Ann Coulter on Couric, Biden

[Monkeyleg]

Ann hits another one out of the park. Too bad most of the major newspapers don't carry her column.

I can't believe that Couric let Biden get by with the FDR comment.

Column here

[longeyes]

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."

[Standing Wolf]

Too bad most of the major newspapers don't carry her column.

People still read those? Wow. I didn't know that.

[HankB]

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. 

[Jamisjockey]

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. 

[ronnyreagan]

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.

[longeyes]

The press does bear a lot of responsibility for what's going on and has been going on, and I still believe they will suffer for it in the future.  Alternative press will remind people who put Obama into power.

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.

[lanternlad]

The press used to be fair and unbiased. The liberal media crucified the Democratic candidate George McGovern in 1972 when it was revealed that his vice-presidential pick Thomas Eagleton had mental stability issues. If that happened to be the case today (as I suspect it is) the media would gloss over everything to get what they want. Obama isnt the best choice the Dems have for a presidential pick, he's just their best chance of winning it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Eagleton

[Scout26]

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.....

 

[taurusowner]

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.

[HankB]

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.

 

[ronnyreagan]

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.

[Balog]

Methinks someone needs to learn the difference between news and op-ed. One is supposed to be biased, one isn't.

[ronnyreagan]

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.

[MechAg94]

I don't think there was ever a time when the media wasn't biased.  It is just that most were ignorant of the rampant biases of Walter Cronkite and others of his time since news sources were limited.  I am a bit surprised during this election just how open and obvious the bias toward Obama is. 

[HankB]

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.

[Manedwolf]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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. 

[ilbob]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

ilbob,

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. 

[don]

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. 

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.

[Scout26]

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.

[don]

PBS is the nearest thing to fair I've heard. Usually they will present both sides of the argument.

[Monkeyleg]

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.

[Intune]

Pravda is the nearest thing to fair I've seen.  That, coupled with a good childrens choir, is usually enough to inspire me in the morning as I prepare for the rigors of targeting wealth redistribution.

O.