TV news is about entertainment, not informing the viewer.
-
Features
Just one more reason why you should NEVER watch mainstream media.
- Thread starter boneyard bill
- Start date
TV news is about entertainment, not informing the viewer.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 39,941
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Apparently, you are. You just created one ex-nilho.
That the use of a masculine pronoun to refer to "Obama" rather than a feminine one would have made clear that it is Mr Obama who signs things into law, and not Mrs Obama.
This is not about sexism; there are two people involved, and the mistake made was to credit the wife with an action taken by her husband. Changing 'she' to 'he' eliminates the error; it is not claimed to excuse it due to some imaginary sexist agenda.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
The newscaster was clearly talking about the First Lady, not the President. Changing the pronoun from "she" to "he" doesn't fix the misstatement, it compounds it.
Playing a clip of Michelle Obama speaking with the headline "Michelle Obama's High Profile Food Fight" prominently displayed, and then, without making any reference to Mr. Obama, saying "That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when he signed the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act into law" sounds like the newscaster thinks Michelle Obama is male and that she signs bills into law.
The mistake was crediting the First Lady with signing bills into law. Quibbling over pronouns doesn't change that.
Playing a clip of Michelle Obama speaking with the headline "Michelle Obama's High Profile Food Fight" prominently displayed, and then, without making any reference to Mr. Obama, saying "That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when he signed the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act into law" sounds like the newscaster thinks Michelle Obama is male and that she signs bills into law.
The mistake was crediting the First Lady with signing bills into law. Quibbling over pronouns doesn't change that.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 39,941
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Oh, well in that case, clearly we should NEVER watch mainstream media. The logic is unassailable.
Or completely absent.
One of those.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
You can take that argument up with boneyard bill.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 39,941
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Do you really, genuinely think that the newscaster believes that Michelle Obama signed a bill into law?
Or is it more plausible that she read what was on the autocue without thinking about whether it was factually correct?
Do you really, genuinely think that the person who wrote the script for the autocue believes that Michelle Obama signed a bill into law?
Or is it more plausible that the error was introduced into the script by some careless editing of a longer original?
Was the question of who signs bills into law even a central part of the news article?
This was sloppy reporting. Nobody disputes that. But it was a harmless mistake of the sort made all the time by all kinds of people, in all kinds of news media organisations.
Absent the claim that it is a "reason why you should NEVER watch mainstream media", there is no discussion to have - or at least, no political discussion. Media presentation standards are not a political issue.
zorq
Veteran Member
A. It is impossible to talk about two different people in the same sentence.
B. It is impossible to refer to someone with a pronoun without previously mentioning them.
I take it you agree with at least one of the above statements. Which one is the principle you are standing by to make your argument?
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 8,126
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
As an employee of a "mainstream media" outlet (albeit nowhere near the news division) I find this sort of thing endlessly fascinating.
I admit I'm biased - and I must be because I work for the "mainstream media," right? - but whenever I hear someone bemoan the state of the "mainstream media" or throw out the term "the liberal media" I'm reminded of the sort of music snobs who freak out when their favorite indie band inadvertently stumbles their way into a hit song. Or that beer snob who looks with disapproval at the Bud Light you just bought while they sip on their locally made craft brew. Or the vegan who lectures you about whatever meat product you may be eating. Or that person in your office who brags they don't get sick because they eat "super foods" like kale and won't take medicine produced by "big pharma."
Or worse, the people who watch the #1 cable news network (Fox) and pretend their not consuming "mainstream media."
Like the music or beer snob they've latched onto this notion that bashing the "mainstream" makes them inherently superior. That they're in possession of better information because it doesn't come from "the mainstream." That there's a cache' associated with being outside of the stream where everything else happens.
This is in no small part due to deliberate actions on the part of the "alternative" media. Like "alternative" medicine they're selling their wares not necessarily on their effectiveness (or in the case of news, accuracy) but on the premise that the very status of being "alternative" makes them inherently better. "What the mainstream media won't tell you" or "you won't hear this in the liberal media" are slogans and little more. These folks who are supposedly telling you that "you'll only hear this story here and not in the lamestream media" aren't necessarily giving you better information.
It's just marketing.
And while the indie band may be really cool guys who just want to make music, and the local craft brewery may actually care about making a decent product, these "alternative" media outlets are really just struggling for a piece of that mainstream pie. The Big Three of the "we're totally not mainstream" are Rush Limbaugh, Drudge, and Fox News, and they got to where they are today not by providing better and more accurate information, but by effectively marketing themselves as in opposition to the traditional media sources.
That marketing includes passing along video clips of "mainstream" media outlets making mistakes. You may think you're "striking a blow against mainstream media" by sharing this clip, but what you're really doing is helping the marketing strategy of the media outlets who are making their money by selling themselves as an alternative.
And if you can get enough people to share this clip so that it goes "viral?" Marketing gold.
Thanks for playing along, folks.
