Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
dogboy

NPR sting update:

Rate this topic

70 posts in this topic

View PostMike Wallace made his career doing that stuff!

 

 

Must have missed the interview Wallace did dressed up as a pimp. Seriously, whatever you think of 60 Minutes, do you really want to equate that with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostOne BIG difference - Wallace didn't chop the interviews up into out of context snippets. He had integrity.

 

Of course he did. That is how television is made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostMust have missed the interview Wallace did dressed up as a pimp. Seriously, whatever you think of 60 Minutes, do you really want to equate that with this?

 

Different styles to be sure. Wallace used to bust in on people unannounced and throw all sorts of accusations at them. It was great TV, although you never got the chance to hear any follow up from the people who were put on the spot. This thing with the NPR is more like the Marion Berry sting I guess, but it's all investigative journalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostDifferent styles to be sure. Wallace used to bust in on people unannounced and throw all sorts of accusations at them. It was great TV, although you never got the chance to hear any follow up from the people who were put on the spot. This thing with the NPR is more like the Marion Berry sting I guess, but it's all investigative journalism.

 

Kind of a situation about whose ox is being gored, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostKind of a situation about whose ox is being gored, eh?

 

Just like football, the only guys who catch a pass out of bounds, play for the other team. biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostJust like football, the only guys who catch a pass out of bounds, play for the other team. biggrin.gif

 

 

Not so much. The NPR "sting" was a dishonest piece of smear. When you remove the dishonesty you see some business development dood that left the company saying he was taking off his NPR hat and talking personally made a quasi-offensive statement about Evangelicals while trying to sell a fake donor...what's the big deal? Seriously, when you remove the nonsense, there's not much to see.

 

Personally, I am a man of integrity. As such, I denouce lying crooks like O'Keefe no matter whether or not I agree with the outcome their lies created. Lying and smearing people is much worse than the ~.00391% of the budget going to them via grants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostNot so much. The NPR "sting" was a dishonest piece of smear. When you remove the dishonesty you see some business development dood that left the company saying he was taking off his NPR hat and talking personally made a quasi-offensive statement about Evangelicals while trying to sell a fake donor...what's the big deal? Seriously, when you remove the nonsense, there's not much to see.

 

Personally, I am a man of integrity. As such, I denouce lying crooks like O'Keefe no matter whether or not I agree with the outcome their lies created. Lying and smearing people is much worse than the ~.00391% of the budget going to them via grants.

 

I agree that too much is made about the % of NPR's budget that is taxpayer funded through grants or whatever. I think the "business development dood" smeared himself by what he said. It's a sensationalist piece for sure. Not on par with 60 minutes, I can agree to that. It is investigative journalism though, and sleezy (or 'quasi-offensive') is in the eye of the beholder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostI agree that too much is made about the % of NPR's budget that is taxpayer funded through grants or whatever. I think the "business development dood" smeared himself by what he said. It's a sensationalist piece for sure. Not on par with 60 minutes, I can agree to that. It is investigative journalism though, and sleezy (or 'quasi-offensive') is in the eye of the beholder.

 

 

What's being investigated? The personal views of the business development guy that already tendered his resignation?

 

Do you think O'Keefe is sleazy. Considering that he intentionally editted a video to make it seem like someone's words when they were paraphrasing someone else, I consider him exceptionally sleazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostExactly what does "exposed" mean if the allegations made via the heavily edited footage are B.S.? Faked "sting" videos are a good thing? How?

 

 

The ends justifies the means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostDo you think unfounded lies are going to destroy "liberalism"?

 

 

No but discrediting the media does.

 

If you can say that this is the same as 60 minutes,

and Fox is the same as real news,

then you have effectively destroyed the credibility of news.

 

so truth becomes perception,

there is no harsh facts which you can't wisk away claiming it's a "liberal bias".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.