I so appreciate your work in putting together these columns, especially for including references to specific information. It is seriously wonderful. We can only wish our TV "journalists" would do the same, i.e. prepare a broadcast segment and post the sources publicly on a website. I believe that would quickly reveal the fabulists among them, whatever their political persuasion.
I so appreciate your work in putting together these columns, especially for including references to specific information. It is seriously wonderful. We can only wish our TV "journalists" would do the same, i.e. prepare a broadcast segment and post the sources publicly on a website. I believe that would quickly reveal the fabulists among them, whatever their political persuasion.
I absolutley agree. I was thinking this as I was reading it. I am beyond gratefully for Heather. Why is it that she is able to give facts so clearly and concisely and "journalists" aren't or can't?
I’m so grateful for her as well, because the way she writes seems like it takes out the impact of “empathic anguish” and lets me process the information.
It occurred to me recently that increasingly we seem to have authors rather than journalists working for the press. I have no problem with journalists writing books but not at the expense of the factual, timely news they should be reporting. I find myself turning to HCR and other historians more and more for fact-based information on current events. Thank god for them and their willingness to step up when so greatly needed. What they’re doing is difficult on several levels.
Journalists have deadlines, editors, and their families. Most do not have a Phd nor decades of teaching and research experience. There are incredible journalist out there. Find one u like and stick with them.
There are some excellent journalists, and I believe most of them are local. I subscribe to the Cincinnati Business Courier and an ongoing story for the past 2 years are has been - wait for it - Hamilton County GOP In Disarray. One reporter has lambasted Republicans for how they've handled the state and federal maps.
There are journalists, reporters, columnists, broadcasters. Heather is able to take pieces from each of these news conveyors and produce something daily that is more powerful than the the sources. While working.
I thought you made it perfectly clear. I'm sure there are complex explanations for even the best journalists to bend and create the news, but the depressingly obvious one in this culture is money. Anxiety-producing headlines sell papers.
Part of it is that they rarely get to go in depth and must squeeze a lot in a small time segment. They also need ratings. Their owners are suspect as well. We never watch channel two in Portland because it belongs to Sinclair. Our local rag is Gannett. It has ceased to be much of a newspaper and Salem is a capital city.
And part of it is that they choose to cover scandal and trivia. It wouldn't take long to mention the facts that Heather has in her first paragraph--I bet they would if it were a Republican administration. Sinclair is second to Fox in the "worst" category.
I would like to change just one word in your last sentence, Gailee (lovely name, by the way): ‘Why is it that she is able to give facts so clearly and concisely and "journalists" aren't or [won't]?’
Most TV news shows are entertainment, not journalism. The idea of a 24 hour news channel is absurd. Fox, CNN, MSNBC - all committed to keeping eyeballs glued to the screen, not keeping viewers informed. The only legitimate news show on TV is the PBS News Hour.
I agree. She has given airtime to some utter nonsense during interviews when hard questions were in order. And they have joined the ‘inflation bandwagon’ without giving the recovery its full due to date. Cmon, PBS.
She wants to be “balanced”, I can’t watch her anymore, something is either true or it’s not, she never call’s out people that are lying to her face, it’s snippet news anyhow, if you rely on the NH for your news, you will be woefully uninformed.
No, I surely don't completely rely on her for news. And I am deeply grateful for having Heather's thoughtful writing, including the links to sources. How about you? Where do you get your news?
What? What? Ouch! 80 isn’t the reason to blame Judy Woodruff for a bias. 80 could be a reason to see more clearly. To compare and contrast and analyze and connect. Let’s move beyond age and be specific in criticism or praise. Please. I’m 75.
All I did was to report her her age, which, apparently is on 76. I find it interesting that so many of you have drawn conclusions of that little sentence.
What is your point, Richard? Could it be ageism? 'prejudice or discrimination on the grounds of a person's age.' "ageism in recruitment is an increasing problem"
Absolutely not, Fern. I was just writing what I think I heard or read on NPR or PBS that Judy W. had just turned 80. Somebody else later wrote that Judy was born in 1946, which would actually make her 76. BTW, on April 3 this year, I shall turn 78, having been born in 1944. I was just thinking how great it was that Judy is still doing a good job and hasn't been kicked off because of her age.
