Post by: Monkeyleg on October 01, 2008, 08:35:55 PM
I can't believe that Couric let Biden get by with the FDR comment.
Column here
Post by: longeyes on October 01, 2008, 08:50:22 PM
Post by: Standing Wolf on October 02, 2008, 03:53:52 AM
Quote
Too bad most of the major newspapers don't carry her column.
People still read those? Wow. I didn't know that.
Post by: HankB on October 02, 2008, 04:08:46 AM
I can't believe that Couric let Biden get by with the FDR comment.
Why?Couric IS part of the media that's in the tank for Biden's running mate, The Chosen One.
Post by: Jamisjockey on October 02, 2008, 04:57:14 AM
One thing that will come out of this election if McCain loses: there will be a lot of Americans who hold the press responsible for what comes. It may not be a good time to be "in the media."
I disagree. The media is largely in the bag for Obama. They will only get worse.
Post by: ronnyreagan on October 02, 2008, 06:39:58 AM
Couric IS part of the media that's in the tank for Biden's running mate, The Chosen One.
If you're going to complain about being in the tank for someone, maybe we shouldn't be listening to Ann Coulter either? Is bias suddenly acceptable if you agree with it? I'm not going defend Biden, because he does put his foot in his mouth on a regular basis - but that doesn't change the fact that Palin can barely form and express a coherent response to simple questions. Maybe she's just been "lowering expectations" for the debate - but there is little so far to support that theory. At this point she just appears incompetent.
Post by: longeyes on October 02, 2008, 06:47:30 AM
But the issue isn't whether Biden has brain farts or Palin should know more about SCOTUS decisions, it's THE STORIES THAT THE PRESS WON'T COVER. I don't have to mention them again, I don't think, but if the press were honorable and disinterested Obama would have never gotten anywhere near this far. They refuse to do the job they are supposed to do.
Post by: lanternlad on October 02, 2008, 07:23:50 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Eagleton
Post by: Scout26 on October 02, 2008, 07:45:18 AM
The press used to be fair and unbiased.
When ?? When Wiliam Randolph Heast ran newspapers ?? (See Spanish-American War and Yellow Journalism).
How about in the twenties and thirties of Lincoln Steffens (I've seen the Future and it works.) and Walter Duranty (Famine in the Ukraine ?!?!?, There's no Famine.....). Then the Fifties with McCarthy and the Sixties with Walter Cronkite and turning a battle field win (Tet) into a loss or how's about the 70's when it was get Nixon at any cost. Then we got to the Eighties with Reagan is a warmonger and out of touch. In the '90's Clinton got a free pass by the press on Rape and Perjury. And do I even have to point out the vilification of GWB and now Sarah Palin as the press stands in line to wash the feet of The Anointed One.
Heck, if you want to go back even Ben Franklin was partisan in his publications.
The press/media have NEVER been Fair and Unbiased.
"Unbiased Journalism" and "Journalistic Ethics" have always been oxymorons.....
Post by: taurusowner on October 02, 2008, 08:07:45 AM
Quote
If you're going to complain about being in the tank for someone, maybe we shouldn't be listening to Ann Coulter either? Is bias suddenly acceptable if you agree with it?
When the person admits bias and does not hold a job where she should keep it in check? Then, yes, bias is acceptable. You fail to see the difference between a writer selling books, and a "journalist" who's job it is to report unbiased facts.
Post by: HankB on October 02, 2008, 08:13:59 AM
If you're going to complain about being in the tank for someone, maybe we shouldn't be listening to Ann Coulter either?
Non-sequitur. The comment was about a NEWS ANCHOR, not a columnist. People whose job is reporting news are expected to be objective - opinion columnists aren't.Watch out for those knee-jerk responses . . . left untreated, they can develop into bleeding heart.
Post by: ronnyreagan on October 02, 2008, 08:40:03 AM
who's job it is to report unbiased facts.
People who's job is reporting news are expected to be objective
They refuse to do the job they are supposed to do.
Their job is to make money. Katie Couric and Ann Coulter both do this just fine. I have no problem with bias journalists, I just don't listen to them (or at least consider their bias when I do) and I think it's petty to complain about them.
Post by: Balog on October 02, 2008, 08:43:21 AM
Post by: ronnyreagan on October 02, 2008, 08:51:53 AM
the difference between news and op-ed.
Maybe there was a difference at one time, I however have my doubts. Everyone has biases, some people hide them and some don't. Some people report events objectively despite their bias, and some don't. Katie Couric obviously isn't hiding hers since everyone here recognizes it, so what's the problem?
One person's bias does not excuse another person's incompetence.
