Way To Go "Journalists"

[Clever Login Name]

Obama notes ‘tragic’ US past
American history's "sad" aspects require action, the senator tells cheering journalists

By Laurie Au
lau@starbulletin.com
CHICAGO » Sen. Barack Obama, speaking to a gathering of minority journalists yesterday, stopped short of endorsing an official U.S. apology to American Indians but said the country should acknowledge its history of poor treatment of certain ethnic groups.

"There's no doubt that when it comes to our treatment of Native Americans as well as other persons of color in this country, we've got some very sad and difficult things to account for," Obama told hundreds of attendees of UNITY '08, a convention of four minority journalism associations.

The Hawaii-born senator, who has told local reporters that he supports the federal recognition bill for native Hawaiians drafted by U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, noted other ethnic groups but did not mention native Hawaiians when answering a question about his thoughts on a formal U.S. apology to American Indians.

"I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged," the Democratic presidential hopeful said.

"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

Obama, who appeared tired in his first major appearance since returning Saturday from a 10-day trip abroad, met with a receptive audience at the Chicago convention. Some journalists had waited three hours for the 40-minute appearance.

The group had expected Obama and Sen. John McCain to speak on Thursday night, but because of scheduling conflicts, only Obama could attend yesterday morning's talk.

When Obama walked on stage at the McCormick Center, many journalists in the audience leapt to their feet and applauded enthusiastically after being told not to do so. During a two-minute break halfway through the event, which was broadcast live on CNN, journalists ran to the stage to snap photos of Obama.

The Illinois senator talked about his trip overseas, reiterating his opinion that violence is down in Iraq but worsening in Afghanistan. And he expressed his approval of the Senate's passage of a major housing bill to help homeowners avert foreclosure.

Obama, who acknowledged that he needed a nap, stood up to say farewell to the audience of journalists, many of whom gave him another standing ovation.

[Kace]

There were no tragic portions of American history. Everything's been positive. :rockon:

[Diggin' Bear]

Two standing ovations.

And 'journalists' like these wonder why the average American is convinced (and some say, justifiably!) the media is biased.

Idiots.

[Banned_Forever]

Two standing ovations.

And 'journalists' like these wonder why the average American is convinced (and some say, justifiably!) the media is biased.

Idiots.


Why wouldn't any oppressed group act differently. Don't expect
the Slave to respond as unthinking humans when they feel that
the very direction of their future may depend on change.

Any change. People are drawn to Hope. Not matter their vocation.

[Pro]

Where was the above article published?

[rootboyslim]

Where was the above article published?

The Star Bulletin

(Hawaii newspaper---Honolulu)

[commercial hack]

Two standing ovations.

And 'journalists' like these wonder why the average American is convinced (and some say, justifiably!) the media is biased.

Idiots.

They probably threw money at him as well.

[Another OMB]

I will not be voting for Obama anyway based on his positions on the issues, but one sentence in that story worries me.

"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

Is he advocating reparations? If so, this is the first I've heard of it, and just one more reason NOT to vote for him. I hate to think how much he would want us taxpayers to shell out for that.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

There were no tragic portions of American history. Everything's been positive. :rockon:

Kace, ladies and gentlemen.

[60.cycle.hum]

"Some journalists had waited three hours for the 40-minute appearance.

The group had expected Obama and Sen. John McCain to speak on Thursday night, but because of scheduling conflicts, only Obama could attend yesterday morning's talk.

When Obama walked on stage at the McCormick Center, many journalists in the audience leapt to their feet and applauded enthusiastically after being told not to do so. During a two-minute break halfway through the event, which was broadcast live on CNN, journalists ran to the stage to snap photos of Obama."

Since McCain was invited but didn't show up, how do we know they weren't waiting 3 hours for him? ;)

The standing ovation is a little sickening but I suppose since its on they're own time so it's "ok". 'Still makes me grimmace a bit, though.

[Sigonfile]

Oh! how terrible that made me feel. I'm leaving right now to go down to the cleaners to apologize to the Chinese guy for forcing him to build railroads and press my shirts.

[Kace]

Kace, ladies and gentlemen.

*takes a bow*

[s'news]

Since McCain was invited but didn't show up, how do we know they weren't waiting 3 hours for him? ;)


Maybe when Obama came out, they mistakenly thought it was McCain.

