I couldn't disagree with you more, Robert. Anyone that uses Foxnews Channel as an example of anything "news" related is, to me, hopelessly biased.
There is definitely some bias in reporting. But GOOD reporters try to overcome their bias. Bad reporters embrace their bias. To me the difference between much mainstream press and Foxnews (and many other recent "conservative" "news" outlets), is that the mainstream press may not present all the facts, and may leave out some facts (usually due to an unadmitted but present bias), but many "conservative" "news" outlets (and some recent "liberal" "news" outlets) DELIBERATELY publish known untruths, misrepresentations, and purposefully leave out uncomfortable facts to fit an acknowledged agenda. This is unconscionable. Now, I trust very few of the new "up-to-the-minute" news outlets. They don't take the time to verify their facts before going on the air, but rush to publish. So I immediately discount any "facts" they display, since they seldom have had the time (or inclination) to verify, and much of the "news" discussion is complete wild-ass-guesses. I also completely discount any information presented on talking-head shows (The O'Reilly factor being the most egregious example, but every station (and many websites) have their own versions.) But most print papers, magazines, and television programs with features tend to get their FACTS straight. They may not present all of them, they may slant a story to a particular viewpoint, but the facts they do present are usually true. (This includes most Murdock-owned print platforms, even if their tv product is so bad). The current slant towards opinion and away from facts is NOT a good trend in my mind (regardless of the political beliefs behind the opinion.) I don't care what YOU think about an issue. I just want the facts, as many as I can get and from as many decent sources as I can find, and I'll figure out how I feel about the issue. I do listen to some talking-head shows. The ones that truly present multiple sides of an issue, with reasoned discourse, are useful to me. As they trot out their arguments, I refine my thoughts on the subject. Much as I use mailing lists for the same purpose. I don't want a news outlet that tells me what I want to hear. That is lazy. I don't expect a news outlet to give me all sides of a story. Most are money-driven businesses, and are going to give the simplest, cheapest story they can hold my attention (and dollars) with. Some have realized they can get a premium for my eyes and ears by better, deeper content. As for media not covering the "good" stories in Iraq, show me a news outlet that shows local "good" stories in their city. Then measure those stories to the "bad" stories they do. I bet it pretty much matches what we are seeing for "good" and "bad" stories from Iraq. Most news outlets consider running a "kid and dog" story to be a bad sign, and they actually call it a "slow news day". You are being completely unrealistic to believe that any news outlet is going to act any other way. Or "should" do anything. Or that they would do much different if it were Bill Clinton as CIC in Iraq. Or that this is a recent phenomonon. go read a paper from 1930. It wasn't all sugar and light. It was scandal, murder, car wrecks, and obituaries. On 3/26/06, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Her column is a total evasion. What are the above-the-fold, leading > headlines on Iraq? They are almost always stories about the political or > military aspects of the war, and they are almost always negative. The New > York Times, which seems to have a personal vendetta against George Bush, is > by far the worst abuser of this kind of manipulation. And of the stories > that they do cover, how many of them are positive? Do you ever hear stories > about the Kurdish region? Nothing going on there, just a whole chunk of the > country that is functioning very well. What about the south, around Basra? > Nope. Nothing to report there, even though the Brits are seriously talking > about leaving the country because basically the Iraqis have everything in > hand in the south and the Brits are not really needed any longer. > > There is plenty of bad stuff to talk about in Iraq, but the big newspapers > and tv networks present the story pretty much following the talking points > of the Democratic Party. Big surprise there, since almost everyone working > in news in those organizations is a liberal. Everyone is entitled to their > own opinion, but a lot of the reporting is colored by opinion. Remember the > dumb-ass reporter who, three days into the war, questioned whether the > military was caught in a "quagmire"? That barely even deserves a reponse. > > Liberals like to bitch about Fox News, which is all well and good, but they > fail to see the delicious irony of the situation- that they are finally > getting a taste of what conservatives (and moderates to some extent) have > had to put up with in pretty much every other major media outlet for > decades. > > Every news organization has a political bias. Every reporter, editor, and > publisher has a political bias. But they pretend not to because it provides > them with cover when the public complains about bias. > > > > On 3/26/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I think this charge is one of dumber things that I've ever heard, but, > > part of life is beating down the dumb so I will offer this piece from > > the Washington Post's Ombudsman: > > > > > > The Post's senior military reporter, Thomas E. Ricks, believes > > journalists in Iraq are providing a more accurate picture about what > > is happening than the military. > > > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/24/AR2006032401717.html > > > > And I'll add this satire taken from a real headline: > > > > In Iraq today, gunman broke into a bakery and shot 4 men dead. It > > should be noted, however, that the bakery made excellent banana bread. > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:201641 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
