What ever happened to independent objective Journalism?

Gone the way of the dinosaur and the dodo.

Yes, again U2 is getting slammed for something they probably weren't even aware was happening.   Surely, had they known, they'd have had the sense to remove the barricade.

And I try to avoid the news.  Ignorance is bliss.

Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World" segment is meant in jest.

I'd rather get my news from him, then say... Glenn Beck.

I'd rather get mine from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert than either of them. 

Amen!

They are all jokes.  Listen to Glenn Beck and he actually makes sense.  Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are on Comedy Central..how can you even take that seriously? 

Well now, this post seems to have gone horribly astray.
Olberman abd Beck are to sides of the same cloth, perhaps that is why they can not stand one another. Both are commentators and not journalist. I watch Olberman on TV and often listen to Beck on the radio, bot are entertaining and grossly inaccurate. Ironically, Stewart and Colbert have to be much more accurate, or the irony in their jokes are lost. SO in an odd way, they are a better source for news.

Wait, where were we? Oh yes. I agree that U2 probably had no idea what a screw up was happening until it was too late to do anything about it. Still, they probably have somone on staff who is well paid to handle just this kind of thing. So someone dropped the ball.

Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World" segment is meant in jest.

I'd rather get my news from him, then say... Glenn Beck.

I'd rather get mine from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert than either of them. 

Amen!

They are all jokes.  Listen to Glenn Beck and he actually makes sense.  Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are on Comedy Central..how can you even take that seriously? 

I don't!  That's my point. They are all jokes but at least Stewart and Colbert aren't pretending to be important journalists.

Besides, it's always been the jesters who have been the most truthful.

What ever happened to independent objective Journalism?

Gone the way of the dinosaur and the dodo.

Yes, again U2 is getting slammed for something they probably weren't even aware was happening.   Surely, had they known, they'd have had the sense to remove the barricade.

And I try to avoid the news.  Ignorance is bliss.

Wow, there's a sane thought.
I have to disagree on unbiased journalism. It didn't go extinct, it never really was there on a large scale...

Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World" segment is meant in jest.

I'd rather get my news from him, then say... Glenn Beck.

I'd rather get mine from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert than either of them. 

There is only one thing I'd like to get from Glenn Beck .... Schadenfreude .... he's a first order nutjob.

What ever happened to independent objective Journalism?

Gone the way of the dinosaur and the dodo.

Yes, again U2 is getting slammed for something they probably weren't even aware was happening.   Surely, had they known, they'd have had the sense to remove the barricade.

And I try to avoid the news.  Ignorance is bliss.

Wow, there's a sane thought.
I have to disagree on unbiased journalism. It didn't go extinct, it never really was there on a large scale...

You are so right.  You can look at newspapers as far back as you can find them and there will always be a bias of some sort.  The issue isn't if they are biased, it's do other biases have access to the marketplace, which in the past they did.  This is why having a lot of different papers was such a good thing for society.  The more papers the more views.  With media consolidation, we are losing this.  That's the true problem.

Agree. Also there is a need of the public's awareness of losing the availability of objective information, and the willingness of them to gather said information. I think it's also a risky thing for mass media to try and compete their information programmes with entertainment programmes by selecting and narrowing broadcast content, I mean by that: sensationalism in the news, and a very aggressive obsession with death. I don't know if people would say they want to see death and injury and catastrophies/disasters on the telly if asked. (of course it will pin many in front of the box)
By forming information into an entertainment package, people will not want pure information any more. Do we really need everything to be in a style of sorts? Truth is raw, we should get used to it.

[could]

Agree. Also there is a need of the public's awareness of losing the availability of objective information, and the willingness of them to gather said information. I think it's also a risky thing for mass media to try and compete their information programmes with entertainment programmes by selecting and narrowing broadcast content, I mean by that: sensationalism in the news, and a very aggressive obsession with death. I don't know if people would say they want to see death and injury and catastrophies/disasters on the telly if asked. (of course it will pin many in front of the box)
By forming information into an entertainment package, people will not want pure information any more. Do we really need everything to be in a style of sorts? Truth is raw, we should get used to it.

I think that most people have not noticed that the scope of information has narrowed considerably in mass media.  However, I do believe that this is beginning to be countered by "alternative media" such as blogs, Twitter (remember all those Tweets from Iran this summer?) and other online sources.  This could allow people to again have access to the variety of information that is missing in the mainstream media.  The problem, as you pointed out, is people's willingness take advantage of it.  Even as easy as it is to get this information, people still tend to gravitate to ideas that are familiar instead of seeking out different ideas.  To find differing points takes effort and requires people to really think about their own views in a more critical way.  Sadly, for most people that is too much effort and way too much of a threat to their sense of self.  I think that they know on some level, that their ideas aren't based on any real thought or logic, but are based instead on a picture that was given to them by which ever news channel they watch.  They didn't look at all sides and reason the idea out, they just liked (or got scared witless by) the sounds and images presented to them and accepted it.

And of course, you are also right on the issue of news as entertainment.  What is truly sad is that the majority of people simply don't care.  Bread and circuses I guess.

[U2 build giant WALL to prevent fans from seeing performance celebrating fall of Berlin Wall!! EPIC FAIL!!!!! Hypocrites!]

The thing about Twitter etc tho, is that yes, they may give access to the common person, but they also spread *mis*information like wildfire.

MTV puts up a pretty normal security fence plus tarp over a section of the Parisier Platz for traffic control and to check tickets, someone calls it a wall, somebody tweets that a wall is being built around the concert, somebody assumes U2 are responsible, and then within an hour or so you have about 20 tweets a minute (I was watching them come across for awhile on the search U2+wall) saying things like U2 build giant WALL to prevent fans from seeing performance celebrating fall of Berlin Wall!! EPIC FAIL!!!!! Hypocrites! and then 50 people retweet that...

...and pretty soon thousands of people are convinced they know what happened and have a right to be outraged about it.

Olbermann was a lot funnier when he was on Sportscenter. 

guy seems like a jerk. but - he has a point about this insensitive wall. i think U2 should have declined the award unless they took the wall down. I understand the need for security but obviously this was the wrong way to enforce crowd control. very insensitive. it's MTV's fault, but U2 shouldn't have compromised.

Screw MTV. An award from them means nothing.

The wall has to be down by now. U2 should get full credit. 

Anyone else remember when Keith Olberman was just a douche on ESPN sports reporter back in the 80's.

They are all jokes.  Listen to Glenn Beck and he actually makes sense.  Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are on Comedy Central..how can you even take that seriously? 

Glenn Beck is on Fox News how can you even take that seriously?  All Cable News channels are awful but Fox is definitely the worst.  MSNBC looked at Fox and saw that a partisan news channel is succesful so now MSNBC is marketing themselves to the left since Fox took the conservative market.  I wouldn't be caught watching either.   CNN is pretty bad too. 

Um, at a guess, I'm gonna say that the reason they put up a fence and had a ticketing system is so that half of Berlin didn't show up and things turned to sh**. A complete free for all would be a logistical and health and safety nightmare - that's when people get hurt or killed.

Not entering the journalism debate as I have no idea who the folks you're discussing are, although whoever made the comments about trending B.S. was spot on. I would say that that sort of thing has been happening long before Twitter was invented, but Twitter has certainly made it easier (eg with the whole Bono Tory vid storm in a teacup).