Movie Theater Disgrace - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Movie Theater Disgrace

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Mookie4ever » Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:10 am

WharfRat wrote:
Mookie4ever wrote:It goes to show you that journalists always always have an agenda and you just can't trust most of what you read.


Also, this is total BS I might add, but that's neither here nor there.


? How so?

Let's here your side of it. I've been involved in many cases where journalists have a story and an angle already pre-written in their heads (maybe even written) out and then they go for the interview to either get the back up or the quote that they want.

It doesn't take long to get to know the writers in your city and their agendas. I can count on one hand the reporters that are truly objective and I feel will cover a story impartially.

My experience is only with business reporters but I feel confident that with a public interest story like this one it is even more true.
Image
Mookie4ever
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterHockey ModBasketball ModFootball ModMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 19545
(Past Year: 280)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hakuna, Montana

Postby WharfRat » Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:25 am

Mookie4ever wrote:
WharfRat wrote:
Mookie4ever wrote:It goes to show you that journalists always always have an agenda and you just can't trust most of what you read.


Also, this is total BS I might add, but that's neither here nor there.


? How so?

Let's here your side of it. I've been involved in many cases where journalists have a story and an angle already pre-written in their heads (maybe even written) out and then they go for the interview to either get the back up or the quote that they want.

It doesn't take long to get to know the writers in your city and their agendas. I can count on one hand the reporters that are truly objective and I feel will cover a story impartially.

My experience is only with business reporters but I feel confident that with a public interest story like this one it is even more true.


Generally speaking, the media gets a bad rap in many ways from people who simply don't like what they read. I don't know if this applies to you or not, but in most cases, that's what it boils down to. I have a hard time believing that of all the thousands of reporters out there, a majority aren't interested in truth and accuracy. I can speak from first-hand experience. Maybe you've had bad luck.

Now if a reporter has already got the story pre-written before finishing all their interviews, or knows which angle he/she is going to take already, why is this a problem? If someone is writing a story, and they can gather the bulk of their information together before getting all their interviews, what difference does it make? Stories don't just magically appear because of interviews, there's no such thing as the right to choose which quotes, comments or opinions get in the paper.
1 3 4 6 7 8 8 9 10 15 16 23 32 37 42 44 49 51

8.14.07: "I guess heaven needed a shortstop."
WharfRat
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 3056
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Walking my fish

Postby CubsFan7724 » Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:29 am

Atrophying Testicles wrote:I've been in theaters where people have been loud and obnoxious before, we've all been there. This is just disgusting though...March of the Penguins? What the hell do they think is going to happen?!? Kids are going to laugh, and be annoying, and bitch, and moan, and cry, spill sodas all over the place etc...

It's not worse than when you go to see some movie and you have 5-6 grown people giving play by play comment at normal volume 5 rows behind you that leads to about 85 full head turns from in front of them.

March of the Penguins is a serious and succesful documentary that is probably on par with a National Geographic film or other similar thing. Don't think a movie is automatically a childs film if its rated G. (It recently passed Bowling for Columbine in box office sales, which proves you don't need to make exaggerated and shock "documentaries" to make money)
Image
CubsFan7724
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 6426
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: AKA 34=Sweetness on FFC

Postby Mookie4ever » Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:42 am

WharfRat wrote:
Mookie4ever wrote:
WharfRat wrote:
Mookie4ever wrote:It goes to show you that journalists always always have an agenda and you just can't trust most of what you read.


Also, this is total BS I might add, but that's neither here nor there.


? How so?

Let's here your side of it. I've been involved in many cases where journalists have a story and an angle already pre-written in their heads (maybe even written) out and then they go for the interview to either get the back up or the quote that they want.

It doesn't take long to get to know the writers in your city and their agendas. I can count on one hand the reporters that are truly objective and I feel will cover a story impartially.

My experience is only with business reporters but I feel confident that with a public interest story like this one it is even more true.


Generally speaking, the media gets a bad rap in many ways from people who simply don't like what they read. I don't know if this applies to you or not, but in most cases, that's what it boils down to. I have a hard time believing that of all the thousands of reporters out there, a majority aren't interested in truth and accuracy. I can speak from first-hand experience. Maybe you've had bad luck.

Now if a reporter has already got the story pre-written before finishing all their interviews, or knows which angle he/she is going to take already, why is this a problem? If someone is writing a story, and they can gather the bulk of their information together before getting all their interviews, what difference does it make? Stories don't just magically appear because of interviews, there's no such thing as the right to choose which quotes, comments or opinions get in the paper.