[Scarlet Termite]

As a member of the MOST oppressed set of people in all of history i.e. women,
I DEMAND an apology from every single one of you swingin' dycks out there.



And a beer, I want a beer, too. :cheers:

[Kace]

You'll probably get the beer first.

[The Mockingbird]

Well, the way I see it, since my great grandfather had to give up his health and mine coal for literally pennies, I should get a slice of that reparation pie, too.

[Kace]

Don't forget decendants of indentured servants, who pretty much got a whole bag o' nothin' once their time was up.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Don't forget decendants of indentured servants, who pretty much got a whole bag o' nothin' once their time was up.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! Scarlett was right, you is so funny!

:rolleyes:

[Pro]

The Star Bulletin

(Hawaii newspaper---Honolulu)

I wonder why a link wasn't included.

[buckpasser]

Thought I would add this to the discussion, since Clever decided to be one of those Republicans who has completely ignored McCain in favor of embracing his hatred for the Democrat.

For Obama and McCain, the Bitter and the Sweet

By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, April 15, 2008; A03



So much for the liberal media.

John McCain and Barack Obama both appeared before the nation's newspaper editors yesterday. The putative Republican presidential nominee was given a box of doughnuts and a standing ovation. The likely Democratic nominee was likened to a terrorist.

-------------


McCain's moderators, the AP's Ron Fournier and Liz Sidoti, greeted McCain
with a box of Dunkin' Donuts. "We spend quite a bit of time with you on the
back of the Straight Talk Express asking you questions, and what we've
decided to do today was invite everyone else along on the ride," Sidoti
explained. "We even brought you your favorite treat."

McCain opened the offering. "Oh, yes, with sprinkles!" he said.

Sidoti passed him a cup. "A little coffee with a little cream and a little
sugar," she said.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/14/AR2008041402633_pf.html

[Banned_Forever]

Well, the way I see it, since my great grandfather had to give up his health and mine coal for literally pennies, I should get a slice of that reparation pie, too.


He was black too? ...I think he'll be covered.

[Clever Login Name]

I post an article about so-called impartial, unbiased journalists wildly cheering for a politician. Bucky construes that as hatred for Barack Obama.

Stick to what you know, buckster ... hypocritical charges and dodges ... and not journalism. You're way over your head here.

[Pro]

I post an article about so-called impartial, unbiased journalists wildly cheering for a politician.

Was it an "article" or an opinion piece? Those are two separate things.

But since you didn't provide a link to the alleged "article", we don't know.

[Clever Login Name]

Was it an "article" or an opinion piece? Those are two separate things.

But since you didn't provide a link to the alleged "article", we don't know.

I would think even a brain-dead liberal like yourself would be able to distinguish between the two. The link in the reporter's byline also would have been a clue. Milbank's piece that bucky posted was opinion. You should read what he wrote today about Barack.

And you gonna keep ignoring me about proving that Dip is a racist because he's used 'racist code words and phrases'? Or can you actually back that up?
Puss ...

[The Mockingbird]

He was black too? ...I think he'll be covered.

He had the African American lung.

[Pro]

I would think even a brain-dead liberal like yourself would be able to distinguish between the two. The link in the reporter's byline also would have been a clue.

That was an e-mail link. You did not link to the source. I wonder why? What were you trying to not show?

[Diplomat]

That was an e-mail link. You did not link to the source. I wonder why? What were you trying to not show?

Since the name of the newspaper was mentioned in the email link and all, I don't think he was trying to "not show" anything.

The Star-Bulletin has been around for a long time.

[Pro]

Since the name of the newspaper was mentioned in the email link and all, I don't think he was trying to "not show" anything.

The Star-Bulletin has been around for a long time.

I can get an e-mail account with several newspapers. Many offer free e-mail services to subscribers, or even the public at large.

Was this an article? An op-ed? Regular column? Or even letter to the editor? Why no direct link?

What is he trying to hide?

[Clever Login Name]

I can get an e-mail account with several newspapers. Many offer free e-mail services to subscribers, or even the public at large.

Was this an article? An op-ed? Regular column? Or even letter to the editor? Why no direct link?

What is he trying to hide?

Why are you hiding your 'evidence' that Dip is a racist? Where are all those codewords and phrases he's used on this forum to prove him so? Do fess up, Pro ... my omission is benign ... yours is cowardly.

