Still. http://www.aegis.com/news/ap/1995/AP950702.html is supposed to be an
AP story and it says he said substantially the same thing. (Felt a need to
check )
Dana
Dan Phillips \(CFXHosting.com\) writes:
> Yeah, its tied in with landoverbaptist.org
>
>
> -----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]
