Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Yes, they are.
The phrase is ‘Fake News’ not ‘Fake Editorials’. Golly. None so blind.
The guest has the annoying tic of the left of equating disagreement with the left to ‘censorship’ , no one is calling for abridgements of journalists free speech, we’re just calling them out on their bias. We’re not necessarily looking for a right wing press just honest unbiased referees, as Jonah Goldberg has pointed out long before Trump, the bias is one thing , the lying about it something else.
‘News’ report I heard about Peter Strzok’s firing —-‘Peter Strzok was fired today for giving fuel to President Trump’s unfounded allegations of a deep state’
No bias there—- ‘giving fuel’ ‘unfounded’
@marythefifth: Yeah. Margaret sounds like she is completely clueless about media bias. I probably would have laughed or snorted when she was giving her answer – which I guess is why I’m not a podcaster.
Good podcast as usual and interesting story about Hey Jude.
The lack of self-awareness on the part of Pritchard is breathtaking. “The news side is objective. It reports on the events of the day.” Turns out that we’re just confused because we don’t understand the distinction between the news and opinion side that are separated like church and state.
Either Ms. Pritchard understands nothing about human cognition, specifically confirmation bias, or she willfully ignores such epistemological subtleties to advance the leftist narrative. Either way, sad.
Yeah, great story. And I’m not even a Beatles fan.
I tried to get Marjorie to admit that the people who worked at the Globe – newsroom or editorial – were liberal; that she and I both knew the conduits through which they came. Nothing. I tried to make the point that of course there is no such thing as purely objective reporting and that story selection and reporter bias inevitably creep into a story. I thought, how can anyone (least of all anyone who *works* in the business) deny this? She denied it. Todd made the point that the editorials that she had amassed were intended to defend the *news* coverage not, or at least not as much as, the editorial content. She admitted as much but since the news was nothing more than the stone cold conveyance of irrefutable facts what could possibly be objectionable?
Gotta give her credit, though. She held the party line.
I love the Harvard Lunch Club podcast.
Even though it includes no one within 100 miles of Harvard. I listen interactively, playing the part of Stopa‘s brain with Feinburg‘s attitude. Here’s how I reacted:
Me: “Don’t play dumb with us, Marjorie Pritchard! We’re the Harvard Lunch Club – we know how to play that game too, and we’re better at it than you are!
* * *
“I have no idea about the newsroom” is a lie. Marjorie Pritchard, editorial page editor of the Boston Globe, is being dishonest. No idea? Give me a break.
Gee, I wonder why the public doesn’t trust journalists.
You wouldn’t have to do that if you would simply do what you’re supposed to do. My three-week segment on journalism in 7th grade taught me more about journalism than nearly all masters-degreed journalists from freaking Columbia University know about journalism.
“News” is supposed to be a synonym of “facts.”
Instead, we get this from the New York Times, Aug. 8, 2016, on Page A1:
The Challenge Trump Poses to Objectivity
In which the Grey Lady explains on the FRONT PAGE to her readers
What does “fairness” have to do with reporting facts? What a steaming pile of self-inflated, auto-erotic dishonesty. Three months before the presidential election, the New York Times announced that honesty and facts and impartiality are not a part of journalism’s “solemn duty.”
Bleah.
Alas the truth is, L.D., that Feinburg is the smart one.
Take it where you can get it, Stopa!
You guys did yeoman work; not disputing that. And she definitely held the party line. The question remains, does she believe the party line or is she cynically upholding it in full knowledge that it’s BS?
The party line is contrary to plain facts that are clearly visible in plain sight.
For someone to believe such a party line, she would be so incapable of distinguishing fantasy from reality that she wouldn’t be able to dress herself, much less hold down a regular job, much less edit copy brilliantly.
The “party” that maintains this line – the mainstream press – is institutionally dishonest.
A dishonest institution that has constitutionally guaranteed protection is a danger to the people whose freedoms are supposed to be protected by that constitution.
One could reasonably say that the institutionally dishonest press is the enemy of the people.
You underestimate the capacity of humans for self-delusion. People are quite capable of functioning well in most aspects of life while simultaneously holding absurd views. As far as I’m concerned, the jury is still out on the question of sincere belief versus mendacity. You might have to get her intoxicated to get a straight answer. Messrs Stopa and Feinburg, I throw down the gauntlet (figuratively speaking, of course).
True. I’m not sure where we go from here.
I never miss an episode of the HLC, and usually thoroughly enjoy it. However, this particular episode was a disaster!! First, I’m not sure where Todd was coming from in the first half of the show, but it sounded as if he were reading too many conspiracy theory stories about Trump. It would be better if Todd stuck to the facts rather than pure speculation and dime store detective story fiction. I also didn’t appreciate Todd’s calling Mike a “chicken” about the interview with The Boston Globe editorial writer. Frankly, Todd always seems to behave in a boorish manner to Mike, and he’s lucky that Mike seems to take it with good humor.
As to the interview itself, I believe that Marjorie Pritchard rolled both of you, and that the entire interview consisted of soft subtle questions that she was able to easily shut down!! There were no follow-ups, and her terse tone seemed to intimidate the both of you.
You didn’t pull punches with each other after the interview and seemed to be patting each other on the back for the great job that you did. Sorry, but, had you prepared your interview with sharper, more on-point follow-ups, it might have resulted in a better insight for the listener. For example, you might have looked at the Globe’s and other editorials taken on the same subject, and parsed it with her, using opinions of columnists and opinion writers on the other side of the political spectrum to see how she would have responded. Also, it would have been interesting to hear her response to the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board who opted not to follow the other lemmings. The WSJ is no fan of Trump, but was not about to make a mockery of the first amendment and simply dance to the piper’s tune! As it was, all we heard from Ms. Pritchard was what readers already knew about the snarky political bias of the news media. Beyond that, she didn’t engage, she shut you down, and then the interview was over. Hope you do better in subsequent interviews with never-Trumpers.
Neither am I, and it haunts me.