I admit I'm biased - and I must be because I work for the "mainstream media," right? - but whenever I hear someone bemoan the state of the "mainstream media" or throw out the term "the liberal media" I'm reminded of the sort of music snobs who freak out when their favorite indie band inadvertently stumbles their way into a hit song. Or that beer snob who looks with disapproval at the Bud Light you just bought while they sip on their locally made craft brew. Or the vegan who lectures you about whatever meat product you may be eating. Or that person in your office who brags they don't get sick because they eat "super foods" like kale and won't take medicine produced by "big pharma."
Or worse, the people who watch the #1 cable news network (Fox) and pretend their not consuming "mainstream media."
Like the music or beer snob they've latched onto this notion that bashing the "mainstream" makes them inherently superior. That they're in possession of better information because it doesn't come from "the mainstream." That there's a cache' associated with being outside of the stream where everything else happens.
This is in no small part due to deliberate actions on the part of the "alternative" media. Like "alternative" medicine they're selling their wares not necessarily on their effectiveness (or in the case of news, accuracy) but on the premise that the very status of being "alternative" makes them inherently better. "What the mainstream media won't tell you" or "you won't hear this in the liberal media" are slogans and little more. These folks who are supposedly telling you that "you'll only hear this story here and not in the lamestream media" aren't necessarily giving you better information.
It's just marketing.
And while the indie band may be really cool guys who just want to make music, and the local craft brewery may actually care about making a decent product, these "alternative" media outlets are really just struggling for a piece of that mainstream pie. The Big Three of the "we're totally not mainstream" are Rush Limbaugh, Drudge, and Fox News, and they got to where they are today not by providing better and more accurate information, but by effectively marketing themselves as in opposition to the traditional media sources.
That marketing includes passing along video clips of "mainstream" media outlets making mistakes. You may think you're "striking a blow against mainstream media" by sharing this clip, but what you're really doing is helping the marketing strategy of the media outlets who are making their money by selling themselves as an alternative.
And if you can get enough people to share this clip so that it goes "viral?" Marketing gold.
Thanks for playing along, folks.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
Either one or both are possible. Anyway, the news anchor sounded like a ninny when she said it.
Either one or both are possible. Anyway, the news anchor sounded like a ninny when she read it aloud.
Mrs. Obama's highly visible involvement in the passage of the law was a central part of the news article. She was featured in the banner headline, a sound bite of her speaking in favor of the initiative was played in the introduction to the report, and she was identified as the subject of the opening statement. This was all about her and her involvement with the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act.
I agree it was sloppy reporting. I don't agree that it should be considered harmless. It should have harmed CNN's reputation for quality reporting. But apparently my expectations are from a time gone by. Nowadays you can say whatever stupid thing comes up on your teleprompter and still be "The Most Trusted Name In News".
Arctish
Centimillionaire
Wrong.
Wrong.
You are mistaken.
Neither. My argument is based on the subject-verb-object relationship in a simple sentence in American English.
Last edited:
zorq
Veteran Member
'That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when he signed the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act into law.'
Subject: That
Verb: was
Object: Mrs. Obama
Adjective: back
Prepositional phrase: in 2010
Conjunction to adverb clause: When
Subject of adverb clause: he
Verb in adverb clause: signed
Direct object in adverb clause: the Healthy HungerFree Kid's Act
Adverb modifier in subordinate prepositional phrase: into law
Here, I even made a diagram for you.
The subject in the adverb clause doesn't have to refer to the subject in the sentence.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
You got the pronouns wrong in your diagram. "That" is a pronoun referring to the subject of the clause which identifies the subject of the sentence. "That was Mrs. Obama back when she <verb> ....." indicates the subject is Mrs. Obama and the object is something she did. The other pronoun is "she", which makes sense since the report is about Mrs. Obama.
Your attempt to fix what the news anchor said by changing "she" to "he" doesn't work because the entire news report is still clearly about the First Lady.
Clip of Michelle Obama speaking plays while colorful banner headline "Michelle Obama's High Profile Food Fight" is displayed. News anchor says: "That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when she signed the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act into law. Well now some members of Congress and the food industry want to roll back that initiative and loosen requirements to cut costs. Today the First Lady takes the unusual step of delivering White House remarks speaking out against that House measure and in another twist, a one-time ally of Mrs. Obama's initiative is now a critic."
The President isn't mentioned, so there is no reason to suppose he was part of the report.
zorq
Veteran Member
"That" is most definitely the subject of the sentence in question. "That" is a pronoun which is refering to Michelle Obama, but the words "Mrs. Obama" is the direct object. Not the subject.
The subordinate clause, "he signed the Healthy Hungerfree Kids Act Into law," is exactly that. A subordinate adverbial clause that describes the main verb "was" by telling us "when" the action took place. It could have been an independent thought, but it's not. It could have been something completely different. It could have been, "That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when Rod Blagojevich had a good hair day." My point here is that the subject of the adverbial clause is not necessarily linked in any way to the main subject of the sentence.
I understand that you are desperately trying to claim that there is no possible way to refer to someone using a pronoun when you haven't mentioned that person previously. You are wrong. I will agree that it's bad form to do that, but it is not bad English.
Further, There is reason to believe that he may have been part of the report given they showed a good 10 seconds of his face on screen while Michelle was talking.
The subordinate clause, "he signed the Healthy Hungerfree Kids Act Into law," is exactly that. A subordinate adverbial clause that describes the main verb "was" by telling us "when" the action took place. It could have been an independent thought, but it's not. It could have been something completely different. It could have been, "That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when Rod Blagojevich had a good hair day." My point here is that the subject of the adverbial clause is not necessarily linked in any way to the main subject of the sentence.
I understand that you are desperately trying to claim that there is no possible way to refer to someone using a pronoun when you haven't mentioned that person previously. You are wrong. I will agree that it's bad form to do that, but it is not bad English.
Further, There is reason to believe that he may have been part of the report given they showed a good 10 seconds of his face on screen while Michelle was talking.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
Apparently, you understand nothing at all about what I am posting.
I never said what you think I am "desperately trying to claim". I said you were wrong when you thought I must believe either:
A. It is impossible to talk about two different people in the same sentence.
or:
B. It is impossible to refer to someone with a pronoun without previously mentioning them.
I'm not going to waste my time sorting out your misconceptions. The news reporter was clearly referring to Mrs. Obama, never mentioned, referred to, or implied she might be speaking about Mr. Obama, and the substitution of "he" for "she" would only have made the news anchor look even more brainless.
They showed a good 10 seconds of a lot of people's faces. But the only person they named was Mrs. Obama, the only person they mentioned in the headline was Mrs. Obama, the only person speaking in the sound bite was Mrs. Obama, and the only person who was taking the "unusual step of delivering White House remarks speaking out against that House measure " and whose " one-time ally " was now a critic was Mrs. Obama. The only person named, referred to, mentioned, featured, highlighted, focused on, and whose words and actions were being discussed was Mrs. Obama.
You might find reason to believe the news anchor was actually referring to Mr. Obama, but I sure don't.
zorq
Veteran Member
I guess we disagree fundamentally. Switching he for she would have eliminated the ridiculous claim that Mrs. Obama had signed a bill into law. It would have been obvious to most people that the "he" was referring the other Obama pictured in the clip seeing as how "he" actually did sign the bill into law. And this would never have been posted as a youtube video.
Hey Boneyard Bill, you missed this question.
If we should never watch the mainstream media what should we watch/read for our news?
Without the internet we would never know the absurd lengths to which people are willing to go to defend the stupid things of trivial importance.
'That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when he signed the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act into law.' is entirely inconsistent with the context of the piece (which is all about Michelle Obama) and a horrible sentence in its own right.
'That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when he signed the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act into law.' is entirely inconsistent with the context of the piece (which is all about Michelle Obama) and a horrible sentence in its own right.
zorq
Veteran Member
I think you have not been demonstrating high quality reading skills in this thread.
I never said that it was a good sentence. I never said that it belonged. I characterized it as "clumsy" and "bad form."
However it does eliminate the problem that Boneyard Bill is complaining about. This is what is under contention here. People keep denying it. I keep asserting it. Remember: it takes two to tango.
boneyard bill
Veteran Member
If you watch nothing, you will be better informed. I believe that has actually been confirmed experimentally. Network media news actually mis-informs people.
The only news I get from network news is the occasional re-run that I find on the internet. (For example, I watched the Snowden interview, but I also watched some of what they censored).
I usually reference Real Clear Politics and Politico which generally represent a mainstream point of view but not always. RCP, of course, is good at linking to two or three sides of an issue. I consider Fox News to be mainstream. Their opinion shows are different from the msm but their news coverage isn't a whole lot different although I have noticed that occasionally they cover something other msm stations won't, but again, I only encounter it on the internet. I often reference anti-war.com for foreign policy and Counter Punch for a left-wing point of view. I also sometimes look at RT which is actually quite good. I read ZeroHedge for business news, but I sometimes have a lot of difficulty with it because I do not understand all the business lingo. I also sometimes read the National Review, The American Conservative, and Reason Magazine. National Review has the most articles but the lowest quality. The American Conservative has the fewest but the best quality. Reason is in between. I sometimes read articles from the Guardian but not much since Glenn Greenwald left. Also the Telegraph.
If I'm interested in the topic I will also listen to Cenk Uigar from the Young Turks or Glenn Beck but I don't follow them regularly. Tom Hartman is a regular on RT, but he's so bad it really gets painful to watch. Larry King is also on RT and I will watch him if I like the guests.
The only talk radio I listen to is Peter Schiff and then only occasionally. I regularly follow Greg Hunter at USAWatchdog.com.
Otherwise I'm likely to run across anything while surfing. I try to mix it up.
boneyard bill
Veteran Member
Using a pronoun with no antecedent is not only bad grammar, it is incomprehensible. So the video wouldn't have made YouTube for the reason that it did, but it might have made it nonetheless as a terrible piece of writing by people who are supposed to top-notch professionals.
Still, I would rather be accused of terrible grammar than of being a blithering idiot.