liberal in the first place? When the ACLU, on behalf of a student,
files a suit against a high school for beginning football games with a
school-sponsored prayer, what do I read on CNN's site? "ACLU Sues to
Stop School Prayer" or something. This, of course, is completely
wrong. The ACLU is suing to stop a state-sponsored initiation of
prayer, but a well-worded headline does a much better job of ruffling
feathers. Conservative pundits immediately rail about "lbruuuuuls" and
the decimation of American values, letters to the editor from rubes with
thesauruses suddenly pop up from all sides, when in fact, the ACLU is
doing the absolute right thing. Someone who says "No, they're trying to
ban state-sponsored religious _expression_, which is blantantly
unconstitutional", they're immediately "liberal" who's bent on
"undermining traditional values".
I don't even know what a liberal is anymore, to be honest. I've seen
everyone from ELF maniacs to levelheaded naysayers branded with the same
label. Same thing with conservatives - Pat Robertson is not the same
thing as, say, a fiscal conservative like the orgy-happy Schwarzenegger,
but they're the same in a rabble-rousing sound byte. Feh.
- Jim
Kevin Schmidt wrote:
>Dana, let me dig up some of the quotes from Nina Totenburg and see if you think they are objective. I do listen to NPR, it's certainly better than listening to Bob and Tom on the way into work. I enjoy Bob Edwards and Carl Castle, however they, NPR, rarely, if ever, present viewpoints that are from conservative groups. I should start a log, of course, I don't listen 24/7, but just track how often the only present the viewpoint from the liberal side of the issue, or only talk to a Liberal group and try to pass them off as non partisan.
>
>
>
>
>>Objectivity is rarely attained by anyone, even a journalist who is
>>conciously striving for it.
>>
>>Furthermore it can be perverted. If the president made a speech tomorrow
>>that said that Canada was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction I think
>>Fox would report it deadpan:
>>
>>"President Bush today nnounced that British intelligence has learned that
>>the Canadians are srockpiling weapons of mass destruction." Neither their
>>format not their temperament would lead them to go further. At best this
>>reporting style is straight out of Journalism 101, where the director of
>>economic development is presumed to be an authoritative source on the
>>effects of the county budget, a congressman is presumed to be speaking
>>truth when he says what the bill he is introducing will do, etc. But this
>>made them prey if not willing patsies for corrupt government officials.
>>(let's say there are some; I don't think you believe this yet, but humor
>>me) Journalism has now taken a statement made to a roomful of people and
>>made it global ok and by the way sold a lot of newspapers. This type of
>>journalist covers the facts but not the story.
>>
>>NPR would be more likely to say huh? Canada? we must be talking about
>>Labatt's bottles, and to look into it. To be fair, their format allows them
>>a more detailed examination of the stories they cover. But beyond that I
>>think that they do at least try harder to present the truth as they see it.
>>They are of the interpretive school of journalism that would report the
>>above story so:
>>
>>"President Bush's surprising assertion earlier today that Canada is
>>stockpiling WMD is possibly due due to the breakbown earlier this week of
>>trade talks between the two countries, speculates Professor Blabla WoofWoof
>>of the thisnthant Institute for Policy Studies. He is here with us today in
>>the studio. Professor, why do you say that..."
>>
>>ëtc
>>
>>The latter is arguably less objective but is also less uncritical and so
>>may come closer to the truth.
>>
>>MY deep thought for the day. I am outta here.
>>
>>Dana
>>
>>Kevin Schmidt writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Of course it's not, for you. Because you know the answer is no.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>At 10:44 AM 10/17/2003, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I knew it Larry. You wouldn't be able to answer a simple yes or no
>>>>>question. So i'll try again. Do you think NPR presents an unbiased view
>>>>>of the news? Yes or No, it's a pretty easy question.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Its simply not worth replying to your sort of screedn.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
