And Just Like That, Masks Are No Longer Necessary

FredHayek wrote: So Wayne would disagree with having women coaches in the NFL because they never played the game at the professional level? Or shouldn't be allowed to announce the game? Sorry, I disagree. You can still form a learned opinion without a degree. Most reporters don't have degrees in the fields they cover.

1. No, I wouldn't disagree. Don't put words in my mouth, Fred and then disagree with the words you put there.

2. Reporters for the most part have degrees in journalism. While they may "cover" a medical story, they don't perform the medical procedure.

3. I wouldn't let my ophthalmologist or podiatrist perform brain surgery on me to remove a brain tumor.

LOL, you earlier said a doctor wasn't qualified to talk about a different specialty but now you say reporters who don't even have science degrees are allowed to report on medical topics. You can't have it both ways. I would trust someone who was a doctor to discuss pandemic medicine more than a person with a journalism degree. Constantly reading corrections where reporters who make mistakes because they don't have enough knowledge about the subject. Often journalists can't even get the names and titles of those they interview.

FredHayek wrote: LOL, you earlier said a doctor wasn't qualified to talk about a different specialty but now you say reporters who don't even have science degrees are allowed to report on medical topics.

Apples and oranges, Fred. In your heart of hearts you know that.

Fred,
I sincerely hope that you do not have brain tumor; however your obsession with who will operate on it is concerning. Is this an issue in Costa Rica? If your brain tumor should involve the optic chiasm you will be very grateful that an ophthalmologist is an integral part of the surgical team.
The attempts at obfuscation in your post are understandable. when you have no argument to offer posit something unrelated to the topic at hand and see if it deflects.
". Reporters for the most part have degrees in journalism." and in what do the "not most part" have their degrees? Please be honest and not include opinion writers, such as Dr. Joondeph, in those hold themselves out to be journalists.
My definition of a journalist, is one who presents the facts without opinion. what would be yours?

ramage wrote: My definition of a journalist, is one who presents the facts without opinion. what would be yours?

LOL, you are an idealist. Reporters haven't operated that way for decades. They choose stories based on their personal beliefs and cover those stories based on their biases.

FredHayek wrote:

ramage wrote: My definition of a journalist, is one who presents the facts without opinion. what would be yours?

LOL, you are an idealist. Reporters haven't operated that way for decades. They choose stories based on their personal beliefs and cover those stories based on their biases.

Honest question for Fred and Rick: when, in the history of our country, would you say that journalism was honest? Was it the 1700's, 1800's, etc.? Was it the Cronkite era? Early CNN or Fox era? When do you think was journalism better than it is now?

koobookie wrote:

FredHayek wrote:

ramage wrote: My definition of a journalist, is one who presents the facts without opinion. what would be yours?

LOL, you are an idealist. Reporters haven't operated that way for decades. They choose stories based on their personal beliefs and cover those stories based on their biases.

Honest question for Fred and Rick: when, in the history of our country, would you say that journalism was honest? Was it the 1700's, 1800's, etc.? Was it the Cronkite era? Early CNN or Fox era? When do you think was journalism better than it is now?

Great question. Everyone imagines this Golden Age of Reporting but I don't think it ever existed. Many early newspapers were political broadsheets created to influence public opinion and win votes for a political party. Today should be a great time because it is pretty cheap to become a news provider. Start up a You-Tube channel, create a blog. The downside is very few vet what content is being put out there.

FredHayek wrote: Reporters haven't operated that way for decades. They choose stories based on their personal beliefs and cover those stories based on their biases.

After 50+ years in the business, I can honestly attest to the fact that I've never seen or been in a newsroom that operates like that, where reporters assign themselves to whatever they feel like covering. Can you give us an example, Fred? Perhaps you're thinking of TV "reporters" like Tucker Carlson who are responsible for filling an hour of airtime on a regular schedule.

FredHayek wrote: Great question. Everyone imagines this Golden Age of Reporting but I don't think it ever existed. Many early newspapers were political broadsheets created to influence public opinion and win votes for a political party. Today should be a great time because it is pretty cheap to become a news provider. Start up a You-Tube channel, create a blog. The downside is very few vet what content is being put out there.

If I understand you correctly, you think there has never been a time when there was unbiased reporting, that journalism has always had the reporters opinions influencing the stories they covered?

Mixed bag......NIXON and Watergate,from what I can remember,was true "work the story,work the
contacts FIND the truth" ("deepthroat"), but then u have the Kennedy clan,who was idolized and
could do no wrong...JFK dalliances were "do not report", RESPECT the royal family....UNTIL Jackie O
found her Greek guy.