Fair and Balanced

There's some seminal soul searching actually going on in the world press organizations... or perhaps it's like the old Mao self criticism circles, who knows!

The BBC has finally come clean about its bias, says a former editor, who wrote Yes, Minister

Pair that concept with:
Thiis commentary on how the New Jersey Schoolyard Murders were covered in the Local Press

In which a main point is that the prime suspect is a 28 year old illegal immigrant who should have either been in jail or deported in the first place...

But the point is that the initial coverage, by national news orgs, of the case once the perps were found, chose to focus on the victims...

Whatever comes out in the end, AP has shown again that it is not a news agency to be trusted to report the facts.

 

I'm with you man. Although it is impossible to figure out who is a criminal and who isn't at the Mexican-US border.

 

Perhaps if we didnt let ANY of them cross without proper papers?

I'll fully accept there may not be any higher percentage of criminals in the illegal population than of the domestic.... but that STILL doesnt help, does it?
- - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
ANYWAY, that isnt the issue here.. it's how can we trust media sources if they arent willing to tell the whole story for fear of offending someone? Do they REALLY expect us to read between the lines.. or are they just as the Beeb has been since forever and feel they are the arbiters of 'Truth'.

 

AP: "Newark killings enter immigration debate"

 

RE: Re: Fair and Balanced

As a small aside, Anthony Jay's [and writing partner Jonathan Lynn] "Yes, Minster" and "Yes, Prime Minister" are the very best of British satire. The production values are a little dated, but the scripts and Nigel Hawthorne's dead pan acting as Sir Humphrey culminate in some of the best comedy every and still ranks as my favourite comedy show of all time.

Someone has to be. At least history is said in received pronunciation!

 

RE: Re: Fair and Balanced

This is why I watch CNN International. Fox News is complete bullshit, and CNN is just too boring and a bit too liberal.

 

Its a thought provoking topic. It seems logical to me that the majority of those attracted to journalism trade would be of the progressive liberal persuasion. Thus the inherent institutional bias at many papers/news organizations. The question I suppose is how far does it go? Do they knowingly not hire conservative leaning reporters, do they fire or hinder the career advancement of more conservative leaning reporters?

Truly non biased coverage is nearly impossible to come by. To not acknowledge that the BBC and NY Times tend to lean left and that it affects their reporting is silly. It is equally silly not to acknowlege that the Wall Street Journal and Fox News Channel tend to lean right and that it affects their reporting. Some people have incredible partisanship seeped into their brain that they deface one as useless and the other as equal to the bible.

Its seems to me the majority of media will always be left and the majority of industry, multinationals, small business will always to be right. They both serve a purpose in balancing each other out. If either one were to gain full control disaster would surely follow.

For my money the BBC is still one of the best sources for news. The radio worldserivce is particularly good. Professionalism in delivery is huge; people call them snobby, yada yada yada.
The fact is their presentation is the best. When the bridge in Minneapolis collapsed CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews did the were all hero's bit complete with tee-ball interviews with the Police Chief and divers and a whoever else, as well as playing the pictures of the horror on a reel and when cutting to commercial break they showed those same pictures only this time to soppy music.

On BBC they showed the bridge gave a description of the collapse, did a short eyewitness interview, gave the details about the dead, wounded, and missing, as well as possible causes of the collapse, they then moved on to the next story. No soppy music, no were all hero's bit. They don't exploit stories, they cover them (sometimes slanted in nature) and move on. Cut out the crap, the latest teacher to have sex with a student, the latest bear to fall out of a tree, ect. The topics covered are broader, more relevant, and less exploitative. AND NO COMMERCIALS, it can't be emphasized enough how much that improves the viewing or listening experience. You'll have to filter a judge for yourself but its a hell of a lot better than watching CNN, MSNBC, or FOX.

BUT two sources of information I think are better,

1) The Economist- Don't know that its completely unbiased but it boasts the killer combination of free market orientation as well as a social conscience. The reports are brief but have depth, touch all bases, and takes into account "how will this effect the economy, the rich and poor, the world we live in, what is going to result" They truly cover the world.

2) Charlie Rose- Best show on television; period. He can get almost anyone and everyone on his show from the left from the right it doesn't matter. The minute Wolfowitz was out of the World Bank he was on Charlie Rose. He doesn't hammer his guests he asks them questions, he gets their opinion and plays devils advocate, you can draw your own conclusion about the guest and his/her views. Its professional, no gimmicks and NO COMMERCIALS. He covers an incredibly wide variety of topics from war to art, economics to architecture, elections to literature and almost every guest is interesting and opens up.

Anyway thats my ramblings on the subject.

 

And it's certainly well-put, spencer!
The first step in enlightenment is acknowledging your and others biases.

I disagree on the bridge coverage.. it seemed to me that CNN did best by far among the American coverage.. you may be right that BBC did it better and they DO tend to subtly mute the pathos.

And of course, relating back to Katrina, it was Fox News' Geraldo Rivera that did the most despicable coverage. But gee... he has been on a tight leash since, hasnt he!

But the key is, you have to pick a source that doesnt have a dog in the hunt...

To watch the self-destruction of Venezuela right now, one of the best sources - if you're not a total idiot like Sean Penn {see Katrina, again} - might be Salon dot com: 'The Devil's Excrement'.

You only need go to numerous polls taken at various 'J-schools'. "Why do you want to be a journalist?"

ans: "I want to make a difference."

Well, that's the wrong answer in my opinion.
Jayson Blair certainly made a difference.. or tried to. Right now, The National Review has egg on its face from YET ANOTHER 'Shattered Glass' - Iraq stories made from whole cloth in the 'fake but accurate' category.

All I ask is to be given ALL the facts, I can accept the bad news and throw the appropriate stones inthe appropriate direction, thank you very much!

Ted Stevens and the Alaska morass of GOP fools, for example.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ed op follows:
And on that note... with my ear to the ground, not only are those who obsessed on Plamegate going to be disappointed but with a little exhibition of guts on the part of the Justice Department and various news media, Wilson and Plame are going to be outed as the fakes and liars that SOME thought they were in the beginning.

I'm sorry to inject that here... but I'm just warning you.
It has stunk from the beginning, Plame has lied from the beginning, not to mention Wilson whose ox will be gored to the point he may never work again.

Of COURSE it's going to be 'RIGHT WING' media that leads on this... but after a while, it's going to be irrefutable.
End Ed Op
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 

Read the caption... what does it imply?
Full text:

LINK

so in ONE little blurb, there Are at LEAST TWO misrepresentations.. and MAYBE THREE* in that I wont be surprised if that photo turns out to be staged or photoshopped.


Aw hell... you KNOW DAMN WELL it was at least staged! WTH would she be holding those things up, otherwise!
If it was 'shopped it will come out as there's a new graphic pixel analyser that will show it.

 

Isn't AFP a French news agency?

 

The problem isn't that Jayson Blair or anyone else wants to make a difference, the problem is the way Blair went about it.

The end does not justify the means.

 

The "news" in all forms has been misleading us since its inception. Even back to the beginnings of hearsay and rumours the game of telephone has been played even if not on purpose.

Obviously spin is an intended and scripted ingredient. Its even worse that its done for political/financial ends... Its good to see that people finally recognize it when they see it. Is it the internet that is the great equalizer? Or at least beginning to be? Its important to have internet freedom for this purpose alone I suspect, for this particular conversation I mean.

Just a thought.

 

And Speaking of "Yes, Prime Minister", this is a great one on topic.