My point was that Judy Woodruff has turned 80, and that is remarkable for someone to be still doing a good job broadcasting. We you taking offense at my writing that she is 80. Hell, I'll be 78 on April 3 this year. I think it's great for some of us older folks to be productive. Apparently she is takin Goerthe's advice "Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Thanks, Fern. Here's something else from Goethe: "Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid." We had snow overnight here in York, PA. Maybe 2 inches. Winter has returned. Enjoy this Sunday and Valentines Day tomorrow. May we all continue in peace.
And even the legit registers need shows are answerable for libel and falsehood, though they are chatty and sensational. Unlike FOX Entertainment which is not registered as a news network and is rarely held accountable for their frequent false statements.
Yes. BBC, al Jeezera, and the Guardian are my go to along with a few over here in Europe. I dropped WoPo and am dropping NYT because they are just not what they once were. The Guardian in the States is different, but I subscribe. I miss KCRW in LA. Today on a Twitter feed I read many Americans angry with journalists and media not making Trumps taking national security material headline news.
The younger gal is Nermeen Sheik(Not correct spelling). As one of our readers here wrote yesterday a quote by Amy at a meeting in 2008: "What this nation needs is a Fourth Estate, not a 'for the state.' " Was that you, Liz? I watch Democracy Now! (please don't forget the exclamation point!) every day to see and listen to real people being interviewed. Democracy Now! is far more important than any of the corporate media. Amy, Juan, and Nermeen beat the crap out of those talking heads. That is real journalism, folks, and don't you forget it. Watch Democracy Now! M - F online at www.democracynow.org, and spread the word about these journalists who are the real Fourth Estate!
Yes, Liz, I did see her chase the creep! BTW, Democracy Now! recently celebrated their twenty-fifth anniversary. Another show I like is Thom Hartmann. He broadcasts from Noon to 3:00 p.m., ET, M - F. I get his show on Facebook. the show is also on Free Speech TV. He gives lost of good interviews with people like Ro Khana, Tom Pokantz, economist Richard D. Wolff, etc. Thom's show is a call-in and is based in Portsland, Oregon.
Also, I would think that Boston would carry Democracy Now!, which is based in NYC.
Democracy Now for many years supported Glen Greenwald and Julian Assange - two “journalists” who were decidedly pro-Putin and who helped Trump get elected. It’s hard for me to trust them now.
Neither Greenwald nor Assange are pro-Putin. The USA government hates them because they are real Fourth Estate journalists who have exposed real truths about bad things our government had done.
At one time, back before 2014, Greenwald and Assange might have resembled real journalists. From 2015 onward they both became partisan tools (witting or unwitting is unclear) of Putin, attacking various democrats and helping Trump get elected. In 2016 Assange received a trove of Clinton’s emails from Russian intelligence, and timed their release to help Trump’s campaign (coordinating with Roger Stone). Greenwald began attacking Clinton during the 2016 campaign with suspect material supplied to him by Russian intelligence in 2015 and 2016. Greenwald has been let go by every media outlet he once worked for, for sloppy work. Nowadays he appears regularly on Tucker Carlson’s (72 times as of late 2021) and Laura Ingraham’s (40 times) shows, on Fox News. That’s Fox News, the home of your “real Fourth Estate journalists”. Greenwald’s latest “journalistic” efforts have been to assist Trump in “exposing the real truth” about Biden’s “Ukraine corruption”. Assange is a fraud, and Greenwald is a partisan hack. Neither has any credibility, today.
I so appreciate your work in putting together these columns, especially for including references to specific information. It is seriously wonderful. We can only wish our TV "journalists" would do the same, i.e. prepare a broadcast segment and post the sources publicly on a website. I believe that would quickly reveal the fabulists among them, whatever their political persuasion.
I absolutley agree. I was thinking this as I was reading it. I am beyond gratefully for Heather. Why is it that she is able to give facts so clearly and concisely and "journalists" aren't or can't?
I’m so grateful for her as well, because the way she writes seems like it takes out the impact of “empathic anguish” and lets me process the information.
Or won't
B-I-N-G-O, Pam.
