> Dan:
> What level of sourcing is required? The article stated that one source
was
> Janes. No, they didn't give a _specific_ cite to a _specific_ article or
> employee, but then again, neither does most news services.
>

Marc:
Actually most do. For instance, a science article will say, "In an article
in the
most recent issue of Nature, a team of British scientists have
announced...."

Dan:
But you also see cites like this:
"On Monday, Perisic and two others were charged with espionage, the
state-run Tanjug news agency reported, citing a statement released by
military prosecutors. If convicted, the three face between three and 15
years in jail." This came from the on-line version of the Las Vegas Sun,
under a AP byline.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-eur/2002/sep/30/093002490.html

So while saying "Janes reported" may not be as specific as you desire, it
does not lessen it's validity, or the reliability of the reporter.

> Dan:
> If you go to the main page, it's fairly easy to find their affiliation.
For
> example, looking under 'History', I found this:
> "The Cybercast News Service was launched June 16, 1998 as a news source
for
> individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium
> on balance than spin. Study after study by the Media Research Center --
the
> parent organization of CNSNews.com -- clearly demonstrate both a liberal
> bias in many news outlets and a frequent double-standard in editorial
> decisions on what constitutes "news.""
>

Marc:
Right. In other words, they have an ideological agenda, and news is
secondary.

> Dan:
> That's the first paragraph. No, it isn't on the first page, but then
again,
> I haven't been able to find a similar statement for....say MSNBC.
>

Marc:
That's because they're primarily a news organization and have no
ideological axe
to grind. Although as it happens, it's not hard to find their mission
statement,
which is as a distributor of news garnered from other news agencies:
http://privacy.msn.com/tou/#msnbc

Dan:
So because they don't claim an ideological bent therefore they have none?
Sorry, don't believe that for an instant.
If that were the case, there wouldn't be a bit of difference between what
the Washington Post considers news, and what the Washington Times does.
Sure, they'll both use the same sources, like the AP, but will both edit
out what they don't consider important, and place it in different locations
within the paper. It's all part of the ideological bent of the editorial
board.
So between CNS and MSNBC, CNS is probably more honest since they at least
admit their bias, while MSNBC's claims of non-bias are based on their
omission of the fact of their "news" selection process.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================

Reply via email to