[Shot A Load]

Threads dead, Pro is NOW questioning the source of this article/op ed piece. Nothing in it has any legitimacy and perhaps the event never happened.

[Pro]

Threads dead, Pro is NOW questioning the source of this article/op ed piece. Nothing in it has any legitimacy and perhaps the event never happened.

All I asked for was a link to the orginal piece. Was that so much to ask? A simple link?

[Head Janitor]

here Pro, get happy!
http://starbulletin.com/2008/07/28/news/story05.html

[Diplomat]

Threads dead, Pro is NOW questioning the source of this article/op ed piece. Nothing in it has any legitimacy and perhaps the event never happened.

Must never challenge Pro. He is all-wise and all-knowing. He knows what is best for all of us. He and he alone is always right.

/sarcasm font off/

I think I'm gonna puke now.

[Pro]

Must never challenge Pro. He is all-wise and all-knowing. He knows what is best for all of us. He and he alone is always right.

/sarcasm font off/

I think I'm gonna puke now.


All because I have opinions you don't like. Very revealing.

[Diggin' Bear]

Why wouldn't any oppressed group act differently. Don't expect
the Slave to respond as unthinking humans when they feel that
the very direction of their future may depend on change.

Any change. People are drawn to Hope. Not matter their vocation.

Aw, come on, Tracy! You must be joking on so many different fronts.

If you look at the literal meaning of oppressed, then these people are about as far away as they can get from that. If they were oppressed they couldn't meet as a group and discuss their agenda!

On the contrary, these people are part of an elite group themselves - called journalists (and I use the phrase with a certain amount of alarm). Anyway, these journalists are supposed to at least uphold the illusion of impartiality.

If these so-called journalists give the public any clue they're biased in any way for either candidate, they have a tendency to lose credibility.

From where I sit, dear Tracy, they just tossed any objectivity they might claim right out the door. With sprinkles on it!

(and no, a box o' doughnuts and a cup of coffee isn't showing bias.)

[DeconGal]

Oh so very tired of the fawning over Obama by the media. Completely disgusting. :frustrated:

[Diplomat]

All because I have opinions you don't like. Very revealing.

Once again, you are so wrong, it's not funny. There are plenty of people on this board and IRL I don't agree with, but they also don't become nasty and hateful and twist what people say when I don't agree with them.

I respect their opinions and they respect mine. You have repeatedly shown you do not respect anyone's opinions but your own. You have mocked religious people, called people who want lower taxes "selfish," defended racists and anti-Semites on this board, called actual convictions of crooked politicians someone's "opinion," and made many other crazy claims which have been refuted.

You are arguably one of the most narrow-minded people on this board. Your intolerance seems to grow by the day.

You have a right to say what you want. So do others. You have a right to disagree with what people say. And they have the right to disagree with you. I can only hope and pray that this basic concept somehow gets into your narrow, closed mind.

[Kace]

http://www.charliedigital.com/content/binary/comment-friday-damn.jpg

[Another OMB]

Don't forget decendants of indentured servants, who pretty much got a whole bag o' nothin' once their time was up.

Thanks Kace! My ancestors on my father's side came here as indentured servants and none of mine ever owned slaves. So I'll certainly fight any attempt to make my tax dollars go to pay reparations, and I'm certainly not looking for any to be paid to me, either.

[Pro]

Once again, you are so wrong, it's not funny.

Translation: "I don't like what you say, so you're WRONG!"

You're so consistent. You make this too easy.

[From the Right]

Translation: "I don't like what you say, so you're WRONG!"

You're so consistent. You make this too easy.


Figures you'd say that....

[The Mockingbird]

Don't forget decendants of indentured servants, who pretty much got a whole bag o' nothin' once their time was up.

That's because airfare was expensive back then, since the airplane hadn't been invented yet.

[Diplomat]

Translation: "I don't like what you say, so you're WRONG!"

You're so consistent. You make this too easy.

You're projecting again. It's almost comical.

[Pro]

No, just saying how you're coming across....as usual.

You come across as one of those who can't stand to have their veiws challenged, so they have to "counter-attack", by drudging stuff up from the past that aren't germaine or fabricating things that never happened.

That's how I see it, anyway.

[Diplomat]

No, just saying how you're coming across....as usual.

You come across as one of those who can't stand to have their veiws challenged, so they have to "counter-attack", by drudging stuff up from the past that aren't germaine or fabricating things that never happened.