If this is what you meant then you should have said it rather than say that what I said was total BS.

In any event I disagree with you. Some stories are information pieces but most stories that you read in the business section or nearly every public interest story is written from the journalist's rarely-concealed bias. If you know about the bias beforehand you can take it with a grain of salt and filter out the opinion.

In a public interest story "boy causes a disturbance by laughing during Schindlers List and is asked to leave" does not sell but "Disabled 7-year-old ejected from theater" gets people mad and they want to read. These stories are meant to rouse emotions.

In the business and law sections I do not believe anything other than the cold hard facts because those journalists all have agendas and are not shy about them. One journalist will write the story "Martha Stewart Scammed Millions in Insider Trading Scheme" while another will write "SEC Abuses Power and Wastes Public Money Yet Again in Witchhunt". These guys will not let the facts get in the way of their story and I know of countless stories where journalists have outright lied to make their story.

I respect some journalists but others are just out to sell papers.
Image
Mookie4ever
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterHockey ModBasketball ModFootball ModMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 19545
(Past Year: 280)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hakuna, Montana

Postby WharfRat » Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:16 am

Mookie4ever wrote:In a public interest story "boy causes a disturbance by laughing during Schindlers List and is asked to leave" does not sell but "Disabled 7-year-old ejected from theater" gets people mad and they want to read. These stories are meant to rouse emotions.


The first item you mention isn't newsworthy. It happens all the time, and it's pretty ordinary. It would be like a reporter writing a story about someone sending back soup in a restaurant because it was cold. The latter story is newsworthy. It's out of the ordinary, and it sounds like the kid and his family got screwed. Do you think the reporter should have simply said "not interested" when the family called him about it? Should he have said he doesn't do stories about handicapped kids getting unfairly screwed, because it would make people too mad? Does the fact that it rouses emotions mean that it shouldn't be covered?

In the business and law sections I do not believe anything other than the cold hard facts because those journalists all have agendas and are not shy about them. One journalist will write the story "Martha Stewart Scammed Millions in Insider Trading Scheme" while another will write "SEC Abuses Power and Wastes Public Money Yet Again in Witchhunt". These guys will not let the facts get in the way of their story and I know of countless stories where journalists have outright lied to make their story.


OK, you're obviously exaggerating a little bit here. If you can actually show me a link to a real story from a real newspaper that takes an approach you described, I might change my tune. I see your point though, and I think you're way off. Are reporters machines? No. They write their stories the way they perceive them, and different reporters would handle a single story differently. But that's a far cry from bias. So in your experience, what have they lied about?

I respect some journalists but others are just out to sell papers.


Fair enough. But sensationalism and fabrication are two very different things.
1 3 4 6 7 8 8 9 10 15 16 23 32 37 42 44 49 51

8.14.07: "I guess heaven needed a shortstop."
WharfRat
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 3056
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Walking my fish

Postby CubsFan7724 » Fri Aug 19, 2005 12:39 pm

WharfRat wrote:
Mookie4ever wrote:In a public interest story "boy causes a disturbance by laughing during Schindlers List and is asked to leave" does not sell but "Disabled 7-year-old ejected from theater" gets people mad and they want to read. These stories are meant to rouse emotions.


The first item you mention isn't newsworthy. It happens all the time, and it's pretty ordinary. It would be like a reporter writing a story about someone sending back soup in a restaurant because it was cold. The latter story is newsworthy. It's out of the ordinary, and it sounds like the kid and his family got screwed. Do you think the reporter should have simply said "not interested" when the family called him about it? Should he have said he doesn't do stories about handicapped kids getting unfairly screwed, because it would make people too mad? Does the fact that it rouses emotions mean that it shouldn't be covered?

In the business and law sections I do not believe anything other than the cold hard facts because those journalists all have agendas and are not shy about them. One journalist will write the story "Martha Stewart Scammed Millions in Insider Trading Scheme" while another will write "SEC Abuses Power and Wastes Public Money Yet Again in Witchhunt". These guys will not let the facts get in the way of their story and I know of countless stories where journalists have outright lied to make their story.


OK, you're obviously exaggerating a little bit here. If you can actually show me a link to a real story from a real newspaper that takes an approach you described, I might change my tune. I see your point though, and I think you're way off. Are reporters machines? No. They write their stories the way they perceive them, and different reporters would handle a single story differently. But that's a far cry from bias. So in your experience, what have they lied about?

I respect some journalists but others are just out to sell papers.


Fair enough. But sensationalism and fabrication are two very different things.

