merit does not reflect the world we find ourselves in. That the sun sets in the west is a fact. Any contrary view does not deserve our time or attention." (This quote is also directly from the Yahoo! article you linked to in your OP.)

Other parts of the article you quoted, but didn't highlight, is that he specifically mentioned not giving "unsupported arguments equal time" and that "Our duty is to be fair to the truth." Both seem to be pretty important pieces of his speech. Finally, misinformation should not be a matter of opinion. If there are no demonstrable facts presented, or at least scientific consensus, then it is opinion.

.
.
"LITTLE PARTS"???? "out of context"... Did you Not see the quotes???

You>

"not giving unsupported arguments equal time"
BASED UPON WHAT AND WHO?

"Our duty is to be fair to the truth."
WHO'S TRUTH???

" Finally, misinformation should not be a matter of opinion."
WHO'S OPINION???

"If there are no demonstrable facts presented, or at least scientific consensus, then it is opinion."
WHO'S OPINION???

Do YOU NOT see a dichotomy here? ...if you don't know what that means, here it is:

something with qualities or features that seem to conflict with one another

I ALWAYS look on the other side of an argument. Would YOU feel the same way about this if it was said by a Fox News anchor or such? please...
.
.

[Mleeja]

Originally Posted by roscoguy

Nah, what's kinda scary is that you seem to have taken little parts of Mr. Holt's acceptance speech out of context & directly counter to his explanation of what he meant.

"I think it's become clearer that fairness is overrated," he said."Before you run with or tweet that headline, let me explain a bit. The idea that we should always give two sides equal weight and merit does not reflect the world we find ourselves in. That the sun sets in the west is a fact. Any contrary view does not deserve our time or attention." (This quote is also directly from the Yahoo! article you linked to in your OP.)

Other parts of the article you quoted, but didn't highlight, is that he specifically mentioned not giving "unsupported arguments equal time" and that "Our duty is to be fair to the truth." Both seem to be pretty important pieces of his speech. Finally, misinformation should not be a matter of opinion. If there are no demonstrable facts presented, or at least scientific consensus, then it is opinion.

What you are saying is exactly what NBC and other news outlets do. They edit certain parts of a comment, snip content, or misquote. Are they lying? Probably not. They are just presenting the information to fit their narrative. I guess it is up to the viewer/reader to decide for themselves. In most cases, if you agree with their narrative, they are telling the truth. If you do not agree, they are misrepresenting the truth.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by DeanFL

.
.
"LITTLE PARTS"???? "out of context"... Did you Not see the quotes???

You>

"not giving unsupported arguments equal time"
BASED UPON WHAT AND WHO?

"Our duty is to be fair to the truth."
WHO'S TRUTH???

" Finally, misinformation should not be a matter of opinion."
WHO'S OPINION???

"If there are no demonstrable facts presented, or at least scientific consensus, then it is opinion."
WHO'S OPINION???

Do YOU NOT see a dichotomy here? ...if you don't know what that means, here it is:

something with qualities or features that seem to conflict with one another

I ALWAYS look on the other side of an argument. Would YOU feel the same way about this if it was said by a Fox News anchor or such? please...
.
.

In the past few years, we have been burdened with outlandish statements to defend bizarre behavior. Most of those statements were either a new conspiracy theory or defamation of a person...Much of those came from our top people in government.

While, most (Greatest part) of them were flat out lies, because the United States Government was involved, it became a joke trying to follow the lunacy.

So many on here cried out for the days of the evening news and the sanity......in those days when America was great, and conspiracy theories were reserved for the grocery store checkout line, we had civil conversations, with never a nod to the whacky headlines we saw checking out.

Holt simply said it well, in saying these things deserve no attention. You can say (in a nod to MLB opening day) that you were cheated while video shows there was no cheating. We have wasted a lot of time chasing these things (which probably was their intent) but they serve no purpose in a civil society.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by Mleeja

What you are saying is exactly what NBC and other news outlets do. They edit certain parts of a comment, snip content, or misquote. Are they lying? Probably not. They are just presenting the information to fit their narrative. I guess it is up to the viewer/reader to decide for themselves. In most cases, if you agree with their narrative, they are telling the truth. If you do not agree, they are misrepresenting the truth.

The comment was not aimed at any media, but the selected quotes by a poster..in this case the OP

I keep asking for examples (I am sure some must exist) of the accusations made against news coverage (I bolded news because it is obvious many cannot differentiate between news and comment Was not that hard in the past

[Mleeja]

Originally Posted by Bucco

The comment was not aimed at any media, but the selected quotes by a poster..in this case the OP

I keep asking for examples (I am sure some must exist) of the accusations made against news coverage (I bolded news because it is obvious many cannot differentiate between news and comment Was not that hard in the past

That is my point. You are taking the OP to task when the news media does the exact same thing.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by Mleeja

That is my point. You are taking the OP to task when the news media does the exact same thing.

Need one example please

[tvbound]

Originally Posted by blueash

So in a discussion of the shape of the earth the media should give equal time to those who believe it is round [ish] and those it is flat? This is the kind of situation Holt is discussing. When one side has no credible evidence and the other side has an overwhelming amount of evidence, the credible evidence should be all that is presented perhaps with a brief mention that not everyone accepts that conclusion.

You need to understand what Holt meant by "fairness" It is not fair to crazies refuse airtime to the flat-earthers. But it is not fair to the viewer to present flat earthism as an equally supported position by giving it equal time.

It is not fair to be compelled to tell how some believe that Hugo Chavez controlled our last election or that someone ran a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza parlor or that there is a world wide Jewish scheme to control everything [see Henry Ford]. Some beliefs do not deserve to be treated "fairly". That is what Holt meant. Lies do not deserve fair airtime.

"Some beliefs do not deserve to be treated "fairly". That is what Holt meant. Lies do not deserve fair airtime."

THAT is exactly what he meant. Obviously, those who would rather believe lies (especially big ones) and conspiracy theories - don't agree.