That's how I see it, anyway.

Well, not everyone sees everything as you do. And thank God for that.

[Pro]

Well, not everyone sees everything as you do.

Nor does everyone see things in your narrow scope.

[The Mockingbird]

No, just saying how you're coming across....as usual.

You come across as one of those who can't stand to have their veiws challenged, so they have to "counter-attack", by drudging stuff up from the past that aren't germaine or fabricating things that never happened.

That's how I see it, anyway.

Matt Drudging stuff up?

http://blogs.southflorida.com/citylink_dansweeney/matt-drudge.jpg

[rootboyslim]

Pro---now that you know it is a legitimate news "story" what is your opinion? You first asked its source, I told you, you then questioned if it was op-ed, don't know why that would have made a difference in changing the facts but you asked and were shown it is a story.

So, what are your thoughts since it appears you were trying to poo poo it back to editorial heaven?

[Pro]

My own view is that a lot of the writer's opinions and predisposed views were in the piece. I'm surprised it was presented as a news story rather than an opinion piece. That's how I see it, FWIW.

[rootboyslim]

My own view is that a lot of the writer's opinions and predisposed views were in the piece. I'm surprised it was presented as a news story rather than an opinion piece. That's how I see it, FWIW.

Why is that? It was simple reporting the facts. Reporters stood and cheered. How is that opinion?

[Pro]

Why is that? It was simple reporting the facts. Reporters stood and cheered. How is that opinion?

It was the overall tone of the article and the choices of quotes.

[rootboyslim]

It was the overall tone of the article and the choices of quotes.

Choice of quotes? DO you mean it did not fit your agenda?

[Sultanosurf]

Three days later, and still nobody caught that UNITY '08 is a convention of four minority journalism associations.

Of course they'd stand and cheer. Just like veterans' groups do for McCain.

Some of you hardcore righties are just as goofy as the libs you try to mock. And as for left-wing media, most people I've worked with have been either conservative or somewhere down the middle. Or keep their politics separate from work -- and web sites...

[Diplomat]

Sultan--I think the rub it that these are journalists. If it were a group of minority businessmen/women or clergy or whatever, nobody would care.

[rootboyslim]

Three days later, and still nobody caught that UNITY '08 is a convention of four minority journalism associations.

Of course they'd stand and cheer. Just like veterans' groups do for McCain.

Some of you hardcore righties are just as goofy as the libs you try to mock. And as for left-wing media, most people I've worked with have been either conservative or somewhere down the middle. Or keep their politics separate from work -- and web sites...

Irrelevant.

[Pro]

Choice of quotes? DO you mean it did not fit your agenda?

No, I think the quotes fit the agenda of the writer.

And if it was an opinion piece, that would be fine.

[rootboyslim]

No, I think the quotes fit the agenda of the writer.

And if it was an opinion piece, that would be fine.

Are we reading the same article? Which quotes do you refer? This read like a new story, you just don't like the facts? What are you taking issue with because you make no sense?

[Sultanosurf]

Irrelevant.

Like I said...

http://goofygarrett.com/images/Goofy47.gif

[rootboyslim]

Like I said...

http://loca114.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/goofy.jpg.w300h418.jpg

Veterans are not journalists, for the most part. That is my point saying it is irrelevant. Your comparison is apples and oranges. Vets aren't supposed to be unbiased.

[Sultanosurf]

Hey, no sh*t sherlock, but any of these 'journalism' groups who define themselves by race have already established a disclaimer...

[Sultanosurf]

Sultan--I think the rub it that these are journalists. If it were a group of minority businessmen/women or clergy or whatever, nobody would care.

Same thought here: they're hyphen-journalists, which already established a bias and disqualifiers.

[rootboyslim]

So why should the coverage of this be an opinion as opposed to just exposing it for what it is? Pro?

[Diggin' Bear]

Surfer,

Let me get this straight: you're actually defending someone for showing bias because of race?

So, by your logic, if someone established a white journalists or Haitian or Russian journalists organization, you'd let them slide for favoring the Klan, Baby Doc Duvalier or Vlad Putin?

You'd allow that sign of possible bias and tell the public the bias is acceptable?

You sound remarkably like someone who would have done well in the Hearst yellow journalism years.

