-----Original Message-----
From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 3:42 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: fair and balanced more on the Fox Survey
oooooooooops I just realized that bettybowers.com is a parody site. ANd
a
pretty good one it seems. Let me know if those are real quotes.
Kevin Schmidt writes:
> 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]
