MORE "Stuff'

[layoutshooter]

Believe me, I agree with you.

I just like saying - It's Bush's fault. Try it, It's fun!

Sorry, I find NO fun in this.

 

[muttly]

Not the National Magazine Award for General Excellence. The General Excellence category recognizes overall excellence in magazines in six circulation categories. It honors the effectiveness with which writing, reporting, editing and design all come together to command readers' attention and fulfill the magazine's unique editorial mission.

Time, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, National Geographic, Popular Mechanics, Men's Health, GQ, Wired, Foreign Policy, The Virginia Quarterly Review... are all winners in the General Excellence category. It's a big deal. Like Cheri said, it's the equivalent of the Pulitzer.

It's sponsored by the American Society of Magazine Editors, who's primary goal is the preservation of the First Amendment, not some political bent, and it is presented by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, which was founded by Joseph Pulitzer. The school also administers and present the Pulitzer Awards, and the Alfred I. duPont–Columbia University Awards for broadcast journalism.

Notable graduates of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism include Pat Buchanan, GOP strategist, presidential advisor, presidential candidate, conservative columnist, and TV commentator; Geraldo Rivera, television reporter and talk show host; and Robert Henry Best, an American broadcaster of Nazi propaganda during World War II who was was convicted of treason in 1948 and sentenced to life imprisonment; and Cardinal John Patrick Foley, Grand Master of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem at the Vatican. It's an eclectic group.

My hunch was correct. The vast majority of the judges are libs. A conservative magazine won't get much support in winning. They will vote for who they associate with,who they agree with and like.(same with Pulitzer ) Eclectic group or not, Columbia is a very left wing dominated institution.

 

[LDB]

Prestigious awards. Meaningful. Yeah, like the Nobel prize. And we know they will literally give that to absolutely anyone.

 

[Turtle]

My hunch was correct.

Actually it's not. Likely because you never even heard of the National Magazine Awards until yesterday, when you became an instant expert.

The vast majority of the judges are libs.

Name three judges.

You can't, because they don't even have judges.

A conservative magazine won't get much support in winning.

You mean like William F Buckley Jr's The National Review with its near perennial wins? Or the Virginia Quarterly Review? Or DefenseOne? Or Foreign Policy? These are not flaming liberal publications by any stretch.

They will vote for who they associate with,who they agree with and like.(same with Pulitzer ) Eclectic group or not, Columbia is a very left wing dominated institution.

Yes they are, overwhelmingly. more than 85% of Columbia's School of Journalism faculty identify themselves as or with liberalism. Journalism is by its very nature liberal, but that doesn't mean they will vote for whom they associate and/or agree with. Fact is, the General Excellence awards handed out by Columbia go through a three-step process, each by a different group of people, in order to remove personal and professional bias from the awards. Some of the individual article and essay awards are clearly handed out due to bias, but some of those same awards defy that bias utterly.

It's OK to say, "I don't like them because they don't agree with me or have the same focused agenda as me." And if you stop there you'll be fine. But when you start to justify it on some grounds so as to influence others that they shouldn't give them any credence, either, ignorance rises to the top. One of the most common displays of ignorance is, "They aren't conservative (or liberal) in the manner I think they should be, therefore they are liberal (or conservative)."

 

[Turtle]

Prestigious awards. Meaningful. Yeah, like the Nobel prize. And we know they will literally give that to absolutely anyone.

No, not like the Nobel Prize.

Thanks for playing, though! We have some nice parting gifts for you, including the home version of Common Knowledge.

 

[davekc]

After reading through this thread I just realized I might be a candidate for some therapy since I like both Fox and Stewart.

 

[Turtle]

After reading through this thread I just realized I might be a candidate for some therapy since I like both Fox and Stewart.

I do, too. We need to form a club. Pretty soon we'll have enough people that will satisfy even the most argent numbers crunchers.

 

[muttly]

Actually it's not. Likely because you never even heard of the National Magazine Awards until yesterday, when you became an instant expert.

Name three judges.

You can't, because they don't even have judges.

You mean like William F Buckley Jr's The National Review with its near perennial wins? Or the Virginia Quarterly Review? Or DefenseOne? Or Foreign Policy? These are not flaming liberal publications by any stretch.

Yes they are, overwhelmingly. more than 85% of Columbia's School of Journalism faculty identify themselves as or with liberalism. Journalism is by its very nature liberal, but that doesn't mean they will vote for whom they associate and/or agree with. Fact is, the General Excellence awards handed out by Columbia go through a three-step process, each by a different group of people, in order to remove personal and professional bias from the awards. Some of the individual article and essay awards are clearly handed out due to bias, but some of those same awards defy that bias utterly.

It's OK to say, "I don't like them because they don't agree with me or have the same focused agenda as me." And if you stop there you'll be fine. But when you start to justify it on some grounds so as to influence others that they shouldn't give them any credence, either, ignorance rises to the top. One of the most common displays of ignorance is, "They aren't conservative (or liberal) in the manner I think they should be, therefore they are liberal (or conservative)."

Nope , not what I'm saying. No need to quote hypotheticals . I understand human nature enough that there is a bias that people generally have and it naturally will sway them to choose those that they agree with. BTW here is the link I forgot to post. I was referring to it.
Judges | ASME

 

[Humble2drive]

He knew before he even took office

Obama warned about VA wait-time problems during 2008 transition - Washington Times

Sometimes it can be helpful to look back at the topic being discussed in a thread before you post a meaningless link.
It is very clear that several Presidents have known about the waiting time problems with the VA. This has been known for years and there is little disagreement about it.
This thread is addressing whether or not Obama had knowledge of the "secret waiting lists" of which there was no proof offered and that includes your article.

 

[RLENT]

After reading through this thread I just realized I might be a candidate for some therapy since I like both Fox and Stewart.

If I'm in the house and have the tube on at 18:00 Monday thru Friday, the channel is most assuredly gonna get flipped from wherever it is to Special Report ... and I find Jon Stewart to be hilarious as well ...

 

[cheri1122]

I do, too. We need to form a club. Pretty soon we'll have enough people that will satisfy even the most argent numbers crunchers.

I'm in.

 

[cheri1122]

Nope , not what I'm saying. No need to quote hypotheticals . I understand human nature enough that there is a bias that people generally have and it naturally will sway them to choose those that they agree with. BTW here is the link I forgot to post. I was referring to it.
Judges | ASME

What you say is correct: people will choose what they agree with. In the case of the Awards For Excellence, what they are choosing is excellence in journalism, not subject matter or political ideology.
Is it so difficult for you to believe that not everyone judges everything on perceived political ideology?

 

[muttly]

What you say is correct: people will choose what they agree with. In the case of the Awards For Excellence, what they are choosing is excellence in journalism, not subject matter or political ideology.
Is it so difficult for you to believe that not everyone judges everything on perceived political ideology?

Go back and look at the past 30 winners of the Walter Cronkite Award.
Please let me know how many happen to be conservative. BTW the new winner was recently announced.
I'm sure she is a nice person and deserves credit for her personal battle with cancer, but c'mon.
Robin Roberts to receive 2014 Cronkite Award

 

[cheri1122]

Go back and look at the past 30 winners of the Walter Cronkite Award.
Please let me know how many happen to be conservative. BTW the new winner was recently announced.
I'm sure she is a nice person and deserves credit for her personal battle with cancer, but c'mon.
Robin Roberts to receive 2014 Cronkite Award

Again, you're deflecting. The subject was prestigious awards for Excellence in Journalism, which Mother Jones has won 6 times, [out of 27 nominations].
And the reason for that is because someone denigrated the credibility of Mother Jones. Presumably, because the magazine is perceived as liberal, and dismissed as a credible source, by someone who clearly doesn't know how journalistic credibility is assessed.

 

[Turtle]

You won't see a lot of "conservatives" win that award, simply because, being agenda driven, they cannot do what the award requires in order to win one, certainly not while they are working at a network with a political agenda.

 

[muttly]

Again, you're deflecting. The subject was prestigious awards for Excellence in Journalism, which Mother Jones has won 6 times, [out of 27 nominations].
And the reason for that is because someone denigrated the credibility of Mother Jones. Presumably, because the magazine is perceived as liberal, and dismissed as a credible source, by someone who clearly doesn't know how journalistic credibility is assessed.

I'm not deflecting anything. It was already discussed. We'll have to agree to disagree about the credibility of choosing nominees and winners. Your whole argument is liberals can be more objective because they have some greater mental capacity as journalists, and they can choose correctly who deserves the awards. I disagree. BTW I didn't denigrate MJ. Go back and check how it started . But since we are talking about them, the articles are roughly 10 to 1 liberal.I had issues with how and who gives these awards out. I also question why someone would put great stock in these awards as if it validates the winner. If the awards are handed out by just people who only agree with each other, then naturally they will win the vast majority of the awards. Does it mean they are better journalists because of it? No. Another great example of what I'm talking about is the Walter Cronkite Award. It's a popularity contest. Robin Roberts? Seriously?

 

[muttly]

You won't see a lot of "conservatives" win that award, simply because, being agenda driven, they cannot do what the award requires in order to win one, certainly not while they are working at a network with a political agenda.

So your position is that a liberal can't win that award if they are agenda driven?

 

[Turtle]

But since we are talking about them, the articles are roughly 10 to 1 liberal.I had issues with how and who gives these awards out.

An article can be incredibly liberal, or conservative, but as long as the article is written using the proper principles of good journalism, the subject matter doesn't matter. The magazine (Mother Jones) is a liberal magazine to be sure, but so is National Geographic and Popular Mechanics. It's the high standards of good journalism that count.

I also question why someone would put great stock in these awards as if it validates the winner.

In the case of the National Magazine Award, it does validate the winners. It's not an easy award to win, because in order to win it you must adhere to the basic principles of good journalism.

If the awards are handed out by just people who only agree with each other, then naturally they will win the vast majority of the awards. Does it mean they are better journalists because of it? No.

You keep making that claim as if it's true, but it's not true at all. For one thing, not everything in the world revolves around political ideology, which is the terms in which you want to view the world. William G Buckley Jr is nearly universally hated by liberal journalists, yet his magazine routinely wins the National Magazine Award, so on that account alone your argument falls apart. Add in the fact that fashion magazines and magazines like Popular Mechanics and Consumer Reports win the award shows that there is something else other than "buddy buddy back pattin'" going on with who wins these things.

Another great example of what I'm talking about is the Walter Cronkite Award. It's a popularity contest. Robin Roberts? Seriously?

It's not really a great example of what you're talking about at all. The National Magazine Award is not a popularity contest by any stretch. The Walter Cronkite Award, at least the one Robin Roberts won, kind of is, to a somewhat large degree.

So your position is that a liberal can't win that award if they are agenda driven?

Well, thus far, no one has ever won the award for agenda-driven broadcast journalism. People with a political bias can certainly win, but not if their journalism is agenda-driven instead of fact-driven. I wouldn't presume to speak for The Arizona State University Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication to take the position that a liberal can't win the award if they are agenda-driven in their broadcast journalism, but so far none have. My position is that it's highly unlikely that an agenda-driven journalist will ever win the award.

For example, you won't see Salon.com winning a bunch of prestigious awards, like a National Magazine Award, because Salon is agenda driven, despite it being liberal and very popular with all the libs. They win awards like crazy such as the vaulted "Best Print and Zine" Webby Award, and the oh, so coveted "Oustanding Digital Journalism Article" from GLADD, though.

Liberal agenda-driven journalists don't win prestigious awards for the same reasons that conservative agenda-driven journalists don't win. Fact-driven journalists who let the facts tell the story are the ones who win the awards, regardless of their politics.