#88610 - 10/27/0909:28 PMRe: For lack of an appropriate place ...
[Re: SH]
jazzwriter
Member
Registered: 11/15/99
Posts: 9561
Loc: Greenville, Miss. USA
Interesting read, indeed. But again, skepticism is in order. How many were surveyed? 222 - out of thousands. Not a representative sample. And what does "at national outlets" mean? Vague at best, misleading at worst. What questions were asked? Phrasing counts for a lot. I have known reporters to try to manipulate a certain response by phrasing. There's no reason to believe a surveyor would not employ the same tactic if the purpose of the survey is to validate preconceptions. Just look at the lead sentence of the story: "confirmed the obvious." And, of course, let's not overlook the involvement of Fox News Channel's Brit Hume in highlighting the findings. If you look for a liberal, you will find a liberal. And let's say for the sake of argument that the questions were fair and balanced - did I ever share with you the story of the feuding neighbors? - and that the results as reported accurately reflect the answers given. In this day of divisive politics, compounded by the nastiness of those on the right as they relentlessly attack the media, aided and abetted by Fox, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if a person who actually is a moderate would claim to be liberal - if only to say, "I'm not one of THEM." I believe most people who aren't politicians or talk show hosts don't give a hoot who's liberal and who's conservative. Performance matters more than ideology. So the only people who gain anything by such a survey are the conservatives who want data to back them up when they say, "I told you so!"
_________________________ And when he cut open the shark, there was a leg. - Missy, "Uncle Bob's Leg" (unedited)
I'm not deeply familiar with the Pew Center that did the research in the article, but reading their mission, how they are funded (from a trust, not some right-wing group), as well as the background of their Research Director -- the sources seems non-partisan and credible.
If you look through their site, they cite all the right things -- random sampling, error margin estimations, etcetera -- as part of their research methodology.
Also, the conclusions in the article seem to be supported by other surveys, one with an even bigger sample size -- all pointing to a similar conclusion.
Here's an interesting Pew research report that seeks to relate one's political leanings with how accurate one believes the press to be. They also mention the perception of Fox by people with different political leanings:
An excerpt: When a person or group from the national level on down to the local level tries to dismiss, or spin facts because they do not support their particular agenda, then Americans are unable to make an informed decision about issues that affect them. As a result, Americans are less free.
Likewise, when a political party and/or its mouthpieces dismiss legitimate media doing its job as “liberal” or “mainstream,” it is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate the public and misdirect the unwanted attention their politician or agenda may be getting at the time.
It’s a basic bait-and-switch tactic, calculated to intentionally flood people with so much pseudo-information in the context of real news that it leaves many confused and exhausted and not knowing who or what to believe. Or worse, not caring at all.
Sure, there have been people in the news business who’ve gone wildly astray. At the same time, there have been those in other professions — political, law enforcement, business, clergy, teaching, real estate, banking, medical and the military — who’ve also gone to the dark side.
But as a rule, we still look to, and hold accountable, these professionals, and we expect them to do their jobs competently and honestly and to the best of their ability. The author is an unabashed liberal, supporter of Obama, basher of Bush. The article is a response to criticism from municipal government that the story he refers to was slanted. Fact: Osso, the guy mentioned in the article, said in his report to City Council that the city has a revenue shortfall of $2.7 million. Neither he nor the story said the city was in debt. It's in the black. For the first time in years, the city hasn't had to borrow money. However, collections are behind, mostly because of a new billing system with the water department. People are paying, but because through 10 months, there has been uncertainty in usage rates, many have paid less than they actually owe. The reason for the criticism? The mayor, a liberal Democrat, wanted to paint a rosy picture. If being a liberal influences "most" journalists to slant their coverage, Cross' column wouldn't be necessary. His being "in the tank" with the "current administration" would have prevented the revenue shortfall from being mentioned.
_________________________ And when he cut open the shark, there was a leg. - Missy, "Uncle Bob's Leg" (unedited)
#88798 - 11/12/0908:04 AMRe: For lack of an appropriate place ...
[Re: jazzwriter]
Kat
Musical Technologist
Member
Registered: 12/24/00
Posts: 4344
Loc: Danbury, Connecticut
For the record, I'm not pro-CNN, anti-FOX news.
What we see and watch affects our opinions and how we react to sensitive subjects - like healthcare, immigration, homeland security - and we interpret,based upon whether we are liberal, independent or conservative.
But did you see Jon Stewart point out the misleading video on Hannity's show?
Sean Hannity took time Wednesday night to say that Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" was correct and Fox News did air portions of the wrong protest. Hannity said that it was an "inadvertent mistake but a mistake nonetheless" and apologized..
Yes, apology accepted - but this is more Rupert Murdoch tabloid crap. It's a blatant manipulation of images to draw attention to a protest over health care.
This is the difference between reporting the news and news personalities having a show.
Dan Rather resigned because a producer fabricated documents, but Murdoch seems to encourage it at FOX.
(CBS) Four CBS News employees, including three executives, have been ousted for their role in preparing and reporting a disputed story about President Bush’s National Guard service.
The action was prompted by the report of an independent panel that concluded that CBS News failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece. The panel also said CBS News had compounded that failure with a “rigid and blind” defense of the 60 Minutes Wednesday report.
Asked to resign were Senior Vice President Betsy West, who supervised CBS News primetime programs; 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard; and Howard’s deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy. The producer of the piece, Mary Mapes, was terminated.
“We deeply regret the disservice this flawed 60 Minutes Wednesday report did to the American public, which has a right to count on CBS News for fairness and accuracy,” said CBS Chairman Leslie Moonves.
The panel said a "myopic zeal" to be the first news organization to broadcast a groundbreaking story about Mr. Bush’s National Guard service was a key factor in explaining why CBS News had produced a story that was neither fair nor accurate and did not meet the organization’s internal standards.
The report said at least four factors that some observers described as a journalistic “Perfect Storm” had contributed to the decision to broadcast a piece that was seriously flawed.
"The combination of a new 60 Minutes Wednesday management team, great deference given to a highly respected producer and the network’s news anchor, competitive pressures, and a zealous belief in the truth of the segment seem to have led many to disregard some fundamental journalistic principles," the report said.
Reaction to the investigation was mixed. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the administration appreciated CBS' steps to hold people accountable. Conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh insisted the network "had an axe to grind" with President Bush. Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz said it would take the network a long time to get over "a high-profile blunder."
The piece was aired during a tight and hotly contested presidential race between Mr. Bush and Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry. The timing of the story prompted charges of political bias against CBS News.
While the panel found that some actions taken by CBS News encouraged such suspicions, “the Panel cannot conclude that a political agenda at 60 Minutes Wednesday drove either the timing of the airing of the segment or its content.”
The story, which aired last Sept. 8, relied on four documents allegedly written by one of Mr. Bush's Texas Air National Guard commanders in the early 1970s, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who is now dead. Questions about the authenticity of the documents were raised almost immediately.
Some critics said the documents were most probably forgeries prepared on a modern word processor. Other critics questioned whether Killian would have - or could have - written them.
The documents suggested that Mr. Bush disobeyed an order to appear for a physical exam, and that friends of the Bush family tried to “sugar coat” his Guard service.
After a stubborn 12-day defense of the story, CBS News conceded that it could not confirm the authenticity of the documents and asked former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and former Associated Press President Louis Boccardi to conduct an independent investigation into the matter.
Their findings were contained in a 224-page report made public on Monday. While the panel said it was not prepared to brand the Killian documents as an outright forgery, it raised serious questions about their authenticity and the way CBS News handled them.
#88814 - 11/12/0911:54 PMRe: For lack of an appropriate place ...
[Re: TR808]
jazzwriter
Member
Registered: 11/15/99
Posts: 9561
Loc: Greenville, Miss. USA
Thanks, Kat for that piece. I think it shows that while many people who adhere to liberal or conservative philosophies assume news media are biased for the other side, the truth is most reporting errors are borne not out of an ideological agenda to support one side or denigrate the other, but out of competition. Many young reporters make it about themselves and not their subjects. Watch their facial expressions and gestures when they do stand-ups. It's not about telling the story so much as it is preparing a resume tape for the next big-market job. They have to be seen. Anchors and news directors have a tendency to try to make a story "sexier" than it is. More often, it's about trying to be first with the story or to be more compelling than rival stations in the telling of a story. But the average viewer doesn't know this. And that's compounded when the viewer subscribes to an ideology that's more right or more left than center. To them, every report is cause for suspicion.
_________________________ And when he cut open the shark, there was a leg. - Missy, "Uncle Bob's Leg" (unedited)
#88865 - 11/16/0905:50 PMRe: For lack of an appropriate place ...
[Re: Kat]
Kat
Musical Technologist
Member
Registered: 12/24/00
Posts: 4344
Loc: Danbury, Connecticut
Before I switched over to Campbell Brown at 8PM, I caught the beginning of O'Reilly - who interviewed Lou Dobbs.
I was shocked to hear that someone had shot at Lou Dobbs' home and that it was apparently over his immigration views.
Enjoyed the interview.... the only part I didn't like - and I've noted it before - I do not like O'Reilly's habit of pumping up FOX and his show at the expense of slamming everyone else. He claims that all of CNN's prime time programs are losing viewers. I think it depends on how it's measured - and I really wish he would stick to the news, rather than continue to drive a wedge between those of us who try to watch FOX and CNN.
Registered: 09/08/04
Posts: 1846
Loc: Algonquin, IL
I love O'Reilly's show when I get to see it. He tends to interupt a lot but he is only trying to move the show along. He packs a lot into one hour with all of the different segments. I love his regular guests....Bernie Goldberg, Juan Williams, Mary Katherine Hamm, Dick Morris,the body language lady and even Karl Rove.
As far as Bill beating his chest over FOX ratings over the others, that's about the extent of it. Pointing out who has the better ratings and it's usually always done in a retalitary reaction to some slam or miss-information that the other network did about FOX (for ratings obviously). FOX does NOT go out of there way during their segments to denigrate the other networks. They don't need to. They can stand on their own. The way things are looking, some of these other networks really did themselves a disservice being in the tank for Obama all during the campaign. With the lone exception of Hannity's show, FOX covered all presidential candidates with equal fairness.
Previous Topic
Index