Are liberals control freaks?

[Lone Clone]

I know you claim to be a former journalist, but have you ever been inside a newsroom. I mean like any one, any where?

And freedom of the press does apply to owners. Just like I have the freedom to call them, and you, out on bullcrap.

Trust me. You have no idea what you're talking about. And based on this last post, I think you have no idea what I'm talking about. My whole point was that freedom of the press applies to owners.

Anybody who's ever had any experience with a news operation will tell you what I just told you. Perhaps not in those words.

 

[ANYCHawk]

Trust me. You have no idea what you're talking about. And based on this last post, I think you have no idea what I'm talking about. My whole point was that freedom of the press applies to owners.

Anybody who's ever had any experience with a news operation will tell you what I just told you. Perhaps not in those words.

No. No they wouldn't.

Nobody in a news organization would tell you what Sinclair did/doing is normal or OK. Maybe that's why there are about 200 million columns against it.

 

[Lone Clone]

No. No they wouldn't.

What experience do you have?

 

[ANYCHawk]

What experience do you have?

More than Iowa newsrooms

 

[Lone Clone]

More than Iowa newsrooms

Are you drunk? Seriously.

I suppose there might be some fringe publications where the reporters vote on what the editorial policies should be, but I've never heard of one.

For the record, I have a degree in journalism and spent 38 years in newspapers as a reporter, editor, columnist and editorial writer. Of course, my degree is from Iowa, so there's that.....

 

[ANYCHawk]

Are you drunk? Seriously.

I suppose there might be some fringe publications where the reporters vote on what the editorial policies should be, but I've never heard of one.

For the record, I have a degree in journalism and spent 38 years in newspapers as a reporter, editor, columnist and editorial writer. Of course, my degree is from Iowa, so there's that.....

There's more than reporters in a newsroom, but you would know that. And you would also know that people who write editorials from a news organization are part of a board that includes people from the newsroom and maybe other departments. You would also know those editorial and editorial pages are put out by someone in the news department often an editorial page writer or editor, but they carry the flag of the entire operation. They aren't something that comes from a corporate office thousands of miles away. But, clearly you don't so I question those 38 years.

 

[Raglefant]

LOL. That ain't the way it works. Anywhere. Certainly not in newspapers.

Dirty little secret (that shouldn't be a secret): Freedom of the press applies to the owner of the press. It doesn't guarantee that the guy writing or running the press can do whatever he wants. It guarantees that he can buy his own press if he wants.

Are you drunk? Seriously.

I suppose there might be some fringe publications where the reporters vote on what the editorial policies should be, but I've never heard of one.

For the record, I have a degree in journalism and spent 38 years in newspapers as a reporter, editor, columnist and editorial writer. Of course, my degree is from Iowa, so there's that.....

Wouldn't you say that owners do grant this freedom to the editors they hire to run their newsrooms? Of course there are policies, but in many newsrooms don't you think it's a stretch to say that the owners tell the journalists what to say?

I genuinely want to know. What you're saying scares me.

 

[Lone Clone]

Wouldn't you say that owners do grant this freedom to the editors they hire to run their newsrooms? Of course there are policies, but in many newsrooms don't you think it's a stretch to say that the owners tell the journalists what to say?

I genuinely want to know. What you're saying scares me.

Nothing I've written should scare you. For one thing, it's the way things have been since the invention of the printing press, so it isn't anything new.

I am talking SOLELY about opinion pieces -- editorials. Those reflect the viewpoint of the newspaper, which is the viewpoint of the people who own and/or manage it. That's what the Sinclair brouhaha was all about.

Entirely different from the boss telling a reporter what news to cover or how to cover it. Although that has happened in some shops, but it's rare and I don't know anybody who would approve of it. .

Do you think the management of the New York Times, for instance, could write a pro-life editorial? Uh, no.

Do you think the management of the Des Moines Register would permit an editorial calling for Reynolds to resign as governor because it's a job for a man?

I'm using extreme examples in an attempt to show the underlying situation.

This was a lot easier to understand when many, if not most, papers were owned by individuals or families. But whatever the title, somebody is in charge of presenting the medium's position, and he/she decides what it will be.

But when you stop and think about it for a minute, it simply wouldn't work any other way.

 

[retrodent]

This is like asking a guy if he is horny

 

[Lone Clone]

There's more than reporters in a newsroom, but you would know that. And you would also know that people who write editorials from a news organization are part of a board that includes people from the newsroom and maybe other departments. You would also know those editorial and editorial pages are put out by someone in the news department often an editorial page writer or editor, but they carry the flag of the entire operation. They aren't something that comes from a corporate office thousands of miles away. But, clearly you don't so I question those 38 years.

Sorry for the LOL. You clearly aren't familiar with the business, so I shouldn't make fun of you.

Most papers of any size have people whose primary, often only, job is writing editorials. The position of those editorials is often determined by an editorial board. Some editorial boards include a representative (or more than one) from the newsroom, and maybe from other departments, too, although I can't think of any off the top of my head. .

Sometimes the editorial board makes a decision; in some cases, with locally owned papers, the publisher is on the editorial board and his vote can overturn all the others. I've seen this happen rarely, but I've seen it (with a political endorsement). I never worked at a paper owned by a national chain, and I assume that just for practical reasons they don't get involved in a lot of local decisions; they hire people to represent the ownership and give that person a lot of freedom....but they aren't required to, and sometimes those people get replaced if they aren't doing what the ownership wants.

The point we're discussing is whether the owner has the right to dictate what the editorial position of the medium is, and the answer is absolutely yes.

 

[IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life]

I love how the "tolerant" left is all worked up over this just because the views shared are not their view.

 

[luvmyhawks]

This thread is full of the ghosts of retards past.

Didn’t we just have a lesson on this board about using the word “retard”?

 

[silasstarr]

Liberals / Progressives / (most) Democrats are control freaks. It's the one characteristic at the core of everything they do and say. Control over others' lives is the primordial principle that inexorably drives them in politics and in their personal lives.



They can't afford to be too obvious about it, because nobody likes a control freak, especially control freaks. They must conceal their ulterior motive at all costs. They disguise and camouflage it with affected nobility, piety, sympathy, compassion, and the selfless desire to help others (whether they want that help or not).



An appurtenance to that ineluctable drive is the superior intelligence that makes their efforts necessary and appropriate. They are simply smarter than everybody else, and therefore it is incumbent upon them to treat others as children who don't always know what's best for them and must be taught to obey at all times. If Americans are the world's police, progressives are the world's mothers.


LINKY

Just like cons, independents, tea partiers, commies, socialists, alt white etc., some are and some aren't. I suppose it fits your narrative to believe all Dems are control freaks though.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I think generalizations can be dangerous, but you really nailed this one.

I feel compelled to repost my original response to this thread, if LC is going to revive and agree with the original calumny. Here it is:

Absolutely. Let me count (some of) the ways:

I don't like people shooting bullets at me. I want to control that.

I don't like people dumping toxic wastes in the sources my drinking water comes from. I want to control that.

I don't like corruption in government or in our election process. I want to control that.

My question to you and your source is "why do you think murder, poisoning our water supply and corruption are 'freedoms' or 'rights' that should be unfettered?"

Needless to say, I could have come up with pages of things I want to control that most reasonable people - including you - would completely agree with.

This is like the atheism debates we have here. Most people here reject all but 1 god; atheists merely reject 1 more. Similarly, most people here accept lots of "control." Some support controlling a few more things.

Nor is it necessarily the case that it is liberals who favor more control. Conservatives want to exercise various controls over women (no abortion) and gays (no marriage) and sex acts (no prostitution, pornography, sodomy) and more. Conservatives want to assert controls that will have the effect of reducing democratic participation (voter IDs). Conservatives more than liberals want to control citizens who have been arrested and served their sentence by denying them their right to vote or to own guns. Conservatives more than liberals want to deny people the right to vote with their feet (immigration restrictions and fences). And so on.