Post by: MechAg94 on October 02, 2008, 09:11:11 AM
Post by: HankB on October 02, 2008, 10:33:37 AM
Some people report events objectively despite their bias, and some don't. Katie Couric obviously isn't hiding hers since everyone here recognizes it, so what's the problem?
Katie is pretending to be a newswoman, which implies fairness and objectivity. That she is readily recognized as being biased demonstrates a fundamental dishonesty.Opinion column writers, partisan hacks, and advocates like Lanny Davis, Ann Coulter, Maureen Dowd, Charles Krauthammer, Sarah Brady, Wayne LaPierre, etc. can be taken to task for outright lies, but one expects them to support a particular viewpoint, and defend it in a debate; that's fine since full, open, and vigorous debate is generally good for society.
But objectivity - or at least an effort to achieve it - is expected from a journalist.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 02, 2008, 10:34:45 AM
Some people report events objectively despite their bias, and some don't. Katie Couric obviously isn't hiding hers since everyone here recognizes it, so what's the problem?
Katie is pretending to be a newswoman, which implies fairness and objectivity. That she is readily recognized as being biased demonstrates a fundamental dishonesty.Opinion column writers, partisan hacks, and advocates like Lanny Davis, Ann Coulter, Maureen Dowd, Charles Krauthammer, Sarah Brady, Wayne LaPierre, etc. can be taken to task for outright lies, but one expects them to support a particular viewpoint, and defend it in a debate; that's fine since full, open, and vigorous debate is generally good for society.
But objectivity - or at least an effort to achieve it - is expected from a journalist.
Not anymore. It's not news. It's infotainment.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 02, 2008, 12:15:34 PM
The press used to be fair and unbiased.
When ?? When Wiliam Randolph Heast ran newspapers ?? (See Spanish-American War and Yellow Journalism).
How about in the twenties and thirties of Lincoln Steffens (I've seen the Future and it works.) and Walter Duranty (Famine in the Ukraine ?!?!?, There's no Famine.....). Then the Fifties with McCarthy and the Sixties with Walter Cronkite and turning a battle field win (Tet) into a loss or how's about the 70's when it was get Nixon at any cost. Then we got to the Eighties with Reagan is a warmonger and out of touch. In the '90's Clinton got a free pass by the press on Rape and Perjury. And do I even have to point out the vilification of GWB and now Sarah Palin as the press stands in line to wash the feet of The Anointed One.
Heck, if you want to go back even Ben Franklin was partisan in his publications.
The press/media have NEVER been Fair and Unbiased.
Pretty much. Historians can tell you which newspapers were the party organs of the Jacksonian Democrats versus the Whigs, or of the British Commonwealthmen versus the - uh - the other party. Can't remember what they're called.
I think the current situation is rather different, in that print media is overwhelmingly dominated by the Left. But so is television and film. Radio and internet are the only media I can think of where there's anything like a fair contest.
Post by: ilbob on October 02, 2008, 12:46:01 PM
The comment was about a NEWS ANCHOR, not a columnist. People whose job is reporting news are expected to be objective - opinion columnists aren't.
I don't know what world you live in but journalism has never been about unbiased reporting. It is about selling newspapers, advertising, or whatever brings in the bucks, and always has been.Once in awhile you get a mostly unbiased journalist but they are not the norm.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 02, 2008, 01:03:58 PM
I don't know what world you live in, but medicine has never been about healing the sick. It is about selling pills, shots, surgery, therapy, or whatever brings in the bucks, and always has been.
The point being that both professions are in the business of making money, but both are held to a higher standard than that. Journalists certainly talk a big game about objectivity. We're simply holding them to their word.
Post by: don on October 02, 2008, 06:58:26 PM
The press used to be fair and unbiased.
When ?? When Wiliam Randolph Heast ran newspapers ?? (See Spanish-American War and Yellow Journalism).
How about in the twenties and thirties of Lincoln Steffens (I've seen the Future and it works.) and Walter Duranty (Famine in the Ukraine ?!?!?, There's no Famine.....). Then the Fifties with McCarthy and the Sixties with Walter Cronkite and turning a battle field win (Tet) into a loss or how's about the 70's when it was get Nixon at any cost. Then we got to the Eighties with Reagan is a warmonger and out of touch. In the '90's Clinton got a free pass by the press on Rape and Perjury. And do I even have to point out the vilification of GWB and now Sarah Palin as the press stands in line to wash the feet of The Anointed One.
Heck, if you want to go back even Ben Franklin was partisan in his publications.
The press/media have NEVER been Fair and Unbiased.
Pretty much. Historians can tell you which newspapers were the party organs of the Jacksonian Democrats versus the Whigs, or of the British Commonwealthmen versus the - uh - the other party. Can't remember what they're called.
I think the current situation is rather different, in that print media is overwhelmingly dominated by the Left. But so is television and film. Radio and internet are the only media I can think of where there's anything like a fair contest.