[Sultanosurf]

Let me get this straight: you're actually defending someone for showing bias because of race?


Jeez, get a clue. I'm saying consider the freakin' source. It was a buncha hyphenated / biased people being played to by a politician. And all the overreaction (Especially yours) is goofy.

[Another OMB]

Jeez, get a clue. I'm saying consider the freakin' source. It was a buncha hyphenated / biased people being played to by a politician. And all the overreaction (Especially yours) is goofy.

I can certainly see your point, Sultan. It can seem goofy to get all worked up over this. But, as journalists, we're upset that others in our profession are making us all look bad by being obviously biased.

Even though I'm in television, when a newspaper reporter is fired for making up stories, it makes me and everyone else in the business look bad. Same with this. We claim to be, and most of us try hard to be, unbiased in our reporting. So when a group of "journalists", hyphenated or not, shows such obvious bias it's upsetting to those of us who try very hard to maintain our integrity.

[Sultanosurf]

Oh, if we do the job right, we all feel the fervor and disparage bias. But even those who beat the tambourine loudest about ethics can get pretty lazy, happy enough to get a bite to fill out the story, without getting full confirmation or counterbalance.

Four days later, some here are still trying to drum up indignation (With no little political bias of their own, btw) over an issue that was goofy from the start. Unity is a group that already established themselves as 'different' from the rest of us right from the start (Funny, I always thought the goal in our society was inclusiveness) so why is anybody surprised when they break from objectivity in a response to political pandering?

[Diggin' Bear]

Surf, I get your point, but to call a reaction against something like this goofy seems to also miss the real problem here.

It's OBAMA who's saying we need to depart from the 'old' politics, and that includes making race the focal point of each and every discussion when it comes to our differences.

I'm not ready yet to hand my vote to McCain, but it's demonstrations like this that actually give second thought to punching the chad for Obama, too. If he's getting this kind of a reaction from 'journalists' who were told ahead of time NOT TO DISPLAY BIAS at a speech, what will happen when/if he actually comes to power?

That's why my reaction is what it is. It ain't goofy. It's fearful.

[Pro]

Are we reading the same article? Which quotes do you refer? This read like a new story, you just don't like the facts? What are you taking issue with because you make no sense?


I can see where conservatives would think this was "objective".

[Pro]

If he's getting this kind of a reaction from 'journalists' who were told ahead of time NOT TO DISPLAY BIAS at a speech, what will happen when/if he actually comes to power?

Can anyone control the reaction they get? Would you punish Obama for this?

[Diggin' Bear]

Can anyone control the reaction they get? Would you punish Obama for this?
Poor Pro. He just doesn't follow, or just doesn't want to.

It's not what Obama could control - it's what these so-called 'journalists' could control, and that AFTER their own leadership told them NOT to do.

It seems to me that the biggest problem we have in our country today isn't that Democrats don't like Republicans and vice versa. It's that Dems won't listen to Reps and Reps won't listen to Dems simply because of the label they wear.

Obama himself has said this. It's no longer a nation of ideas - it's a nation of WHOSE idea was it. I am weary of either party condemning a possibly good policy proposal simply because it came from a political rival. I'm sick of other people claiming someone co-opted their idea because they want to take credit for it.

Where are the statesmen and stateswomen who understand that sometimes, it doesn't matter who gets credit?

I say all this to lead to one final thought: as long as minorities choose to try and propogate the adversarial 60's styled civil rights anger that is no longer needed nor appropriate, they will continue to alienate people who would otherwise support a greater integration into our society.

Even Obama recognizes we have to move away from 40 years ago. It's time for other people to accept that fact, too. It's a flat world, kids. If we choose to segmentalize ourselves based on archaic racial attitudes, the rest of the world will eat us alive.

[Diplomat]

Can anyone control the reaction they get? Would you punish Obama for this?

So we have an obligation to vote FOR Obama so he won't think we're punishing him because a bunch of partisan journalists applauded his political speech?

Geez. Whatever happened to allowing people to decide for themselves?

[Sultanosurf]

Bear, your last two posts are interesting, but seem to contradict each other.

And although this thread has obviously gone political long ago (and I'm remaining adamantly apolitical through this election) you lose your objectivity with a statement like: "It's OBAMA who's saying we need to depart from the 'old' politics, and that includes making race the focal point of each and every discussion when it comes to our differences." Each and every discussion?

[commercial hack]

Poor Pro. He just doesn't follow, or just doesn't want to.

It's not what Obama could control - it's what these so-called 'journalists' could control, and that AFTER their own leadership told them NOT to do.

It seems to me that the biggest problem we have in our country today isn't that Democrats don't like Republicans and vice versa. It's that Dems won't listen to Reps and Reps won't listen to Dems simply because of the label they wear.

Obama himself has said this. It's no longer a nation of ideas - it's a nation of WHOSE idea was it. I am weary of either party condemning a possibly good policy proposal simply because it came from a political rival. I'm sick of other people claiming someone co-opted their idea because they want to take credit for it.

Where are the statesmen and stateswomen who understand that sometimes, it doesn't matter who gets credit?

I say all this to lead to one final thought: as long as minorities choose to try and propogate the adversarial 60's styled civil rights anger that is no longer needed nor appropriate, they will continue to alienate people who would otherwise support a greater integration into our society.

Even Obama recognizes we have to move away from 40 years ago. It's time for other people to accept that fact, too. It's a flat world, kids. If we choose to segmentalize ourselves based on archaic racial attitudes, the rest of the world will eat us alive.

Well said.

[Diggin' Bear]

Bear, your last two posts are interesting, but seem to contradict each other.

And although this thread has obviously gone political long ago (and I'm remaining adamantly apolitical through this election) you lose your objectivity with a statement like: "It's OBAMA who's saying we need to depart from the 'old' politics, and that includes making race the focal point of each and every discussion when it comes to our differences." Each and every discussion?

Gee, Surf, I don't see the contradiction. I'm merely pointing out that Obama is challenging people to look differently at race and race relations, and yet, it seems it's acceptable to cut these minority groups a break when it comes to ethical considerations others must adhere to.

Doesn't make a bit of sense to me.

Re-read what I wrote above - each and every discussion when it comes to our differences. And of course, I mean racial differences. In other words, I'm tired of making exceptions for people of different races simply because they are of a minority background.

Unless I read things wrongly, that's also what Obama is referring to.

[Sultanosurf]

Well, it seems you want to blame one and then the other.

Ah, I'm bailing on this one. The whole idea of hyphen-anythings, especially hyphen-journalists, is frustrating from the get-go...

[Pro]

So we have an obligation to vote FOR Obama so he won't think we're punishing him because a bunch of partisan journalists applauded his political speech?

No, you're fabricating again. I was asking if you (or whomever) thinks one should vote against Obama because of any perceived reaction from journalists - or anybody else.

I never said anything about any obligation to vote for a candidate.

[neodeity]

The group had expected Obama and Sen. John McCain to speak on Thursday night, but because of scheduling conflicts, only Obama could attend yesterday morning's talk.

When Obama walked on stage at the McCormick Center, many journalists in the audience leapt to their feet and applauded enthusiastically after being told not to do so. During a two-minute break halfway through the event, which was broadcast live on CNN, journalists ran to the stage to snap photos of Obama.

The Illinois senator talked about his trip overseas, reiterating his opinion that violence is down in Iraq but worsening in Afghanistan. And he expressed his approval of the Senate's passage of a major housing bill to help homeowners avert foreclosure.

Obama, who acknowledged that he needed a nap, stood up to say farewell to the audience of journalists, many of whom gave him another standing ovation.

Earlier in this thread someone took Pro to task for suggesting this article seemed a bit slanted; I thought so as well. It's damning in its vagueness. "...Many journalists..." how many is many? What percentage of the audience, 1% (a fewer than 10), 10% (a couple dozen), half the room, who knows? We're only told "....hundreds of attendees of UNITY '08, a convention of four minority journalism associations." Aside from a nebulous head count another subtle distinction slides by only slightly noticed; unlike the article's author, Laurie Au, these journalists aren't in this hall in their capacity as journalists, they're attendees. God forbid they be polite in greeting, and then in thanking, the only candidate of the two which bothered to show up for their little shindig. The bastards "...leapt to their feet...after being told not to do so..." by whom? Who wields this authority, who is angered by its being ignored, and what are the consequences? What's next - can't cheer at graduation ceremonies? As for running to the stage for photos; it was a two minute break, you'd better hurry. We'll never know, but I'd be willing to bet McCain, had he graced them with an appearance, would have also received a polite, respectful and eager audience. This is a molehill, not a mountain.

By the way, through this and a few other thread here I've had this thought rumbling about my head whenever I hear this charge that the media loves Obama and all their coverage is centered around him and so I'll attempt to articulate it. If campaign D is talking about candidate D and his proposed policies, and campaign R is talking about candidate D and his proposed policies; then wouldn't it follow that press coverage of the two campaigns would be dominated by talk of candidate D and his proposed policies? Doesn't that make campaign R culpable and disingenuous when it complains about a political environment they've fostered? If they want less press coverage of the opposition; then stop talking about him, change the discussion over to your candidate's proposed policies and we'll talk about them instead.

[Pro]

unlike the article's author, Laurie Au, these journalists aren't in this hall in their capacity as journalists, they're attendees. God forbid they be polite in greeting, and then in thanking, the only candidate of the two which bothered to show up for their little shindig. The bastards "...leapt to their feet...after being told not to do so..." by whom? Who wields this authority, who is angered by its being ignored, and what are the consequences? What's next - can't cheer at graduation ceremonies? As for running to the stage for photos; it was a two minute break, you'd better hurry. We'll never know, but I'd be willing to bet McCain, had he graced them with an appearance, would have also received a polite, respectful and eager audience. This is a molehill, not a mountain.

That's an excellent point. As far as I can tell, these journalists weren't covering the event. They weren't assigned to be there (except for the writer of the piece). They were attending of their own free will. It's not as if this was a press conference.

[Diggin' Bear]

That's an excellent point. As far as I can tell, these journalists weren't covering the event. They weren't assigned to be there (except for the writer of the piece). They were attending of their own free will. It's not as if this was a press conference.

OK, let's accept that for a moment.

Now, you tell your readers/viewers/listeners that your reporter at that event as an attendee, and who leapt to their feet to cheer one but not both candidates, will report each story without bias.

Wonder how many of them will say, 'Oh, ok, I'll believe that.'

[Diplomat]

No, you're fabricating again. I was asking if you (or whomever) thinks one should vote against Obama because of any perceived reaction from journalists - or anybody else.

I never said anything about any obligation to vote for a candidate.

I was asking a question. Given your well-documented history of white liberal guilt, I think it was a legitimate question.

YOU are the one fabricating.

[Pro]

OK, fine....NO, you have no obligation - IMO - to vote for OR against any candidate based on how ANY audience perceives him/her.

Saying that I advocate anything else IS fabrication.

[s'news]

Earlier in this thread someone took Pro to task for suggesting this article seemed a bit slanted; I thought so as well. It's damning in its vagueness. "...Many journalists..." how many is many? What percentage of the audience, 1% (a fewer than 10), 10% (a couple dozen), half the room, who knows? We're only told "....hundreds of attendees of UNITY '08, a convention of four minority journalism associations."

Darn good point.

[Kace]

Some journalists who apparently like Obama applauded him during a speech.

Therefore, all journalists are in the tank for Obama. :rockon:

[east coast producer]

Some journalists who apparently like Obama applauded him during a speech.

Heyyy Kace! Wanna rub my kidney? It's solely for medicinal purposes, of course. I'll letya keep the stone!!

[Kace]

You're just sayin' that because I'm awesome.;)

[Diplomat]

Some journalists who apparently like Obama applauded him during a speech.

Therefore, all journalists are in the tank for Obama. :rockon:

Nobody said that.

The point here is that there are some in the journalistic community who think it is inappropriate for journalists to applaud a political candidate who made a political speech.

[Pro]

The point here is that there are some in the journalistic community who think it is inappropriate for journalists to applaud a political candidate who made a political speech.

If they are at the event to cover it, sure.

Look at it this way: Baseball has long had an unwritten rule: "No cheering in the press box." But nobody says that a sportswriter can't buy a ticket to sit in the stands and cheer when he/she is off duty.

[Lazlo Toth]

If they are at the event to cover it, sure.

Look at it this way: Baseball has long had an unwritten rule: "No cheering in the press box." But nobody says that a sportswriter can't buy a ticket to sit in the stands and cheer when he/she is off duty.

Sports reporting is only marginally journalism for the most part. Sports reporter take the team's free food in the press box and its free items when it hands them out. Much of what sports reporters do violates the ethical standards of news reporters.\

The greatest things we have as journalists is our credibility, based on our impartiality. If we bring our impartiality into question, we bring our credibility into question. And that dminishes the public trust in jouralists because people don't feel they can trust us to give to them straight.

So when they see journalists cheering for a particular candidate, it brings into legitimate question how trustworthy those journalists are to report on the Presidential race in an impartial manner.

And therein lies the problem.

[s'news]

I agree with Lazlo. To put it differently, me and Mrs. s'news put no political signs in our yard. Nor do we put any political bumper stickers on our vehicles.

[Pro]

Sports reporting is only marginally journalism for the most part. Sports reporter take the team's free food in the press box and its free items when it hands them out. Much of what sports reporters do violates the ethical standards of news reporters.\.

And you don't think politicans don't feed and "water" the media?

So when they see journalists cheering for a particular candidate, it brings into legitimate question how trustworthy those journalists are to report on the Presidential race in an impartial manner.

Again that is true for journalists on-duty as journalists...actually covering a story.

[Pro]

I agree with Lazlo. To put it differently, me and Mrs. s'news put no political signs in our yard. Nor do we put any political bumper stickers on our vehicles.

I don't either. But I see no harm in that unless you used your car to get to your assignments, or used your house to conduct interviews. Perhaps it may be different for a highly visable journalist, like, say, Brian Williams or Charlie Gibson. But a GA reporter at a local station/paper doesn't have to worry about it as much.

[s'news]

I don't do it. Period. I don't get into games of degrees and stuff -- and rationalizations involving whether I'm at work or not. I just don't do it.

I'm ethical. Maybe too ethical, by how some folks add things up. But it's not "too ethical" from where I sit.

Who's more likely to have ethical issues hit the fan? That this thread exists, not surprisingly I might add, should answer the question for you.

[Lazlo Toth]

Again that is true for journalists on-duty as journalists...actually covering a story.

I don't make that distinction. I don't give to political candidates. I don't even sign petitions. I take it that seriously.

Do you think it's okay for journalists to make monetary contributions to candidates? My station has a policy against it and I approve of that policy.

If that's okay, is it okay for them on their off duty hours to host fundraisers for office seekers? Is it okay to be the MC at a candidate's fundraising dinner? May they appear in campaign commercials for a candidate?

How far does this "off duty" thing go?

[Pro]

Do you think it's okay for journalists to make monetary contributions to candidates? My station has a policy against it and I approve of that policy.

If that's okay, is it okay for them on their off duty hours to host fundraisers for office seekers? Is it okay to be the MC at a candidate's fundraising dinner? May they appear in campaign commercials for a candidate?

How far does this "off duty" thing go?

It may be arbitrary, but I'd draw the line at doing anything that may seem like a public endorsement. But I'd have no problem with them attending an event, on their own time, as a member of an audience. I wouldn't do it, but I wouldn't hold it against anyone who did.

[Lazlo Toth]

It may be arbitrary, but I'd draw the line at doing anything that may seem like a public endorsement. But I'd have no problem with them attending an event, on their own time, as a member of an audience. I wouldn't do it, but I wouldn't hold it against anyone who did.

So your anchor or reporter shows up applauding or cheering as a cutaway in another station's coverage of the event for the candidate. And your station's immediately suspected of bias in many people's minds. You've sacrificed the credibility of your news operation.

I think it's a very slippery slope.

[Angel's Hell]

And with an apology what do we give? What kind of entitlement do we give that we have not already?

I think that we've apologized enough already! The people who are still hurting over this are a bit like the ones who dislike me because of that second cousin who had 100 million dollars in the 1920's and owned most of the downtown of a city in Virginia! They are holding onto a past and blaming it for their PRESENT FAILURES! They do not own up to their own lives!

There is nothing you or I or the govt. can do to help someone like that!

[Diplomat]

So your anchor or reporter shows up applauding or cheering as a cutaway in another station's coverage of the event for the candidate. And your station's immediately suspected of bias in many people's minds. You've sacrificed the credibility of your news operation.

I think it's a very slippery slope.

Yes it is. I remember when Dan Rather spoke at a political fundraiser in Texas. It was inappropriate. We had a person in our newsroom who was a member of a partisan political organization--another no-no in the biz.

You have said it well, Laz.

[Diggin' Bear]

Wow. Good discussion, Laz and s'news. Somebody *still* gets it.