It occurred to me recently that increasingly we seem to have authors rather than journalists working for the press. I have no problem with journalists writing books but not at the expense of the factual, timely news they should be reporting. I find myself turning to HCR and other historians more and more for fact-based information on current events. Thank god for them and their willingness to step up when so greatly needed. What they’re doing is difficult on several levels.
Journalists have deadlines, editors, and their families. Most do not have a Phd nor decades of teaching and research experience. There are incredible journalist out there. Find one u like and stick with them.
There are some excellent journalists, and I believe most of them are local. I subscribe to the Cincinnati Business Courier and an ongoing story for the past 2 years are has been - wait for it - Hamilton County GOP In Disarray. One reporter has lambasted Republicans for how they've handled the state and federal maps.
There are journalists, reporters, columnists, broadcasters. Heather is able to take pieces from each of these news conveyors and produce something daily that is more powerful than the the sources. While working.
Yes, there are excellent journalists. I was trying to make a point but evidently not very well (she said smiling).
I thought you made it perfectly clear. I'm sure there are complex explanations for even the best journalists to bend and create the news, but the depressingly obvious one in this culture is money. Anxiety-producing headlines sell papers.
Part of it is that they rarely get to go in depth and must squeeze a lot in a small time segment. They also need ratings. Their owners are suspect as well. We never watch channel two in Portland because it belongs to Sinclair. Our local rag is Gannett. It has ceased to be much of a newspaper and Salem is a capital city.
And part of it is that they choose to cover scandal and trivia. It wouldn't take long to mention the facts that Heather has in her first paragraph--I bet they would if it were a Republican administration. Sinclair is second to Fox in the "worst" category.
I would like to change just one word in your last sentence, Gailee (lovely name, by the way): ‘Why is it that she is able to give facts so clearly and concisely and "journalists" aren't or [won't]?’
I agree. Thank you.
They don't get paid to relay facts. Sadly.
I totally agree!
I hearted you, Gailee, as I often do — until “and ‘journalists’ aren't or can't?” 😟
Most TV news shows are entertainment, not journalism. The idea of a 24 hour news channel is absurd. Fox, CNN, MSNBC - all committed to keeping eyeballs glued to the screen, not keeping viewers informed. The only legitimate news show on TV is the PBS News Hour.
And even Judy Woodruff, in my opinion, goes too far in airing Republican complaints and opinions.
I agree. She has given airtime to some utter nonsense during interviews when hard questions were in order. And they have joined the ‘inflation bandwagon’ without giving the recovery its full due to date. Cmon, PBS.
Agree, Woodruff panders to the right wing. Its tiresome.
Bring back the fairness doctrine! Balancing is just an act.
She wants to be “balanced”, I can’t watch her anymore, something is either true or it’s not, she never call’s out people that are lying to her face, it’s snippet news anyhow, if you rely on the NH for your news, you will be woefully uninformed.
No, I surely don't completely rely on her for news. And I am deeply grateful for having Heather's thoughtful writing, including the links to sources. How about you? Where do you get your news?
No she is actually 75, and is different from 80. She will retire soon I would expect after the 2024 election.
Judy Woodruff recently turned 80.
What? What? Ouch! 80 isn’t the reason to blame Judy Woodruff for a bias. 80 could be a reason to see more clearly. To compare and contrast and analyze and connect. Let’s move beyond age and be specific in criticism or praise. Please. I’m 75.
All I did was to report her her age, which, apparently is on 76. I find it interesting that so many of you have drawn conclusions of that little sentence.
Agree with all above re JW! I really have a hard time with her. The only sensible person on PBS Newshour is Jonathan Gebhart (spelling?) on Fridays!
Capehart, I think
Yupp! Thanks for correcting!
What is your point, Richard? Could it be ageism? 'prejudice or discrimination on the grounds of a person's age.' "ageism in recruitment is an increasing problem"
Absolutely not, Fern. I was just writing what I think I heard or read on NPR or PBS that Judy W. had just turned 80. Somebody else later wrote that Judy was born in 1946, which would actually make her 76. BTW, on April 3 this year, I shall turn 78, having been born in 1944. I was just thinking how great it was that Judy is still doing a good job and hasn't been kicked off because of her age.