Post by: Scout26 on October 02, 2008, 07:20:48 PM
I agree that print media is often bias, but to say that radio is fair is a stretch. Limbaugh, Hannity, Liddy and others are fair? Talk radio from my observation is dominated by the right.
But the Difference is that Limbaugh, Liddy etc. admit (Hell, they yell it to everyone) that they are partisan, but it's the Couric's, Brokaw's, Matthews', Stephenopolis, et al. that run around claiming that they "unbiased". That's why Fox is so popular, they have shows like Hannity and Colmes. On their newshows when there is a controverisal subject they bring on reps from each side of the debate and give them equal time, unlike the MSM where they present all three viewpoints: liberal, socalist, and communist. Read Bernard Goldberg's book Bias.
Oh, and Radio is fair. It's the ultimate marketplace of ideas. Remember Air America ?? How about PBS ?? If your ideas are apealling you'll get and audience, if not.....well George Soros has lots of money to fund your goofy scheme.
Post by: don on October 02, 2008, 08:01:05 PM
Post by: Monkeyleg on October 02, 2008, 08:45:24 PM
Quote
PBS is the nearest thing to fair I've heard. Usually they will present both sides of the argument.
That's why I joined the NRA back in the early 1980's. I heard Katie Couric on NPR refer to "the NRA's stranglehold on Washington." (Exact words).
Fair my skinny white butt.
Post by: Intune on October 03, 2008, 02:32:10 AM
O.
Post by: richyoung on October 03, 2008, 04:48:13 AM
PBS is the nearest thing to fair I've heard. Usually they will present both sides of the argument.
Yeah... left, and far-left...
Post by: roo_ster on October 03, 2008, 05:40:49 AM
PBS is the nearest thing to fair I've heard. Usually they will present both sides of the argument.
Yeah... left, and far-left...
That was the joke when David Gergen (a "Republican") and Mark Shields did PBS M/L Newshour to provide "contrast." Gergen provided the left-wing view and Shields the far-left-wing view. Quite the spectrum.
These days, it is David Brooks who plays the "Republican" while shields soldiers on. Brooks is the kind of "conservative" who is embarrassed by actual conservative ideas.
Post by: don on October 03, 2008, 01:10:21 PM
PBS is the nearest thing to fair I've heard. Usually they will present both sides of the argument.
Yeah... left, and far-left...
Post by: Monkeyleg on October 03, 2008, 01:43:36 PM
The good news is that the country has been moving to the right over the last several years. That makes Obama a real anomaly.
Post by: MicroBalrog on October 03, 2008, 01:44:16 PM
The good news is that the country has been moving to the right over the last several years. That makes Obama a real anomaly.
Him and the 51% of the voters about to cast one for him?
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2008, 03:22:51 PM
I agree that print media is often bias, but to say that radio is fair is a stretch. Limbaugh, Hannity, Liddy and others are fair? Talk radio from my observation is dominated by the right.
Yeah, that's exactly what I said. G. Gordon Liddy is fair and balanced. Or not.
I was actually about to say that conservative talk is dominant, but when you figure in NPR, the hourly news updates from CNN, CBS, et al, various local hosts, and the occasional political talk from Howard Stern or others, I would say there is much more of a contest going on in radio, than on the left-dominated TV and print.
Quote
If you belong to the far right, a view which is to your left or in the middle is still left of you even though it is not of the left of middle. It seems to me that to the right wingers it is a black and white issue. It is either black or white and no middle.
The so-called middle is on the left today, calling for more govt intervention, and condoning the murder of innocents only in some cases. Hence, anyone not solidly conservative is on the left.
And no, my "extremist" views don't mean I see less nuance than you. It just means I am more correct than you are.
Post by: don on October 03, 2008, 03:55:39 PM
I agree that print media is often bias, but to say that radio is fair is a stretch. Limbaugh, Hannity, Liddy and others are fair? Talk radio from my observation is dominated by the right.
Yeah, that's exactly what I said. G. Gordon Liddy is fair and balanced. Or not.
I was actually about to say that conservative talk is dominant, but when you figure in NPR, the hourly news updates from CNN, CBS, et al, various local hosts, and the occasional political talk from Howard Stern or others, I would say there is much more of a contest going on in radio, than on the left-dominated TV and print.
Quote
If you belong to the far right, a view which is to your left or in the middle is still left of you even though it is not of the left of middle. It seems to me that to the right wingers it is a black and white issue. It is either black or white and no middle.
The so-called middle is on the left today, calling for more govt intervention, and condoning the murder of innocents only in some cases. Hence, anyone not solidly conservative is on the left.
And no, my "extremist" views don't mean I see less nuance than you. It just means I am more correct than you are.