|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 22, 2009 21:41:40 GMT -5
Wrestling writers are more or less gossip columnists anyways. Eh, so are the respected news outlets nowadays. They spent a couple months trying to convince that the taxpayers getting raped out of our money so that some rich bankers could spend $1.2 million of it on redecorating their office was necessary for the economy to be healthy. Compared to that, Meltzer deserves a Pulitzer. Eh, most journalists write real stories with real sources. While it's not deniable that people mess up along the way, people judge all the media based on things like TV editorials and Limbaugh-like pundits, which isn't exactly comparable to what most reporters do. Besides that, you can blame quite a few economists for helping to convince people that it was needed, and the government for not strictly limiting what they could use the money on. I can guarantee that the vast majority of reporters didn't write a single story about the bailout. Wrestling writers don't use sources and report most entirely on rumors. That puts them at TMZ level in my book. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Jan 22, 2009 21:55:12 GMT -5
I know they do use sources, like, some sources are wrestlers. My problem is, there's so much bias, it's insane.
Jerry Jarrett gave a good idea on how Dave Meltzer operates. There was this rumour going around (he didn't mention what it was), but Dave contacted Jarrett about it. Jarrett said the rumour was false. So what Dave did was he reported the rumour as true, completely ignoring what Jerry Jarrett said. Jarrett called him back and asked why would call him in the first place if he wasn't going to post what he said.
Bryan Alverez is the worst though, just with how smug he is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2009 22:01:51 GMT -5
Alvarez is certainly a pox.
|
|
rj
Bubba Ho-Tep
Posts: 557 
|
Post by rj on Jan 22, 2009 23:05:55 GMT -5
Eh, so are the respected news outlets nowadays. They spent a couple months trying to convince that the taxpayers getting raped out of our money so that some rich bankers could spend $1.2 million of it on redecorating their office was necessary for the economy to be healthy. Compared to that, Meltzer deserves a Pulitzer. Eh, most journalists write real stories with real sources. While it's not deniable that people mess up along the way, people judge all the media based on things like TV editorials and Limbaugh-like pundits, which isn't exactly comparable to what most reporters do. No, I base it on the major newspapers and the news. I knew full well along with a few others the housing bubble was going to collapse at some point starting in early 2006, because I was starting to look for a house to buy and the prices were out of whack. I then did some further research and was shocked. It was just some simple arithmetic to realize that the people in communities were going in heavy debt to buy a house and they weren't paying it back, and that's not sustainable forever. So how many times did you see or read that on the mainstream news outlets? Of course none. Hey, no big deal, it's just a global recession that has lost tons of money and tons of jobs and will cause unforeseen hardship across the world that still has not happened yet. So again...if wrestling fans held the normal journalism outlets to the same standard they hold people that report on pro wrestling, the world would be a better place for it. But no, go ahead and watch your opiate. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 23, 2009 0:55:43 GMT -5
So how many times did you see or read that on the mainstream news outlets? Of course none. Hey, no big deal, it's just a global recession that has lost tons of money and tons of jobs and will cause unforeseen hardship across the world that still has not happened yet. So again...if wrestling fans held the normal journalism outlets to the same standard they hold people that report on pro wrestling, the world would be a better place for it. But no, go ahead and watch your opiate. How needlessly hostile, you're entitled to your opinion, I simply believe it to be wrong. If we treated normal news outlets to the same standard as wrestling news outlets, we'd have no news. We'd have no identities behind anyone and certainly no accountability. At least with normal news outlets, we generally get names behind the sources that we can hold accountable so if information is wrong, we know who they talked to and who they didn't. With wrestling news, most everything is anonymous rumors. I'd also like to point out that, despite what you may think, most journalists actually don't write about real estate economics. In fact, large portions of newsrooms are devoted to a variety of things like crime, education, government, and many other things that actually come well-sourced and covered. As funny as it might be to pick up a copy of my local paper and read "We have reports that someone in the state government is planning a major piece of legislation, but things can change without notice," it wouldn't be very useful news. You should look at the nature of the story and take things with a grain of salt, taking into account that sources aren't always going to be truthful, but at least we have names behind them. For your example not being predicted? It certainly wasn't the popular opinion among economists, but to say no one reported on the idea isn't really true at all. Most economists (from real estate companies all the way up to Greenspan) didn't predict that it would fall to the level it did, but there were reports that a housing bubble could burst on a variety of media, including large outlets. But to say no news outlets were saying that housing was on a bubble that could burst and burst severely isn't true. I did a short search and found several stories and editorials from papers like the Boston Globe and New York Times (and other papers which looked at local markets), radio sources from MarketWatch and NPR, and several different magazines, all warning of a housing bubble. Really, even Fox News had a guy on who was saying that it was going to burst, and they weren't the first to talk about the housing bubble. I have no doubt that you didn't see any, but to say that no one talked about the possibility doesn't seem terribly accurate to me. So you knew full well with quite a few others (myself included) that it was going to burst, and the message that it was on a rapidly inflating bubble was presented by news outlets. But I suspect we're off-topic and getting too close to political to go much further. You feel free to make your judgments on whatever criteria you choose. |
|
