|
|
|
|
|
| SFReader Forums > The Real World > World Events > News Junkies | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
MichaelEhart
Sage
      
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 2352
| Posted 2/2/2007 8:41 PM (GMT -5) |   | | "The NYT for example offers zero conservative editorials and I believe this editorial direction bleeds into the presentation of hard news. Are there any self described conservatives writing op-ed pieces or do you run any syndicated columns by such people?"
I love you man, but by saying this you only show that you seldom read the NYT. Yes, Krugman is clearly a liberal, but Brooks is a pretty far-right guy.
You know, one of the funny things about the left-right-center idea is it is always so far behind. An example is 62% now think that Iraq was a mistake, but Joe Lieberman is held up as a centrist, which means that 62% of America is out of the mainstream? Oh, and by the way, the most knee-jerk conservative columnist in the known universe, Jonah Goldberg, is a columinst for the LAT.
Once again, the liberal bias thing used to be true, but not any more. Even NPR has conservative commentary 2-1 over liberal. And the vast bulk of the talking heads are conservative.
Want a really jarring disconnect? read the Wall Street Journal news section for a couple of days, then switch to the op-ed page. It is like two different papers.
Oh, and to say that Bernard Goldberg is unbiased or doesn't have an axe to grind? Check out his latest book:
100 People Who Are Screwing Up America: (and Al Franken Is #37)
Here's the list from his book:
- Michael Moore, Filmmaker and author
- Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., New York Times publisher
- Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts Senator
- Jesse Jackson
- Anthony Romero Executive Director ACLU
- Jimmy Carter, Former President
- Margaret Marshall, Massachusetts Chief Justice
- Paul Krugman, New York Times columnist
- Jonathan Kozol, Author
- Ralph Neas, President of People for the American Way
- Noam Chomsky, Author, professor
- Dan Rather, Newsman and author
- Andrew Heyward
- Mary Mapes
- Ted Rall
- John Edwards, Congressman and former VP candidate
- Al Sharpton, Reverend
- Al Gore, Former Vice President
- George Soros
- Howard Dean
- Roy Moore, Judge
- Michael Newdow
- The Unknown American Terrorist
- Lee Bollinger
- James Kopp
- Dr. Martin Haskell
- Paul Begala
- Julian Bond
- John Green
- Latrell Sprewell
- Maury Povich
- Jerry Springer
- Bob Shrum
- Bill Moyers
- Jeff Danziger
- Nancy Hopkins
- Al Franken, Comedian and radio-host
- Jim McDermott, Congressman
- Peter Singer
- Scott Harshbarger, Former Massachusetts Attorney General
- Susan Beresford
- Gloria Steinem
- Paul Eibeler
- Dennis Kozlowski
- Ken Lay, Former Enron CEO
- Barbara Walters
- Maxine Waters
- Robert Byrd
- Ingrid Newkirk
- John Vasconcellos
- Ann Pelo
- Markos Moulitsas, Blogger
- Anna Nicole Smith
- Neal Shapiro
- David Westin
- Diane Sawyer
- Ted Field
- Eminem, Rapper
- Shirley Franklin
- Ludacris, Rapper
- Michael Savage
- Howard Stern, Radio-host
- Amy Richards
- James Wolcott
- Oliver Stone, Filmmaker
- David Duke
- Randall Robinson
- Katherine Hanson
- Matt Kunitz
- Jimmy Swaggart
- Phil Donahue
- Ward Churchill
- Barbara Kingsolver
- Katha Politt
- Eric Foner
- Barbara Foley
- Linda Hirshman
- Norman Mailer
- Harry Belafonte
- Kitty Kelley
- Tim Robbins, Actor
- Laurie David
- The Dumb and Vicious Celebrity
- The Vicious Celebrity
- The Dumb Celebrity
- Chris Ofili
- Sheldon Hackney
- Aaron McGruder
- Jane Smiley
- Michael Jackson
- Barbara Streisand
- Kerri Dunn
- Richard Timmons
- Guy Velella
- Courtney Love, Musician (or in Goldberg's words, whore)
- Eve Ensler
- Todd Goldman
- Sheila Jackson Lee
- Matthew Lesko
- Rick and Kathy Hilton, Parents of Paris Hilton
"The Scarlet Colored Beast" The Sword Review, September 2007
"Nothing But Our Tears" The Sword Review. August 2007
"Weaving Spiders Come Not Here" The Sword Review, July 2007
"Six Zombies Doing That Mick Jagger Strut" Damned in Dixie, March 2007
"The Death of Number 23" Dark Krypt, Fall 2006
"Servant of the Manthycore" Sword Review, April 2006
"Voice of the Spoiler" Better Fiction, Spring 2006
"Dancing with the Elder Gods"-- Thirteen Magazine, October 2005
"It's a Living" Byzarium---November 2005
"An Exorcism Straight, Hold the Elvis" The Sword Review, October 2005
Host, 2005 Nebula Awards Live Chat, sff.net
http://mehart.blogspot.com/ | | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2176
| Posted 2/2/2007 9:34 PM (GMT -5) | | Mike I followed that NYT link, but I'm not sure how it coresponds to your argument. Unless you mean I used the hyperbolic "zero" and you found the "one." Well the one, I think. Which one of those op-eds was written by the conservite? Not the soft-lefter, not the median but the consistant right of center guy spreading that world prism every sunday?
It is your contention that because of a plausible denibility op-editor that the LAT is not liberal biases?! The LAT? For the point of the arugment I'll give you the lone ranger standing in the face of the mob--but I'm not sure the examples prove a lack of bias; rather the other way.
I mean NYT and LAT are unabashed biased, they present their news in that fashion without apology. Are you saying you don't see that slant or that the slant is simply the 'truth.'? Not really an argument--I'm just confused by your chosen examples relating to the overall thrust, but it's probably me.
As for Goldberg. 100 People is a different and later book than Arrogance or Bias. However I haven't read 100 where he details his arguments: the shape-up on the list may be about right in terms of activism and influence. I'm not saying it is: only that he must make his case in the book for his view. The list out of context of the argument is just that in this case is all I'm saying. Perhaps there are 94 conservatives and 6 liberals who would fit on activism, but not on being in a position of influence.
NPR did change formats under a new director. They specifically addressed their slant and maybe over corrected. But Air America? Before the bankrupcy?
Anyway those are small potatos compared to the direction NBC has gone in over the last couple months according to the Center for Media Study.
PS: Mike, what's up with the "Oh Dear, Look Here," man? Save the good sarcasm for rock solid points, my brother 
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
MichaelEhart
Sage
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 2352
| Posted 2/2/2007 10:26 PM (GMT -5) | | LOL, no offense meant. Hyperboly noted. But the zero was a real number statement, which I responded to.
ABC--- you mean the "Path to 9/11" network? Written by Cyrus Nowrasteh, who "spoke on a panel titled, “Rebels With a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood’s Next Paradigm Shift.” He has described Michael Moore as “an out of control socialist weasel,” and conducted interviews with right-wing websites like FrontPageMag."
I don't know the Center for Media Study, and can't seem to find them--- maybe a link?
Point is, nearly every news organization gets it from both sides. And as Steven Colbert says, the "truth has a well-known liberal bias" at least these days.
Fox (excepting the occasional wink like their slogans) is clearly far to the right, and really doesn't try very hard to be in any way balanced. Examples abound, like repeatedly indentifying Mark Foley as a democrat, or the Osama/Obama labling, or the Obama Madrassa story, which is on a par with the bad docs story. I still like their sports, and that style carries over to the way they present their news. They have a lot more commentary than anyone else, too, and with the exception of Colmes, who clearly was chosen to project a wimpy stereotype of a liberal, there is not even a center there, only hard right.
I used to like Goldberg, but 9/11 seems to have unhinged him.
Now, none of this is specifically aimed at you, and you may be surprised to learn that I often have the same arguement ---of most reporters biased toward making their inches more than anything--- on liberal websites when someone starts on the hopeless, dishonest MSM. And while I read many conservative websites (and mags) I never comment there, because they react insanely. Which is why I like posting such here, 'cause our insanity here has nothing to do with politics--- we are delusional in other ways. :)
BTW, what is the title of your Bolan? Release date? I haven't bought one in years, but we have to show those guys that a Nathan-written Bolan has a high-level sell-through :)
"The Scarlet Colored Beast" The Sword Review, September 2007
"Nothing But Our Tears" The Sword Review. August 2007
"Weaving Spiders Come Not Here" The Sword Review, July 2007
"Six Zombies Doing That Mick Jagger Strut" Damned in Dixie, March 2007
"The Death of Number 23" Dark Krypt, Fall 2006
"Servant of the Manthycore" Sword Review, April 2006
"Voice of the Spoiler" Better Fiction, Spring 2006
"Dancing with the Elder Gods"-- Thirteen Magazine, October 2005
"It's a Living" Byzarium---November 2005
"An Exorcism Straight, Hold the Elvis" The Sword Review, October 2005
Host, 2005 Nebula Awards Live Chat, sff.net
http://mehart.blogspot.com/ | | Back to Top | | |
|
Swashbuckler
One-man sword-and-sorcery machine
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 1286
| Posted 2/2/2007 11:18 PM (GMT -5) | | Nathan: Remember, dude, I want a signed copy of the Bolan!
I've only read Goldberg's introduction to "Arrogance," so far. In it, he asserts that liberal bias shows not only in what the mainstream media chooses to report, but in what it chooses NOT to report. He cites as an example that the MSM has reports of racial prejudice and discrimination all the time, but remains silent on a study that points out that 79 percent of the people who finish high school, marry before having a child and avoid having a child before age 20 manage to avoid poverty.
He may be revealing a bit here by linking that study so directly to race, but I'll ignore that. My problem with this statement of his is that the mainstream media HAS, in fact, reported that study. I've seen in on CNN. I've heard about it on NPR. I've read about it in the Associated Press. I've seen it cited in columns, by both liberal and conservative writers, printed in "liberal" newspapers. It's tough for me to believe Goldberg simply missed it, but he baldly asserts that we hear "almost nothing" about these findings in the mainstream media.
It's going to be very, very tough for Goldberg's book to win me over to his view if he's going to keep making statements that I know to be completely untrue. So ... is that kind of thing I can expect in the rest of the book? Or does he start doing some actual journalism at some point? Because easily disproved "facts" don't impress me much.
Also: He uses a lot of exclamation points. That bugs me. Makes the book read like a Rush Limbaugh script, or an ad for some amazing new power cleanser.
I'll keep reading, but so far ... a swing and a miss.
-- Steve
Steve Goble
Visit my web site for news on upcoming stories or visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom | | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2176
| Posted 2/3/2007 1:57 AM (GMT -5) | |
MichaelEhart said... Fox (excepting the occasional wink like their slogans) is clearly far to the right, and really doesn't try very hard to be in any way balanced. Examples abound, like repeatedly indentifying Mark Foley as a democrat, or the Osama/Obama labling, or the Obama Madrassa story, which is on a par with the bad docs story. I still like their sports, and that style carries over to the way they present their news. They have a lot more commentary than anyone else, too, and with the exception of Colmes, who clearly was chosen to project a wimpy stereotype of a liberal, there is not even a center there, only hard right. Which is why I like posting such here, 'cause our insanity here has nothing to do with politics--- we are delusional in other ways. :) BTW, what is the title of your Bolan? Release date? I haven't bought one in years, but we have to show those guys that a Nathan-written Bolan has a high-level sell-through :)
Oh I think Jane Skinner and Shepard Smith do a good job. Commentators are crazy. Hannity is an idiot. John Gibson is an idiot. Cavueto I feel makes points on economics but he never met a huge business he didn't like. Ever. Brit Hume seems okay he's to droll to be biased.
I admit I love watching O'Rielly. His show is like big time wrestling for news commentary. He makes people crazy and I've never seen a guy more misquoted by people who hate him but he says up front "I have a traditionalist prism" so it seems far from underhanded.
On your 2nd point: When you're right you are right.
My book comes out on April 10th there's a link under brag thread Rebel Force? I'd post it but I'm sneaking an f-off in at work and can't make the damn computer do it--which is why I may sound terse. I'm supposed to be doing something we some narcotic for a group of human lab rats, but I'm sure they'll be fine.
center_for_media_studies: it's at rugters and they put out all kinds of reports as a non-partisan think tank. Fun stuff in general to snoop and poop thru.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2176
| Posted 2/3/2007 2:00 AM (GMT -5) | |
Swashbuckler said...Nathan: Remember, dude, I want a signed copy of the Bolan! I've only read Goldberg's introduction to "Arrogance," so far. In it, he asserts that liberal bias shows not only in what the mainstream media chooses to report, but in what it chooses NOT to report. He cites as an example that the MSM has reports of racial prejudice and discrimination all the time, but remains silent on a study that points out that 79 percent of the people who finish high school, marry before having a child and avoid having a child before age 20 manage to avoid poverty. He may be revealing a bit here by linking that study so directly to race, but I'll ignore that. My problem with this statement of his is that the mainstream media HAS, in fact, reported that study. I've seen in on CNN. I've heard about it on NPR. I've read about it in the Associated Press. I've seen it cited in columns, by both liberal and conservative writers, printed in "liberal" newspapers. It's tough for me to believe Goldberg simply missed it, but he baldly asserts that we hear "almost nothing" about these findings in the mainstream media. It's going to be very, very tough for Goldberg's book to win me over to his view if he's going to keep making statements that I know to be completely untrue. So ... is that kind of thing I can expect in the rest of the book? Or does he start doing some actual journalism at some point? Because easily disproved "facts" don't impress me much. Also: He uses a lot of exclamation points. That bugs me. Makes the book read like a Rush Limbaugh script, or an ad for some amazing new power cleanser. I'll keep reading, but so far ... a swing and a miss. -- Steve
I get Bolan contributor copies on March 10 you are there then. Look at when the Gold book was published then move forward from there. Remember he'd had people rioting in the street so I don't know if he was being deliberatly, purposefully obtuse if reports came out after he published the book.
I had forgotten the exclamanition points. I have no love of the ! sentence.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2176
| Posted 2/3/2007 4:13 AM (GMT -5) | | | No, no, no, lol. I wrote too quickly cause I was at work. I meant the book had been written a couple of years ago and that you should remember that if, say, referencing a story you saw yesterday, or last year, for example.--also that his focus in on his personal experience at CBS over 30 years and the "elite" venues
By rioting I only meant people had strong emotions when the book came out. I slip into the comedic hyperbole too easily when talking with you guys cause in my head I hear us talking around a cooler.
Anyway, I said upstream (to paraphrase) that I trusted your judgement and that I would renounce Goldberg as a reference source for my opinions if you thought him full of crap.
I did that because I trust you not have a I'm-going-to-disprove-this mindset going in or to ignore valid points if you don't personally like the conclusions, or to focus on minutia to disprove the forest by arguing the tree. --I don't mean that loaded, I mean that sincerely. If you think his points are crap then I will stick to my promise. The point being that I wasn't trying to argue with you, just specifying the context.
Plus I love to talk books so, you know I'll prather right on. 
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Swashbuckler
One-man sword-and-sorcery machine
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 1286
| Posted 2/3/2007 2:12 PM (GMT -5) | | Nathan: Ah ... I misread your comment about the riots, etc., so will withdraw my reply to that.
I checked the publication date on Goldberg's book. I had thought it a bit more recent. It's possible that the poverty study referred to above had not been reported much prior to his book; I doubt it but I don't really know for sure one way or another. I've heard those stats for a long time, but I have no idea if I'd heard them before this book was written. So I'll lay off on that point.
I've read a bit further. So far he's stuck primarily with the TV networks and with the NY Times. I have no love for TV network news at all, primarily because of shallow sound-byte and startling videoclip coverage, so I seldom watch it. Thus, I can't really comment much on his remarks so far. As for the Times, yeah, I do think the Sulzberger/Raines agenda drove coverage there for a long time, and probably has not changed much despite rolling heads. But I don't read the Times daily, so I don't know.
On his comments about the Elizabeth Smart/Erica Pratt coverage, and the racial divide in TV coverage there, I can agree with Goldberg. That the networks covered Erica Pratt's story at all probably was just damage control after devoting so much air time to the abduction of a white girl, and the decision not to go into the Pratt family background probably was due to a squeamish desire not to appear racist. Still, we're talking about the TV networks, where I've never been a fan of the quality of their journalism.
I didn't think Goldberg handled his Dan Rather/Andy Rooney chapter very well, though. He didn't cite enough of Rooney's interview (where he said he thought Dan Rather was transparently liberal) to give context, so it's hard to tell if Rooney's comments constitute the smoking gun confession Godlberg makes it out to be. And in relating his own talk with Rooney, Goldberg fouls up: He asks Rooney a question, gets an answer, then goes on to tell us the important thing is what Rooney DID NOT say, and made Rooney seem evasive merely because the answer Goldberg got was not the answer Goldberg wanted. That's a really sloppy report of an interview, and pretty bad interview technique, and rather not cricket of Goldberg to go ahead and try to mind-read Rooney.
And I have no flipping idea at all why Goldberg seems to think it was just a horrible thing for Barbara Walters to interview Anne Heche about her stint as a lesbian. Goldberg gives no context or argument, just plops it out there. He does a lot of that here and there throughout the book so far, burying his points in a fog of irrelevent white noise (and exclamation points).
I did like the discussion with Tim Russert, though.
Still got a lot of book to go. I'll let you know what I think as I go through it, because this is fun.
Steve Goble
Visit my web site for news on upcoming stories or visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Swashbuckler
One-man sword-and-sorcery machine
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 1286
| Posted 2/6/2007 2:21 PM (GMT -5) | | Nathan: I finished the Goldberg book, and I'm not particularly impressed.
By way of disclaimer first, let me tell you I am pro gay rights, pro gun ownership, no fan of the Bush administration, against using tax dollars to subsidize art shows (whether they include foul images of Christ or not), pro diversity of hiring in newsrooms but against quotas and I fully support a wider definition of diversity to include religion, social class, political thought, etc.
OK, now my thoughts on Goldberg's book:
1) I think his defintition of "mainstream media" is out-of-date and way too narrow. Whenever he starts talking about what he sees as bias in presenting the news, he is almost invariably talking about CBS, NBC, ABC and the New York Times. Now, I don't watch network news because I find it shallow and celebrity-driven, so for all I know his points about those are accurate. I read NY Times stuff from time to time, mostly online, and I cherry-pick that to read about the topics that most interest me. But I have seen a lot of stuff -- in the "mainstream media," no less -- taking the Times to task in recent years for gearing its news coverage to the publisher's worldview. That may well be the case. Let's assume for the sake of argument Goldberg is right on the money. That's four options for news out of hundreds of options available to readers and viewers. Among those hundreds are some that take a very conservative point-of-view (Fox, talk radio, various publications), some that take a very liberal point-of-view (AirAmerica, the View, various publications) and a whole lot of mid-size market and small market newspapers, TV and radio stations that just try to report the news as fairly as possible. Add the online sources to the mix and the choices are staggering, nor does Goldberg make any case at all that conservative viewpoints are squelched or that news is slanted in the big overall picture.
2) I can't help but note that fairly often, Goldberg cites an example of bias and then notes that some other "mainstream" media outlet pointed that bias out later. This is a bit of self-correction at work; the idea being that if we keep looking at things and discussing them the truth eventually will rise to the surface. Considering all the news options out there today, I think this self-corrective process probably is stronger now than it was in the past.
3) Goldberg resorts several times to the cheap trick of telling me what he thinks is going on in someone else's mind -- examples that spring immediately to mind are the talk with Andy Rooney and the bit about David Westin, but there are others. Bottom line: Goldberg doesn't know what Rooney and Westin are thinking any more than I do. I'd trust Goldberg's reporting more if he stuck to telling me what people said or did and resisted the temptation to tell me what they think.
4) On a similar note are some made-up examples. The big one was where Goldberg cited some news executive (I forget who) eulogizing a gay writer and crediting her with expanding thought in the newsroom, challenging norms, etc. Goldberg goes on to ask whether a longtime conservative Christian writer would have received such a glowing sendoff, and concludes such a writer would not. Well, just how the F&%k does Goldberg know that? He doesn't. Opinion is one thing, but it isn't a firm basis for a concrete argument. Goldberg is entitled to his opinions and suppositions, but he isn't going to convince me of anything by relying on them in making his arguments.
5) He uses way too many unnamed sources. "A friend in the industry emailed me ..." "Some people I've talked to, who wouldn't want their names used for fear of losing their jobs..." Stuff like that. Number one, unnamed sources leave a bad taste in my mouth. I don't like them at any level. Occasionally, however, an unnamed source is the only way you can get a key part of a story, and so sometimes they are used. It should be done sparringly, though, and Goldberg's book doesn't, in my opinion, rise to the level of needing to use unnamed sources. There are tons of media outlets these days. If a reporter at ABC or CBS or whatever said something out loud to make the bosses mad, they could have a job at Fox or CNN or whatever the next day. They could write a book about the experience of speaking up and getting canned and make more money than they do at the network. I have a tough time believing Goldberg simply couldn't find people to go on the record.
6) Goldberg does not always differentiate between reporting the news and discussing the news, or between a straight news story and an opinion piece. He cites lots and lots of examples of columnists revealing liberal views (in columns which are supposed to opinionated) while failing to point out that there are tons of conservative columnists out there, too. He cites numerous examples of TV talking heads making comments that reveal a liberal worldview at cocktail parties, in classroom discussions, in pundit-type TV shows, etc. Well, journalists aren't supposed to wall themselves off from the world. Of course they have opinions on important matters. I dislike the Bush administration intensely, but I don't select news stories that I think make him look bad, or seek out some negative element to play up in the headline when he makes a speech, or pick the goofiest looking Bush photos I can find. I'm quite capable of writing a headline that reflects what Bush said (in fact, I often try to use a direct quote so there is no question of me "interpreting"), or picking a photo that makes him look human. I do, sometimes, admire those photos that make him look like an idiot, and I crack a lot of jokes about some of his dumber statements. But what I do on my time is quite different from what I do in the paper I work at, and I can honestly say the same for most of the people I've worked with over the last twenty years or so.
7) This point goes back a bit to Goldberg's focus on ABC, CBS, NBC and the Times, whereas I see the phrase "mainstream media" as encompassing a much wider array of media outlets. Goldberg quite often asserts that almost everyone in the newsroom, especially those in positions of power, has an elitist liberal worldview. Maybe that is true at those media outlets; as I say, I don't watch network news or read the Times with any real frequency. But in my own newsroom (where I'm a midlevel guy; I have no real power over others but I do make my points and often get listened to) we have a very conservative managing editor; a feminist animal-loving veggie-eating reporter; three agnostics; a lot of Christians; vocal conservatives among the writing and photo staffs; vocal liberals among the writing and photo staffs; a liberal feminist on the editorial side; a handful of people who honestly don't seem to give a lot of thought to any of this; one or two who keep their politics and religious views pretty much to themselves; etc. etc. etc. Such has been pretty much the case everywhere I've worked -- a variety of viewpoints and a lot of arguments and discussions. Such discussions are one of the reasons I stay in this business. So when I keep hearing about how the "mainstream media" is so damned uniformly liberal, it kind of makes my skin crawl because it just doesn't mesh with the reality I've experienced.
8) Just one specific observation: Goldberg mentions that newspapers don't report race in crime stories, and thinks we should because if a criminal is at large it might help locate the person if the papers mentioned that he was black. Well, here is the policy at our paper, which has been pretty much the policy at every paper I've worked at:
If the report gives a full description of a suspect, enough of a description that it actually might help identify the crook, then we do mention race. If, however, the only description witnesses gave police was "two black men" or "a Hispanic guy" we do NOT include mention of race. Those descriptives don't add to the chances of identifying a suspect, and serve only to perpetuate stereotypes, so we don't include them. We do, however, often report statistical stuff such as "X percent of major crimes in 2006 consisted of black-on-black crime, Y percent was white-on-white, etc."
9) Goldberg offered a list of resource organizations that would be more than happy to provide conservative angles on news coverage. Cato Institute, the Ashbrook Center, National Right to Life Committee, etc. The thing that struck me most as I read his lengthy list is how often I see so many of those organizations cited or quoted in newspapers and the Associated Press. There were only a few I'd never heard of.
10) I'm still not utterly convinced on the point that started me on this road, about the gun incident at a Virgina college where Goldberg asserts the liberal media didn't mention that the gunmen was subdued by people using guns for defense. He doesn't really go into enough detail for me to figure it out without Googling the original reports, etc. He does refer to reports "soon afterward," but does not really define that. So I don't know if the initial reports failed to mention guns because reporters had not yet heard that angle or because they had not confirmed it, or because some editor decided to squelch that to avoid giving "gun nuts" a talking point. I still doubt the latter premise -- given the number of media outlets and the hot-button nature of the issue, any editor would have to realize the gun angle woud come out no matter what, and every editor I've ever worked with in my entire life would rather report the gun angle to avoid looking like he didn't get the whole story than to squelch the gun angle and have everybody else report it. I still suspect there is some other factor at work on that example, but there are not enough specifics in Goldberg's book for me to judge and I'm not going to take the time to track it all down.
11) One last observation: Goldberg cites many examples of bias at the networks. I could cite a lot of other sins committed by the networks, too. I think part of the problem with the networks (and other national TV news outlets) goes more to the "star" nature of TV personalities such as Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw, etc. I think the TV people sometimes lose sight of the fact that they aren't the news. I think the bigger names sometimes get away with stuff because they know they can; people love Katie! TV news also has problems with depth; you just can't cram a lot of nuance into a sound byte. When TV goes deeper, such as in specials and documentaries, the results are often better, but not always. Much depends on the "entertainment" factor, and TV has a tendency to do gushing reports on things that are sensational but not necessarily news. This relates to Goldberg's book in that, by focusing so much on the networks and less on all the hundreds of other media outlets, I think he paints a very narrow picture.
There's probably more I could say, but I've gone on long enough. Thanks for sending the book.
Steve Goble
Visit my web site for news on upcoming stories or visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom | | Back to Top | | |
|
MichaelEhart
Sage
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 2352
| Posted 2/6/2007 7:03 PM (GMT -5) | | Though it has been several years since I was a reporter, I have to agree on the newsroom mix; very hard to find any one uniform slant either way. Lots of variety, and in one case in particular the best reporter in the house was as reactionary, as far to the right of the John Birchers (literally, he told me about going to a local meeting and scaring them) as Archie Bunker. You'd never know it by following his byline, though. Always liked it when someone wrote an LTE bemoaning his obvious liberal bias.
I am working on an essay about confirmation bias, and the lamentalbe tendancy of humans to put faith in someone just because he is on their "team." This, I think, is the source of continuing popularity of the liberal bias meme--- as conservatives tend to be more authoritarian in their world-view, it makes it harder to believe that their icons could be in error and much easier to believe that someone, in this case the evil liberal media, is out to get them.
Great quote from Rupert Murdoch today:
Asked if his News Corp. managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq, Murdoch said: "No, I don't think so. We tried." Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: "We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East…but we have been very critical of his execution."
"The Scarlet Colored Beast" The Sword Review, September 2007
"Nothing But Our Tears" The Sword Review. August 2007
"Weaving Spiders Come Not Here" The Sword Review, July 2007
"Six Zombies Doing That Mick Jagger Strut" Damned in Dixie, March 2007
"The Death of Number 23" Dark Krypt, Fall 2006
"Servant of the Manthycore" Sword Review, April 2006
"Voice of the Spoiler" Better Fiction, Spring 2006
"Dancing with the Elder Gods"-- Thirteen Magazine, October 2005
"It's a Living" Byzarium---November 2005
"An Exorcism Straight, Hold the Elvis" The Sword Review, October 2005
Host, 2005 Nebula Awards Live Chat, sff.net
http://mehart.blogspot.com/ | | Back to Top | | |
| | |