journalism.
-Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: fair and balanced more on the Fox Survey
> I have no idea who Nina Totenberg is but I will look at the quotes. if I
am
> stil here. When I listen it is usually in the car or late at night; I
catch
> all those specials about murders in Manitoba and things :)
>
> Kevin Schmidt writes:
>
> > 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]
