I think the networks are just as bad if not worse. I never watch network news, I never check the websites, etc. Most people I know (law students, college friends) do the same. I rank network news very low on my list of credible sources.

AP articles, although sometimes biased IMO, are generally the best bet. They are devoid of the tone that accompanies cable and network news. I think the problem is that we're getting personalities to act as unbiased anchors (obviously more for cable than network, but still, Rather...). You've even got to question WH correspondents. I personally like David Gregory, but he sometimes lets his personal disagreement shine through. I think its tough for people like him, he has a right to express his views, but when I see him on Imus bashing Bush, its hard for me to take him seriously when he's reporting from the WH lawn.

When I said mainstream media, I had in mind the three main networks, maybe CNN and FOX, the New York Times, The LA Times, the AJC in Atlanta, The Washington Post. I'd also list Newsweek and Time.

I watch local tv news probably once a week; I read the Atlanta paper online daily, and I read several general interest blogs, sort of right center in bias daily. From there, I'll search to see what I can find out if I have additional questions or something in the reporting seems fishy.

I used to really like reading the AP wire online but it seems to be harder to access for general users, and even if it weren't, they're pulling some strange crap with their Middle East coverage. I think they'd be fine for domestic news, but really sketchy for international stuff.

I adore William F. Buckley, and I subscribe to the National Review. There's no question that it's a conservative source, and I understand that about its reporting.

I don't think It's a game.

Shiner made the comment that "most Americans," or something to that effect feel a certain way about the media. If I were going to make a comment for "most" of anyone, I'd take a survey or something.

My comment was about a much smaller "sample," and it was from my personal experience, and clearly labled as such.

I don't think there's much similarity there.

I imagine you can find polls where most Americans feel that some or most of the news media is biased. I took a class on politics and the media a couple of years ago, but I don't recall specific polling data. Despite it being taught by a loon who I dislike (Ted Becker), apparently he is somewhat respected in his field. His central focus is that mainstream media is mostly worthless.

Just a few comments...

1. Most journalists and reporters are not like the ones found on CNN, MSNBC or Fox News. Those are anchors, or news show hosts, some of which use material written by others and others just say whatever they want to. The reporters you see on your local news stations are often told when and what to cover, and the same goes for newspaper reporters. Newspaper editors are given more flexibility on what will be covered in their section, but the reporters under them are often handed topics/news and told to do something with the information.

2. I believe the media is fairly balanced. A reporter's job is to question a story and prod for information. One of the ways they do that is by asking (sometimes annoying) questions. Yes, often it is "The Administration" that gets those questions because it is often in the news! Any government agency especially should be prepared to get all kinds of questions from reporters, since as some of you said above, the news media is the only deliverer of that information. Reporters often challenge the subject of any hard news story or investigation...not just Republicans, or Democrats.

Be happy that journalists "dig" the way they do. Many stories are brought to the attention of the media by PR people. A lot of people don't realize it, but what's in your newspapers, magazines and some TV news is often a story that was first suggested or leaked by a PR person. Now, would you rather have just that PR person's spin, or do you want the reporter to go one step further than that by "pestering" to get their story?

3. Journalists don't have the time to do lengthy investigations before reporting each piece of news. Our society is very connected...I get most of my news via the Internet now, while others rely on TV. The newspapers are struggling to keep up with the currency of other news mediums. If they carefully and thoroughly researched each story they reported, it would be uselessly out of date. So, they do the best they can in the short amount of time they're allotted. If they want to dig deeper, they'll address it in a following story/article. If we want to hear news when it happens, we must sacrifice some of the additional research (within reason...I'm talking about breaking news, not investigative reporting which obviously should be carefully researched).

4. ALL people are biased. That means reporters are biased too. Most people have opinions about things, and that often floods over into their work...be it lawyers, doctors, politicians or journalists. It's not necessarily a bad thing...it can positively influence reporting, too. Newspapers, usually cited as more balanced than TV news, are even biased. People who study media, and many who don't, know which newspapers slant to the left and right. If you observe the symantics, you'll see it. We have two major daily newspapers here in Seattle, and everyone knows which is more Right and which is more Left. The differences are slight and the news coverage is the same, but people have their preferences.

You may be quite right, and I certainly can't speak to what most people do. But I can say that I grew up on the Huntley-Brinkley Report, and I don't think I've watched a network newscast in at least 20 years, except maybe on 9/11. I couldn't even tell you who the anchors on NBC or ABC are -- I only know about CBS because of all the hoopla about Katie Couric. If I watch the news on TV, it's CNN or Fox.

Most people may not be like me. On the other hand, most of my friends with whose viewing habits I am familiar are like me, I think, if for no other reason than we are eating supper with our families when the network news is on and we know we can catch cable news later. (And we listened to NPR on the way home from work.)

As for ratings, I wonder if it's comparing apples to oranges -- network news is a thirty-miunte-a-day shot. Cable news is pretty much constant. So should the viewers for the network's 30 minutes be compared to CNN or Fox's total viewers in an evening?

Exactly. As has aptly been stated . . .

I'd much rather reporters or news organizations be upfront about biases so that the reader/listener/viewer can take those biases into account, instead of the fiction of objectivity. (Note, I'm not saying that reporters don't do their best to be objective. I'm just saying that real objectivity can only really happen in a perfect world, which we don't live in.)

I heard an interesting pro-con story on journalistic objectivity a few months ago on NPR's "On The Media." It seems to be an debate going on among journalistic types.

I have been astounded, and yet not surprised at all, to see what Nancy Grace and Greta Van Susteren -- both of whom cover legal goings-on -- have been doing the last week or two. It has been constant Anna Nicole. Meanwhile, what Scooter Libby trial in DC? :rolleyes:

Well it comes back to what Americans care about, but thats a whole other issue.

As for newspaper journalists, I think they're often more biased than TV personalities. I don't think the news is balanced. You have one major conservative outlet (Fox News) vs. CNN, MSNBC, and the networks. You have one major newspaper (WSJ, maybe more) against the Times, the Post, Herald, LA, AJC...

Journalists probably tend to be liberal, and thus their reporting is skewed towards their preferences. I realize this is on both sides, but I think one side is larger than the other. You could make the same statement about nationally syndicated talk radio for conservatives.

I can deal with CNN's subtle swipes and the president, and the Post's as well (WP is my favorite paper), but its the MSNBC's and NY Times that kill me.

Personally, I suspect that the lack of coverage of the Scooter Libby trial reflects a recognition that the initial coverage was way overblown and incorrect speculation.

It all boils down to a perjury charge arguably less significant than Clinton's? Well, no need to follow up that once the "vengeance links on behalf of Cheney" stories are out of the barn.

For group of people concerned with facts, some of the media in this case have awfully bad memories.

But of course, that's just my bias.

PeppyGPhiB,

I think your points are all good ones. What started the anti-media slant of the thread was a claim about journalistic ethics and high standards being used to determine what was part of a story. To some of us, the patterns in reporting that you have mentioned have lead to a situation where the ethics aren't so evident.

And I don't know that anyone complained about digging as much as we complained about what seems to be partisan or PC standards for digging, which again only bothered us from people claiming objectivity.

No, I think shinerbock is closer to it -- more Americans are more interested in every little detail of Anna Nicole's death, who might be her baby's father, where she'll be buried, etc., than about scandals in DC. Nancy Grace and Greta are giving their viewers what they want.

The Libby trial is a waste. He's going to get pardoned on the off chance they get a conviction.

I think the whole situation is ridiculous. Whether or not Libby and Co. had revenge in mind when outing her identity is up in the air. However, she wasn't really in any danger, she hadn't worked in the field in a long while, etc. I also think its ridiculous that 2 anti-administration liberals were pursuing the government's agenda by organizing a hunt for the yellow cake?

I think the story is mostly over, hence the left isn't really paying much attention anymore.

^^^ I don't really disagree. I still say it's more more worthy of examination, including to examine the points you raise as well as the legal process, than where Anna Nicole is buried.

But not nearly as entertaining, and entertainment more than news is what it's really about.

I'm very interested in it and think there should be more coverage. I just dispute the seriousness of the entire situation.

Point taken, especially if it involves showing us more pictures of Anna Nicole in the Guess Jeans ads. (Which I guess means more coverage with less coverage?)

"more coverage with less coverage". . .hee hee
Sure, appealing to the baser instincts seems to sell pretty well.

But again, I think the press usually works harder at breaking down and forcing stories that reflect their hopes or at least their version of how things work.

When the Plame affair could be sold as administrative officials compromising the safety of a CIA agent out of revenge because of her husbands expose, well it was Plame all the time. Remember "Fitzmas"? Remember the pictures in Vanity Fair, for the most part a celebrity magazine?

But as the actual source of information came out, and the story wound down to a perjury case about facts not that (seemingly) important to the most of the initial scandal, well, that's not really worth following up on.

It doesn't seem to matter that by most indicators she wasn't a covert operative (you know the jurors aren't even supposed to consider that issue?) and that how and why Wilson was selected for the mission is kind of newsworthy if you think about it. Not to mention the fact that the source of the particular"leak" pretty conclusively wasn't anyone IDed in the first batch of stories.

As my version of the news story indicates, we tend latch on to the facts that reinforce what we expect to be true, and downplay or ignore stories that really challenge us.

The difference is I'm not a member of the media trying to sell the idea that I'm objective or bound by a higher standard of ethics.

How 'bout we talk about the Duke (non) rape case coverage? Not Grace's finest hour, there.

Has Gracie had a finest hour?

Good point. But this was SNL skit worthy.

I don't watch her, but I've seen the sketch, and I've read transcripts posted on line. wow.

The Boston Legal episodes with "her" on are funny.

Nancy Grace is terrible. She's obsessive about any salacious rumor involving a female victim, to the point where she actually ignores contradictory facts in order to keep her show topic going. I've seen her repeat incorrect information over and over on her show even after a guest corrected her on-air. Either she doesn't pay attention or she doesn't give a damn about the facts, both of which make her a poor news show host.

They're why I can't help calling her Gracie now.