There is a different O'reilly, Hannity, et al have opinion shows. Not news shows. They are supposed to express their opinions, and their bias. Last time I checked, morning edition was not labeled an opinion program.
>But you're not presenting the context of that quote. That quote is not from
>her as a reporter on NPR, it's from her as a guest on the talk show "Inside
>Washington". She wasn't working in the capacity of a reporter for that show,
>she was there in the capacity of a guest with an opinion. HUGE difference.
>
>I do listen to NPR all the time, and I can say that she almost always keeps
>her personal opinions out of her reporting. I've seen her on the lecture
>circuit, and yes she personally is biased. But that is different than her
>presentation on NPR.
>
>But on Fox, O'Reilly, Hume and gang wrap up their opinions and present it as
>reporting. HUGE difference.
>
>-Kevin
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kevin Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 2:03 PM
>Subject: Re:fair and balanced more on the Fox Survey
>
>
>> Dana, the reason I mention is that bias leads to lack of objectivity.
>Take this quote from Ms Totenberg. This is one of her more agregious
>statements. I'll find more at home when I'm not at work.
>>
>> "I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's
>mind, because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a
>transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."
>>
>> That was in regards to a statment Jesse Helms made.
>>
>> I am not arguing that Fox is unbiased or always truthful. What I am
>arguing is that NPR is not the unbiased bastion of news that Larry wants it
>to be or thinks it is, and they don't always, almost never, portray both
>sides of the issue. They aren't always truthful when it comes to portraying
>news stories, because I believe in order to be truthful you have to present
>both sides of the story.
>>
>> >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]