How is this story different because hes disabled. Should he have special privileges to be annoying because hes disabled?
Image
CubsFan7724
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 6426
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: AKA 34=Sweetness on FFC

Postby StlSluggers » Fri Aug 19, 2005 12:50 pm

Atrophying Testicles wrote:Kids are going to laugh, and be annoying, and bitch, and moan, and cry, spill sodas all over the place etc...

Reminds me of a funny story…

My wife and I really wanted to see The Ring, but it was coming to an end at the theatres. We had to go to some 6-screen hole-in-the-wall in the middle of a country town to be able to see it because it was off at all of the big chain theatres in the cities.

So, we're there, and so are about 30 of the local high school teenagers; mostly girls, but a fair number of guys, too. Of course, everytime something scary happened, all of the girls screamed. It was kind of funny at first, especially because every one of them screamed at exactly the same pitch. After a while, though, they all started screaming just to do it. After screaming, they'd all laugh and giggle about it.

My wife and I were really trying to get into the movie (because it's a great movie), but the three girls who were instigating everything were sitting right in front of us. Finally, I had enough. After one particularly scary part of the movie, the girls started screaming and then - just as they started to laugh about it - I crossed my legs. Except, instead of just resting one of my legs on the other, I hauled off and kicked the back of the chair in front of me as hard as I could.

Of course, all three of them jumped out of their seats. They turned around and looked at me with this shocked look on their face, and all I had to say was, "Sorry. That won't happen again… Right?"

They, and in turn, the rest of the theatre, was much quieter after that.

:-D
StlSluggers
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterWeb Supporter
Posts: 14716
Joined: 24 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Parking in the gov't bldg @ 7th and Pine. It's only $3.00 on game day!

Postby CubsFan7724 » Fri Aug 19, 2005 12:54 pm

Anytime a girl screams at a movie is just for the sake of doing it, not because they are scared. Pisses me off everytime, makes me want to start delivering dragon kicks and the "Kung Fu Special".
Image
CubsFan7724
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 6426
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: AKA 34=Sweetness on FFC

Postby LooseCannon » Fri Aug 19, 2005 12:58 pm

CubsFan7724 wrote:Anytime a girl screams at a movie is just for the sake of doing it, not because they are scared. Pisses me off everytime, makes me want to start delivering dragon kicks and the "Kung Fu Special".



I hear you....you can't get away from it...I'm at the ocean and no matter where I go and how far I go out I hear these girls that scream at EVERY tiny little wave rolling into the shore where they are standing... Drives me up a frckin' wall..
Image

[url=http://www.mp3players4free.com/default.aspx?r=681536] www.mp3players4free.com[/url]
LooseCannon
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Eagle EyeLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 4769
Joined: 17 May 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: In leather chair surfing the World Wide Web

Postby Mookie4ever » Fri Aug 19, 2005 1:01 pm

WharfRat wrote:OK, you're obviously exaggerating a little bit here. If you can actually show me a link to a real story from a real newspaper that takes an approach you described, I might change my tune. I see your point though, and I think you're way off. Are reporters machines? No. They write their stories the way they perceive them, and different reporters would handle a single story differently. But that's a far cry from bias. So in your experience, what have they lied about?


I'm not exaggerating. If you want examples just look at the coverage of Barry and Dusty Baker. You have heard that there are lies, damned lies and statistics right? Some reporters are the same way, what they report may be factually correct but because of the spin and omissions and slant they do not tell the entire story.

I can't tell you anything from my personal experience. One of them turned into a defammation lawsuit and a few of them were threatened lawsuits.

I take it that you are either a journalist or a journalism student. I don't mean to be offensive but I think that you still have your rose coloured glasses on. On the other hand I am particularly jaded and cynical. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle. It always is.
Image
Mookie4ever
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterHockey ModBasketball ModFootball ModMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 19545
(Past Year: 280)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hakuna, Montana

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Monday, Sep. 22
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Kansas City at Cleveland
(7:05 pm)
Baltimore at NY Yankees
(7:05 pm)
Seattle at Toronto
(7:07 pm)
Chi White Sox at Detroit
(7:08 pm)
Pittsburgh at Atlanta
(7:10 pm)
St. Louis at Chi Cubs
(8:05 pm)
Houston at Texas
(8:05 pm)

Sunday, Aug. 31

Cleveland at Cody
(8:07 pm)
indoors

Monday, Sep. 22

Arizona at Minnesota
(8:10 pm)
LA Angels at Oakland
(10:05 pm)
San Francisco at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)
Colorado at San Diego
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact