I happened to read a guest column in this week's Broadcasting & Cable by Patrick Maines of The Media Institute. In it, Maines bemoans "it is as ominous as it is lamentable that we don’t have at least a few national news organizations that are trusted, for their rigorous commitment to thoroughness and objectivity, by people of different political persuasions."
Earlier he says "The United States today is fairly seething with fear and anger. It is no overstatement to say that many people in this country, left and right, literally hate some of their fellow Americans...A few years ago I used to say jokingly that I didn’t think the country was up for any more foreign wars, but that I thought there might be an appetite for a good civil war. I don’t think it's funny anymore."
So what did happen to the fair press? Why isn't there an unbiased media in this country?
The answer is simple -- there never was one.
The tradition of "fair and balanced" in news reporting is relatively new. For the majority of our history -- going back to pre-Revolutionary times -- the media existed solely to advocate one party or point of view. That's why there are so many papers with the name "Republican" or "Democrat" in them (note the Waterbury Republican-American or The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle). In fact, the New York Times was founded by Henry Jarvis Raymond, also influential founding father and 2nd Chair of the Republican National Committee.
If anything, we need to stop the silly pretense of non-biased reporting. Even in the best of times, it's simply not possible. From the words you choose to the stories you decide to report (and whether you bury them on page 26 or lead your newscast with them) there is bias in everything, intentional or not. One of the refreshing things about Fox News is that it's the least abashed about its bias, especially in its commentary.
We need to return to those times. It's honest, it's forthright and best of all, it will stop the misleading claims of 'objectivity' by the mainstream media. An, best of all, it's completely in line with how Americans consume media these days, so it will also be more profitable.
UPDATE: The book by Eric Burns is called Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 571
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (30)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Jay Golub , October 23, 2008
here, here...Luke. I couldn't agree any more with your sentiments.
The media - pamphlets in the 18th Century, BTW - has never been unbiased in America and never will be. If the "media" seems to be against McCain and giving Obama a "pass" on certain things, it's because they will get higher ratings or advertising rates for doing so.
Clearly the media shouldn't outright lie about things they claim are facts, but beyond that, it is completely acceptable for America media to report things through thier bias...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Andrew Roman , October 23, 2008
The issue was never whether or not there is bias in the media. There is, and always has been. Since human beings comprise the media - and seeing as bias is inherent in almost all aspects of our very humanity - it is silly to suggest that biases don't find their way into reporting.
There is, however, very clear and distinct differences between being a reporter and being a commentator - or there should be. While biases can never be vanquished in even the most "balanced" of outlets (dependant on how one defines "balanced"), there are certainly ways to achieve - or atleast attempt to achieve - being as "unbiased" as possible. Of course, even that statement is "subjective," so the entire point in its most intrinsic sense may be moot.
The key to me is that there are components of the media who *believe* they are being unbiased and "straight down the middle." That, more than anything, is the real knee-slapper.
And you are right, Jay ... any outlet can be as biased or unbiased as they wish to be. I will never argue that point. Enjoy.
Just don't tell me you are.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Luke Vander Linden , October 23, 2008
And I say, reporter...commentators = no difference. If you're going to have a bias anyway, just go with it.
Jay's right about the pamphlets. Sam Adams was more than just a brewer. He was a printer. And he used the power of the press to lambaste the British at every opportunity. Ruthlessly. Just like we do for the tens of people who read this site.
There's a great book by Eric Burns of Fox News Watch fame that goes over this exact subject. I'm not sure if I can post a link in this comment, so I'll link to the book on Amazon in the original post. Scroll back up...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Andrew Roman , October 23, 2008
Jay is absolutely correct in historical terms. No argument from me at all. And Eric Burns' book is very good, indeed.
I will say this, Luke - and we can agree to disagree here, with all due respect - there *is* a difference between a commentator and a reporter, and there should be. Rush Limbaugh, for instance, is not a reporter, although he calls himself "America's anchorman." He comments on the events of the day, from a decidedly biased point of view. Ed Schultz is not a reporter. he comes from the other direction.
I am being very general here because bandwidth is limited.
Granted, the distinction of reporter and commentator is once again becoming blurred, but I have always defined the two as very different, and always saw the distinction - at least the definitional distinctions.
Of course, it is necessary (and goes without saying) that all degrees of opinion should be allowed to be proferred and expressed - especially political opinion - but it is - I believe - important to make the distinction between opinion pieces and news - particularly if a given outlet PRESENTS THEMSELVES in a specific context.
A free press doesn't absolve the need for a responsible press. Opinion pieces, by definition, broaden the realm of that which can be considered responsible - like my own pieces, for instance. I *believe* I am correct in the things I write, but my work (to most) cannot be considered news. I am not reporting, I am commenting.
I say, reporter, commentator = disctinct difference. If you're going to have bias - and believe me, they ALL will, have the damn discipline to be as apolitical as possible. It isn't always possible, but how about acting as such if you profess to be as such.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , October 23, 2008
The point of a free press is not to have a bunch of fact checkers - it's to enable a citizen's "opinion" to be heard.
The First Amendment was not written for the front page headline - it was written to protect the editorial/opinion section...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Andrew Roman , October 23, 2008
We don't disagree.
Who said anything about fact checkers? What precisely does that have to do with my point?
The First Amendment isn't my issue.
I'm not talking about someone's right to say whatever the hell they want to say. This isn't about the right, the ability nor the freedom to espouse opinion.
I'm speaking of a responsible press - something the vast majority of Americans rely on to have some degree of understanding of the events that go on around them. The fact that the majority of events taking up headlines across the pages of papers everywhere are political right now does not mean that they cannot be reported without obvious bias. There is a time and place for opinion - thank God - but there is a place for "fact checking," as you state it.
This isn't about the Constitutional right to report with bias - this is about having the reasonable expectation that the media CAN BE - I say CAN BE - divided into opinion media and non-opinion media.
It can be done.
It isn't unreasonable.
And that was my only point.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , October 24, 2008
It's not unreasonable, ARoman. I agree with you.
My point is that it's not legally mandated and the press has no such obligation to report "the news" without putting it through the prism of their "opinion."
It would be nice if the two were separated. The NY Times is a perfect example of where the headlines on page a1 are editorial pieces from the first sentence.
But that is why the freedom of the press is our ultimate protection - we in NYC have other outlets to go to get our "news." I buy the Post, used to read the Sun and would NEVER be so kind as to purchase a NY Times.
But don't be fooled - more people in NYC agree with the slant the Times puts on the "news" than the Post.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Andrew Roman , October 24, 2008
Very well said.
Very well said.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by alice Lemos , October 24, 2008
totally irresponsible - to the point that they have put people's lives in danger. The NY Times splashes security measures on its front page for terrorists to read; they put Governor Palin's children's lives in danger by printing rumor and innuendo - all the while ignoring John Edwards' little affair. It would only get worse under an Obama administration. The Times has become Pravda.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Luke Vander Linden , October 24, 2008
Jay Golub DDS put it perfectly, ARoman: "It would be nice if the two were separated." We tried it. It's been a grand experiment for several decades. It didn't work. And in this Jeffersonian world in which we now live, people are consuming the media that agrees with them anyway, whether than means the news comes from Jon Stewart or Urban Elephants (God forbid). So let's give up the charade.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Andrew Roman , October 24, 2008
Luke, we will agree to disagree.
"The Daily Show," to use your example, is not intended to be, nor does it present itself as, nor does any reasonable person believe it is a news program. It is a comedy program. To compare that to the "top of the hour" and "bottom of the hour" reports one sees on CNN or Fox News or even MSNBC is, frankly, ludicrous.
I'm sorry. Everything does not, is not, and does not have to be disseminated through a political prism. It is very possible to report "what is happening" without putting a political slant on it. Whether or not it happens as much as we would like is a different story.
There is no charade, my friend.
Is it more difficult to report the goings-on of politicians without having some bias come through? Of course it is ... but it can be done - and it is done. Is it easier to report something like, say, a car crash or a water-main break (or anything decidely UNpolitical) without being biased. Sure it is.
Of course we tend to consume the media we agree with. What does that have to do with my point?
The art of being able to report political events objectively is leffectively ost. It truly did exist at one point. The New York Times, while always liberal in its editorial pages, was at one time far more neutral in the reporting of its news stories. Not so now.
Indeed, there are two many instances where opinion and onjectivity are NOT separated, but to suggest that the "experiment is over" is nonsense.
Respectfully.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Andrew Roman , October 24, 2008
"two many?"
Come on, Andy
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Luke Vander Linden , October 24, 2008
I love an optimist, Andy!
It might reminds me of a story I was just told by a colleague of mine (Republican) who's married to a left-winger. They were out walking on an unseasonably warm day. The weather was the perfect temperature although, due to the season, it should have been a lot colder. She was happy. He, the Dem, however, was not. He lambasted her and her Republican friends for causing global warming and making it too warm. Politicized weather reports are not that far off.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Andrew Roman , October 24, 2008
You always make me smile, Luke. You're a good man.
To believe that every newscast in all of American media is draped in political bias, as you suggest, is a little more than silly (absolutley no insult intended. I know I sound silly rather frequently to many others) - but I do know you are a serious thinker and a good writer and have based your opinions on what you believe to be true, as have I. I simply disagree with the degree of what you are asserting.
I believe with every fiber of my being that politicized weather reports are not only far off, they EXIST. right now! BUT every weather report is not POLITICIZED yet, proving that they don;t have to be.
Will they be? (uggh...probably)
Does bias exist? You bet your belly-button it does. Is it more blatantly obvious than ever - particularly with the New York Times and other outlets? You know it.
Does the media infuse their biases into stories where there "should be" - I say SHOULD BE - none? No question about it. They do.
To use your example - which I am positive happens ALL THE TIME - having two people comment on the weather and the myth of global warming is very different than having a meteoroligist report on a warming trend. How it is INTERPRETED by the consumer is a different matter altogether. It is VERY possible, to use your example, to report on the weather without interjecting how lava lamps are now threatening the toposphere. Whether it is possible to HEAR it without envisioning melting ice caps and Manhattan submerged under three feet of water is another.
I travel extensively in my car - a diesel engine, by the way (I still have the Beetle, Luke!) - and I hear "top of the hour" newscasts all the time that are absolutely apolitical in position, even though they report on politics. That is what I mean. It is very POSSIBLE to report the goings-on out there without having to be obviously biased. It just doesn't happen as much as it "should" or even "could."
I am an optimistm by the way.
I am POSITIVE this country is in for a mess if Obama wins.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , October 24, 2008
ARoman, i have a question for you...
...are you suggesting that we have rules/laws to enforce your view of the responsibilities the media has to be factual and not political when delivering the news or weather? If so, who would police that media system to ensure they are following the rules?
could government be trusted to be the judge of what is opinion and what is fact? Could the courts be where these decisions are made - can they be trusted to view things without the prism of thier own political opinions?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Andrew Roman , October 24, 2008
Of course not.
What in anything I have said or written would suggest such a thing? I'm not even sure what you mean by the question. I would never endorse such a thing and do not believe with any molecule of my being that the government should be involved in what the media says or does - outside of the limits on decency, slander and things of the nature. I want any and all content out there.
You still miss my original point.
There *IS* a difference - and not by legislation or government edict or anything from on high - between opinion media (those who profess themselves to be) and straight news (those who profess themselves to be).
If every media outlet in the country decided they would issue their news from a decidedly slanted point of view, so be it - just let them say they are and quit the guise of neutrality. You and I can respectfully disagree all day on this, and that's perfectly fine. You articulate your positions admirably. However, there is nothing you can say to convince that it is NOT POSSIBLE to report the news in an unbiased way. That is my point in its entirety ... and I do believe there is a market for that because I see it and hear it all the time. I make the distinction, as I have already, that the difference between the "bottom of the hour news" on FNC is very different from the Bill O Reilly Show that donuts it. There is a distinction between the "top of the hour" news I hear on WABC-AM (although that is often left-slanted) and the Rush Limbaugh program that follows it.
This isn't a legislative matter, and I never suggested it should be. This isn't about government. I never implied it and would never even think of it.
What does that have to do with any of my points?
I assert that it is entirely possible to report on the happenings around us in as objective a fashion as possible. That's all.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , October 24, 2008
my point is that we are a country of laws. All the fundamental issues of our country are decided by our laws.
If your point is simply that you "wish" the media as a collective group would willfully separate "news" from "opinion," then no further comment is necessary. I understand.
Yet I don't believe there has ever been a time in the history of a free society where that has occurred and your wishes will unfortunately be thrown upon the huge pile of unfulfilled libertarian dreams of the past...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Andrew Roman , October 24, 2008
You don't believe there has ever been a time in history when what has occured? Am I to infer that you do not believe that there is any segment of news broadcasting in this country that is unbiased? ALL news reports are biased? No distinction can be made bewteen opinion media and objective media?
Okay, then we will agree to disagree.
I have heard four newscasts this morning via the Salem Radio Network. These newscasts were neutral. Anecdotal as it is to use this as an example, I would be willing to wager that the vast majority of people who heard these newscasts - liberal or conservative - would agree that there was no political undertones to these stories. Indeed, there was politics IN the story, but it was a "just the facts ma'am" moment. They spent their alloted three minutes, or whatever it was, reporting what was happening - which is what Americans reasonable expect (for the most part) when listening to the news - not analysis, not talk radio, not opinions - the news ... so it IS possible. That is my point.
Does it happen oftem? Probably not. But I have heard newscasts on AM 880 WCBS that are neutral - unbiased... and on 1010 WINS as well ... so it IS possible.
Again, let me be clear ... there is PLENTY of blurring between the two. There is a GREAT ABUNDANCE of opinion journalism that passes for objective news. It ahs always been that way and it always will be that way. I have never never denied that and don't wish to. I don't want it regulated, legislated and don't want government involved in content. I've said it so often now that I know I am coming across as redundant.
But the fact that it is apparently important enough to all of these news outlets to promote themselves as objective must mean something. Whether they are is a different matter.
The fact is ... blatantly leftist-leaning news outfits promote themselves, propogate themselves and sell themselves as being objective, unbiased and down the middle when they are not. That was my ONLY point.
My "wish," if I have any, is that these outlets would simply say "we are liberal" or "we are leftist in our news" and then the debate would, for the most part, shift from the media itself to the matters being discussed. No one argues whether or not Limbaugh or Hannity or Gallagher or Ingraham are conservatives. They are commentators, opinion entertainers.
I speak only for myself here ... To me, the most important societal value is truth. It outshines everything else, in my most humble opinion. Clarity is FAR MORE important to me than agreement. It always has been. My "wish" is that outlets that filter their news through obvious political biases simply admit it. I can deal with the opinion itself because I can either debate it or ignore it - but when those delivering the message are dishonest about the place they are coming from, that is more troubling to me.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , October 24, 2008
"Salem Radio Network?" I never heard of it - which proves the point i'm trying to make.
"My "wish," if I have any, is that these outlets would simply say "we are liberal" or "we are leftist in our news""...
McCain/Palin during the convention made clear who they thought was "liberal," such as the NY Times. And Obama made it clear who was "conservative" when he said "EVEN Fox news..."
People who do not follow politics that closely may not see the slant, but they know what they like. And what they like will gravitate them towards the type of "news" that they end up watching.
"To me, the most important societal value is truth."
Oh, boy. we don't have enough space on this blog to deal with that one...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Andrew Roman , October 24, 2008
Salem Radio Network is the syndicator of the following national programs, broadcast on hundreds of stations - Mike Gallagher, Bill Bennett, Dennis Prage, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt and Dr. Laura.
They have only just begun broadcasting in New York City on AM 970.
Substituite Fox News Radio for Salem Broadcasting, if you like ... Fox News Radio is actually the "top of the hour" newscast on AM 970. Their radio newscasts are very good and generally without bias . I used "Salem" as one example. There are many others. Because you haven't heard of something, Jay, with all due respect, means nothing in relation to the point I'm trying to make. Most people have not heard of you or I - and the fact that we are not household names has no bearing on the vailidity of the points we make.
You still have not addressed my questions ...
Clarity over agreement.
We will agree to disagree.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Andrew Roman , October 24, 2008
Dr. Laura is incorrect, actually. She is NOT syndicated by Salem Radio Networks.
My mistake.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , October 24, 2008
news that has no bias is BORING.
When i said "I haven't heard of it," I didn't mean that because "I" didn't hear of it, it was not good or important or anything else. I was just making the point that "people" - of which I am one of - only know what is interesting - not what is bland and boring.
I'm sure "most" people haven't heard of it either, which is what my point was.
I believe i've addressed all of your questions. If i've missed something that i've not covered, please let me know...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Andrew Roman , October 24, 2008
That's a different argument, Jay.
"Boring" is not the criterion of whether or not bias exists. If bias needs to exist for it to be more "exciting" for you, so be it. I personally don't watch news to be tantalized.
Most newscasts are, indeed, monotoned and less-than-spine-tingling. I simply want to know what's happening. If I want tingles, I turn to openly self-proclaimed opinion media or watch the Mets implode during the final weeks of a playoff run. (Lament of a season-ticket holder).
I don't need reporters to infuse their biases into something that's happened - particularly in political terms - especially when they say they are being objective.
And the fact that most people believe that left-leaning media is objective is more the pity. The fact that left-leaning news outlets see what they are reporting as fair, objective and without bias is the greater pity.
You think the New York Times would lose readers if they came out and said they were openly liberal across the board? I don't think so for a second. If so, who would they lose? The middle-of-the-road independents who thought all along they were getting neutral reporting? The conservatives who read it for talk-radio fodder? Perhaps the Times would attract the fringes of the Daily Kos crowd, ultimately rounding up more subscribers for them.
Their readership has obviously declined in recent years - for probably many reasons, not the least of which is pretending to be objective and fair when they clearly are not (as well as other very important factors - internet, new media, etc). The New York Times' liberalism has made its way into the very stories that grace their pages - not only in content, but in story selection.
Bias in the media obviously exists EVERYWHERE. Of course it does. It has existed since the founding and is part of the fabric of the nation. And you know what? I want it to be - because everything has it's place. The fact that the vast majority of journalists today are self-professed liberals makes it easier (in part) to understand why the media leans left.
Reporters KNOW how to report political stories without being biased. Reporters know what stories need to be told. Hell, you and I could do it (and I did for years). Today, however, I choose to be an opinion writer because it is, in fact, less boring than the "who, what or wheres" of straight news telling - as it should be.
As an experiment, watch the newcasts at the bottom of the hour on the Fox News Channel. What blatant bias is there in the reporting? Forget the programs that sandwich the newscasts. I'm speaking only of the bottom of the hour updates - in other words, straight news. Or even in the MSNBC news updates? Indeed, their discussion programs are biased, as are most of Fox's, but I am speaking of the NEWS.
You wrote:
"McCain/Palin during the convention made clear who they thought was "liberal," such as the NY Times. And Obama made it clear who was "conservative" when he said "EVEN Fox news..."
McCain, Palin, Obama and Biden aren't in the business of being unbiased. Their business is to sell their biases to the American people - just as the opinion media's job is to further articulate and reinforce given biases.
The New York Times, to use an example, doesn't promote itself as a liberally biased newspaper. Their editorial page is - and has been for decades - openly liberal. However, they sell themselves as objective. They do so because there is a benefit to doing so.
Are they?
No.
Ask a liberal, however. Most liberals - I say MOST liberals - believe the New York Times is fair and straight up the middle. MOST liberals believe CNN is very fair and objective. Again, I say MOST. Ironically, as I alluded to earlier, I don't think the Times readership would suffer as a result of *saying* they are liberal. It might suffer - as it has, I believe - from its liberalism in the guise of neutrality, along with other factors.
Jay, I must end my portion of this thread for now. You get the last word - at least for now. I must sign off for a bit.
I thoroughly enjoyed our exchange. Be well. And thanks!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , October 24, 2008
"The New York Times, to use an example, doesn't promote itself as a liberally biased newspaper. Their editorial page is - and has been for decades - openly liberal. However, they sell themselves as objective. They do so because there is a benefit to doing so."
dude, they are NOT unbiased. They know that. Their readers know that. And you know that. What is the question here?
People with the same bias as the newspaper they read will tend to think that that newspaper "is fair and straight up the middle." Again, i'm not sure where you confusion is. Readers, just like the writers in the papers themselves, have a bias.
Do you think Fox News is "fair and balanced?" I know many liberals don't and i know many conservatives do. That's the way this works. No one says, and no one NEEDS to say, that they are not "fair and balanced." It's already understood...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by alice Lemos , October 24, 2008
if it were not for Fox, "he would be up 3% more in the polls". How about, if not for the MSM, New York Times, Washington Post and MSNBC, he would be down by 10%! That he would attack Fox shows that he knows the fix is in with the other networks and newspapers. Don't forget: John Edwards et al. convinced his fellow travellers not to allow Fox to host a debate.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Andrew Roman , October 24, 2008
Jay, for you to say the New York Times is not unbiased is about as revelatory as someone saying that on a clear day, the sky is blue. The instrument has yet to be invented that can measure how obvious the remark is. Everyone with any sense of consciousness knows it. My dear friend, please re-read my extensive posts on this subject. I have never said they weren’t. My entire bloody point is that they are. However, the Times does not – whether you wish to agree with me or not – promote their newspaper as a liberal one. They simply don’t. They openly profess to adhere to the standards of the code of media ethics, also known as “canons of journalism.” The owner, editors and reporters at the New York Times (or almost any newspaper) will tell you so.
The tenets they profess to adhere to are, among others, truthfulness, impartiality, accuracy and accountability. If those were not the standards by which they – and any other newspaper or straight-news media outlet – claimed to operate by, there would never be any need to make corrections, amend statements or defend reputations. The fear of losing advertising revenue is a very real one for news organizations who deal in objective journalism. Every outlet that fancies themselves a genuine news organization has their credibility to ardently defend. Again, each and every one of them will tell you so.
Indeed, because human beings are involved, there will be biases in anything undertaken. That is the nature of humanity. No one denies this. The media-consuming public obviously know this as well, Jay. But they also know that newspapers like the The New York Times, Boston Globe and Los Angeles Times pride themselves on being able to report the news objectively. That’s the key here – they pride themselves on objectivity in their news divisions. To deny they do is to deny that one plus one is two.
Of course, newspapers also exercise their Constitutionally confirmed rights of free speech on their editorial pages. Those pages – meant to be separate from the news pages – are always clearly delineated. They have to be. There is a long held code of journalistic objectivity that dates back to the late 19th Century. Yes, opinion journalism is a tradition that harkens back to the days of the Founding, but history shows us that by the dawn of the 20th Century, objectivity in news reporting was becoming the prevailing standard in the industry. Objectivity, it was found, was a necessary component in making the newspaper business a profitable one. The risk of offending advertisers and customers was a very real one.
Does that mean there wasn’t blatant opinionism in so-called “regular news?”
Of course not.
The issue is not whether the news coverage in the media is sometimes - some say most times - biased. Of course it is. Everyone knows it, Jay. I write about constantly. I have studied it. I have spoken on it. Media bias is very real.
However, you and I are at odds on the details therein. I am sorry we seem to vehemnently disagree here, but you continue to miss my points and hack away at the peripherals in my arguments. I am as convinced as I have ever been on anything – anecdotally and through much reading on the subject – that the majority of regular New York Times readers who identify as “liberal” and “independent” will tell you that the paper is fair and up the middle in its news coverage. I repeat - in its news coverage. I’ve talked to Obama supporters who regularly read the Times and overwhelmingly they believe the paper is quite reasonable. I work at an establishment crawling with Obama supporters (welcome to New York), and because they work in broadcasting, they make it a point to be “informed” and “well-read.”
This same segment of the population sees their biases as normal and mainstream. They don’t even call themselves liberal. They’re “progressive” – even though all of their ideas are throwbacks to a hippie-laden, grey pony-tailed time of incense and peppermints. They’re “up the middle” or “independent” or “annoyed with both sides” or whatever they need to say to appear as reasonably tepid on the issues as they can. Conservatives, on the other hand, overwhelmingly say they are conservatives – and because we do, and because our silly old traditional values are almost nowehere to be seen in pop culture, and because our “old fashioned” thinking is often ridiculed regularly by the very media who profess to be “objective,” we are seen as the wackos. The politics and worldview of liberals are expressed and validated almost everywhere in popular culture on a daily basis. The fact is, conservatives know far more about the way liberals think then the other way around – especially in a city like New York.
That’s my point.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Andrew Roman , October 24, 2008
You are correct when you write, “People with the same bias as the newspaper they read will tend to think that newspaper ‘is fair and straight up the middle,’” but it contradicts what you wrote earlier in the same piece: “Dude, they are not unbiased. They know that. Their readers know that.”
Well, which is it?
Do their readers know they are biased? Or do they think they are straight up the middle?
My answer?
I believe some know they are reading blatantly biased pages - and either like it that way or use it as ammunition to blast the paper. Still, others feel they are reading objective journalism that validates their liberal worldview – hence, their liberalism is mainstream. Ask random New Yorkers (as I did with ABC in 2006) just how many regular readers of the Times feel that the paper is liberal. Almost none. To a man, each and every one of them hated George Bush, was against the war, believed Republicans needed to be voted out of Senate control (which they were) and hoped in Democrat would be elected to the White House in 2008 – yet, the New York Times was somehow fair.
And for the record, I do read the New York Times every day, and I know it is liberal. Is every story biased? Absolutely not. Perhaps 60 or 70% of their stories have no political slant. But the point here is that the New York Times – like almost every paper in America that is not an opinion jouranl – claim to adhere to the “canons of journalism.” The purpose of their news division is to be accurate, objective, impartial, fair and accountable to the public for what they report.
Do I think Fox News is “fair and balanced?” Do you mean their news division? Or the fact that the vast majority of their editorial and analytical programs favor conservatives? Their radio news division is wonderfully unbiased. Their television news division is pretty good as well, but they do tend – in extended news formats – to favor center-right positions. Editorially, they are very conservative.
Many liberals I speak to do not accurate differentiate between the commentary programs on Fox and their news coverage.
Therein lies the problem.
Again, your words: “They are not unbiased. They know that” ring true. I do believe that the editors of the New York Times know that they are publishing stories with a liberal slant – partially because they believe their liberalism is the correct (and mainstream) philosophy, and partially because they believe that objectivity goes hand in hand with justice (and thus, fairness). There is no doubt in my mind about this.
However, to do so while standing up for objectivity, accuracy, fairness and accountability while knowingly propogating liberalism is where my objection lies.
That’s all I have ever said.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , October 24, 2008
"But they also know that newspapers like the The New York Times, Boston Globe and Los Angeles Times pride themselves on being able to report the news objectively."
Not the case, ARoman. Prove that statement to me before you build your logic off of it.
"Those pages – meant to be separate from the news pages – are always clearly delineated."
Are you saying the Constitution's protections of free speech treat the frontpage headline and the editorial page differently? Please show me where it says that in the Constitution.
"There is a long held code of journalistic objectivity that dates back to the late 19th Century."
The best way of describing this is...
Obama walks out to make a campaign speech in front of a crowd of 1,000 people. It's sunny and 65 degrees but there's a breeze in the air.
Two reports are filed for different newspapers....
"A seemingly weary looking Barack Obama arrived at his final stop in Iowa today to a sparce crowd of supporters."
"The Democratic frontrunner, Barack Obama, arrived in Iowa today to an enthusiastic group of dedicated supporters - who braced the cool Fall winds for hours waiting for a chance to see the Democratic nominee."
neither report is lying per se. They are reporting "what they see."
Although i exaggerated what normally happens in "the media" with this example - as rarely would the account be so varied, i don't see that writing in this fashion is wrong and i know it doesn't violate any journalistic codes - which you can look up by googling that term, btw.
If someone goes to far, sure. But most of what CNN and Fox do is within the realm of journalistic reason.
Show me real examples of what you are talking about - that may help me explain to you where you've strayed...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Victor G. Mimoni , October 25, 2008
A little girl at the zoo got too close to the cage and was grabbed by a lion.
A man leapt forward and with his bare hands, beat back the lion and rescued the girl.
A news reporter, who happened to be there, interviewed him. He said, "I'm a U.S. Marine just back from Iraq, and saw it as my duty."
The headline?
"Warmonger Marine beats African immigrant, steals their lunch"
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