And your point is???
My comment is in response to Richard Burrill's post about her age.
❤️
Born November 1946.
Hmmm...I think I hear or read on NPR or PBS that she just turned 80. I may be wrong.
My point was that Judy Woodruff has turned 80, and that is remarkable for someone to be still doing a good job broadcasting. We you taking offense at my writing that she is 80. Hell, I'll be 78 on April 3 this year. I think it's great for some of us older folks to be productive. Apparently she is takin Goerthe's advice "Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
I wonder if the clairvoyant subscribers on the forum today got your drift Richard.
'A man sees in the world what he carries in his heart.[
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Thanks, Fern. Here's something else from Goethe: "Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid." We had snow overnight here in York, PA. Maybe 2 inches. Winter has returned. Enjoy this Sunday and Valentines Day tomorrow. May we all continue in peace.
I am born in 1946 and I am not 80 yet :-)
And even the legit registers need shows are answerable for libel and falsehood, though they are chatty and sensational. Unlike FOX Entertainment which is not registered as a news network and is rarely held accountable for their frequent false statements.
Headline News!!!
Yes. BBC, al Jeezera, and the Guardian are my go to along with a few over here in Europe. I dropped WoPo and am dropping NYT because they are just not what they once were. The Guardian in the States is different, but I subscribe. I miss KCRW in LA. Today on a Twitter feed I read many Americans angry with journalists and media not making Trumps taking national security material headline news.
The younger gal is Nermeen Sheik(Not correct spelling). As one of our readers here wrote yesterday a quote by Amy at a meeting in 2008: "What this nation needs is a Fourth Estate, not a 'for the state.' " Was that you, Liz? I watch Democracy Now! (please don't forget the exclamation point!) every day to see and listen to real people being interviewed. Democracy Now! is far more important than any of the corporate media. Amy, Juan, and Nermeen beat the crap out of those talking heads. That is real journalism, folks, and don't you forget it. Watch Democracy Now! M - F online at www.democracynow.org, and spread the word about these journalists who are the real Fourth Estate!
It was me. I'll never forget how the writers stood, cheered and applauded when that came out of her mouth!
Thank you for this information.
Yes, Liz, I did see her chase the creep! BTW, Democracy Now! recently celebrated their twenty-fifth anniversary. Another show I like is Thom Hartmann. He broadcasts from Noon to 3:00 p.m., ET, M - F. I get his show on Facebook. the show is also on Free Speech TV. He gives lost of good interviews with people like Ro Khana, Tom Pokantz, economist Richard D. Wolff, etc. Thom's show is a call-in and is based in Portsland, Oregon.
Also, I would think that Boston would carry Democracy Now!, which is based in NYC.
Democracy Now for many years supported Glen Greenwald and Julian Assange - two “journalists” who were decidedly pro-Putin and who helped Trump get elected. It’s hard for me to trust them now.
Neither Greenwald nor Assange are pro-Putin. The USA government hates them because they are real Fourth Estate journalists who have exposed real truths about bad things our government had done.
At one time, back before 2014, Greenwald and Assange might have resembled real journalists. From 2015 onward they both became partisan tools (witting or unwitting is unclear) of Putin, attacking various democrats and helping Trump get elected. In 2016 Assange received a trove of Clinton’s emails from Russian intelligence, and timed their release to help Trump’s campaign (coordinating with Roger Stone). Greenwald began attacking Clinton during the 2016 campaign with suspect material supplied to him by Russian intelligence in 2015 and 2016. Greenwald has been let go by every media outlet he once worked for, for sloppy work. Nowadays he appears regularly on Tucker Carlson’s (72 times as of late 2021) and Laura Ingraham’s (40 times) shows, on Fox News. That’s Fox News, the home of your “real Fourth Estate journalists”. Greenwald’s latest “journalistic” efforts have been to assist Trump in “exposing the real truth” about Biden’s “Ukraine corruption”. Assange is a fraud, and Greenwald is a partisan hack. Neither has any credibility, today.
Thanks for the facts and statistics! Those mean more than opinion, of course. I'm waiting for Mr. Burrill's response.
Amy Goodman is Amazing!