• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Banner warning on political discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FreddyE1977

I have read and understood the banner warning you posted about partisan political discussion on this board.
I sympathize and accept your point.

However, I think it is pointing to some discussions I've been involved in recently that are really about
journalistic ethics and not politics per-se.

I think the fact that it's become so difficult to separate the two is an indictment of the state of journalism
in 2019 and not of any individuals on this board.
 
It's a fine line.
Posting a link to a FOX News story about CNN is purely partisan, just as posting a CNN story about FOX News is purely partisan.
Neither are acceptable here.
 
it's hard to keep politics out of discussing the cable news channels, especially Fox News who have been labeled as a de facto propaganda channel for the Republican party due to their host's personal views which are the views of the party themselves. and MSNBC also has this problem as they lean towards the views of the Democratic Party. same goes for CNN's political views with their political views the same as MSNBC and One American News, Newsmax and Blaze TV have the same political views as Fox News. point is, it's hard to talk about Cable News without talking about political views of the channel cause there's gonna be someone that will take the opportunity to prise/bash the networks political views and starting a flame war over it with other posters on here.
 
FreddyE1977 said:
I think the fact that it's become so difficult to separate the two is an indictment of the state of journalism
in 2019 and not of any individuals on this board.
Click to expand...

Using the word "indictment" means that a crime has been committed, and an institution protected by the first amendment cannot commit a crime.

"Congress shall enact no law." If there can be no law, then there can be no crime, hence no indictment is possible.
 
TheBigA said:
Using the word "indictment" means that a crime has been committed, and an institution protected by the first amendment cannot commit a crime.

"Congress shall enact no law." If there can be no law, then there can be no crime, hence no indictment is possible.
Click to expand...

I believe his usage of "indictment" is figurative. It's a pretty common usage, as well, and I've never taken it to imply legal culpability. A similar usage would be if a baseball team keeps blowing leads late due to poor managerial decisions on relief pitching, defensive alignments, etc. A sentence like "Smith gets along with his players well and has a keen baseball mind, but his insistence on keeping a poor defender like Johnson at first base with a late-innings lead is an indictment of his abilities as an in-game manager" might pop up in a sportswriter's baseball column, but no one would read that and think the writer was implying that legal action should be taken against Smith.
 
TheBigA said:
Using the word "indictment" means that a crime has been committed
Click to expand...

No. In the legal sense, an indictment is a charge; it does not determine guilt. Hence, an indictment does not determine "that a crime has been committed."
 
CTListener said:
I believe his usage of "indictment" is figurative.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe not. In another thread the president threatened to take legal action against CNN. It's a waste of time.

Kemosabe said:
No. In the legal sense, an indictment is a charge; it does not determine guilt. Hence, an indictment does not determine "that a crime has been committed."
Click to expand...

Same thing. I didn't say guilt. I said crime. There can be no law, so there can be no charge. If a prosecutor brings an indictment, he believes he has evidence of a crime.

All you can do is believe or not. You can't use the government as some kind of weapon against the news media. Unless you can prove libel, which isn't what's being done.
 
Last edited:
TheBigA said:
I didn't say guilt. I said crime.
Click to expand...

Under the law, if a person is indicted for a particular crime and is found not guilty of that crime in court, the aforesaid person did not commit that crime.

There can be no law, so there can be no charge.
Click to expand...

No disagreement.

If a prosecutor brings an indictment, he believes he has evidence of a crime.
Click to expand...

Sol Wachtler, former Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, said that a grand jury could "indict a ham sandwich."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom