Mall Shooting

[shinerbock]

So religion shouldn't be mentioned until we find out for a fact that it was absolutely relevant? Does that apply to other stories, like positive ones? I think this is a completely unrealistic though somewhat well guided notion.

[UGAalum94]

I don't think it's well guided. On some level religion if one really lived it out would always be significant when evaluating someone's actions. Surely, religion is always considered relevant by the media when a well known Christian does anything bad.

Generally, the mainstream media stinks, and the presence of the internet based reporting is proving it daily. I'm not a conservative radio or Fox fan, but I am a mainstream media hater. The idea that anyone would pretend there were some journalistic ethics at play just seems laughable.

The idea that the media are in a position to decide what ought to be part of the story is in itself an insulting premise, and even if one accepted it, it's clearly not the standard being used in most cases. When an issue falls outside certain PC boundaries, the media gleefully report it. Again, see Richard Jewell.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

Generally, the mainstream media stinks, and the presence of the internet based reporting is proving it daily. I'm not a conservative radio or Fox fan, but I am a mainstream media hater. The idea that anyone would pretend there were some journalistic ethics at play just seems laughable.

The idea that the media are in a position to decide what ought to be part of the story is in itself an insulting premise, and even if one accepted it, it's clearly not the standard being used in most cases. When an issue falls outside certain PC boundaries, the media gleefully report it. Again, see Richard Jewell.

So, the blogs are more reliable than the real media?

Give it a rest.

You've managed to insult a lot of my friends on this one, and I can't help but wonder if you've ever met a professional reporter.

Since nearly the beginning of the Republic, when members of our elected government wrote Freedom of the Press into the First Amendment to the Constitution, reporters and editors have had the privilege and the sometimes heavy burdon of deciding what ought to be part of a story. That makes some people angry and sometimes that includes important people. See Richard Nixon.

I've said it before that there are some bad journalists (like there are bad doctors, lawyers, etc.), but the vast majority of the ones I've known and worked with are dedicated, honest, hard working professionals. They're not always right, and sometimes get bad information. Sometimes, they do a bad job. See Dan Rather. However, given the number of words written and broadcast daily without error, I think the work they do is pretty remarkable.

Oh, and by the way, while I'm not a journalist, your comment about believing in journalistic ethics insults me personally.

[shinerbock]

Delt, you give it a rest. She's talking about something that is obvious to most Americans. You can stand on a soapbox and speak about the ethics of the journalism community or talk about the higher calling of the media, but it the news simply isn't the idealized profession you make it out to be. She insulted your friends? Give me a break. I'm so sick of hearing the media act as though they have some responsibility to the public, yet they only apply this responsibility when the information fits their personal views. Journalists act as though no one is above scrutiny, but God forbid someone question the press.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

She's talking about something that is obvious to most Americans.

"Most Americans?" I'd like to see some Proof to that claim.

[shinerbock]

That most American's think journalists have an agenda? I would like to see polling numbers on that too... Oh wait, who's gonna tell us about it?

[UGAalum94]

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=18766

I don't subscribe to the Gallup database so I can't see the whole study, but the first paragraph reveals some of what you are looking for. I'm sure such a poll exists; we've just got to keep looking. I'm not as optimistic that most people feel as I do, but that doesn't mean that much to me.

I don't know that any individual blog is better than all of the mainstream media, but being able to rely on multiple internet news sources, or multiple news sources period, gives the public a better overall perspective than relying on the mainstream media, who tend to have a pack mentality about issues that often seems to be about telling the public what to think more than reporting on events. It's the attempt to shape the story into something edifying for the public or sensational for the public that I object to. On any page other than the opinion page, give me the information, qualify the limitations of your sources, let me decide what I think. I can decide for myself whether I think his being Muslim is part of the story or just an interesting demographic quirk for a guy in Utah.

You are reading WAY more into my posts than is actually present there if you thought that I didn't value freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It's not the freedom that the problem; it what the mainstream media has been doing or not doing with that freedom. For every Watergate, you've got hundreds of Anna Nicole or Britney stories.

How you got from criticism of media for NOT including information to historic cases in which the press revealed hidden information is beyond me. Would the reporting on Nixon have been nearly as important if Woodard and Bernstein decided for us what the public should know? On the other hand, in matter of national security, the MSM seems to think we need to know everything right then. It's hard to see the kind of serious minded moral and ethical discrimination that you are trying to make the case for. What professors of journalistic ethics are trying to teach, and what the actual media seem to be doing don't line up.

As much as you may be bummed that I said mean things about your friends, there's no way that you can claim the moral high road for the mainstream media as a collective today. You friends may be awesome and they may do the kind of important, objective and complete reporting that I'm looking for.

But that's not what we're getting from most sources. I think the heavy losses that newspapers are experiencing, as well as some rating loss with traditional big three network news shows, do reflect a serious problem. (And some of the problem may be the type of blogs people get their news from.)

And I do know professional journalists, for whatever that's worth to you.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

"Most Americans?" I'd like to see some Proof to that claim.

Don't play that game - I'd like to see proof that nearly all journalists:

1- adhere strictly to the standards of journalistic integrity over any other concerns
2- take their jobs seriously (more so than others)
3- perform at a rate comparable to doctors and attorneys

etc etc etc - you've made a LOT of claims that you can only support through anecdotal evidence . . . well, guess what, we all have tons of anecdotes about mainstream media sucking - that's without your latent bias.

It's a go-nowhere conversation, so don't act like shiner is talking out of his ass - he's doing exactly what you're doing. You're just sure he's wrong, which makes little sense to me.

[PeppyGPhiB]

I was surprised that Mormonism has not been mentioned more as part of this story. Honestly the first thing I thought when I heard this happened in Salt Lake was, "I wonder if he was pissed off at the Mormon church?" Really I should not think that, since the last I heard only about 50% of the CITY of Salt Lake is Mormon, but that's certainly the biggest thing people associate with Utah.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Don't play that game - I'd like to see proof that nearly all journalists:

1- adhere strictly to the standards of journalistic integrity over any other concerns
2- take their jobs seriously (more so than others)
3- perform at a rate comparable to doctors and attorneys

etc etc etc - you've made a LOT of claims that you can only support through anecdotal evidence . . . well, guess what, we all have tons of anecdotes about mainstream media sucking - that's without your latent bias.

It's a go-nowhere conversation, so don't act like shiner is talking out of his ass - he's doing exactly what you're doing. You're just sure he's wrong, which makes little sense to me.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

It may just be that we have a basic difference here on what it "mainline" or "mainstream" media.

I don't consider any of the cable networks to carry as much weight as the "traditional" on air networks or print media.

I'm pretty sure it is still true that ALL of the cable news networks combined don't match the ratings of the lowest on air networks when it comes to news coverage.

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?

Originally Posted by shinerbock

To be honest, I don't even care that the media is biased. I mean sure, I'd love an unbiased news org, but I don't see that happening soon. However, I do wish we'd be more open about who is biased and which way they're biased towards.

Exactly. As has aptly been stated . . .

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

ALL people are biased. That means reporters are biased too.

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.

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

For every Watergate, you've got hundreds of Anna Nicole or Britney stories.

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?