Mall Shooting

[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.

[UGAalum94]

Right, that's part of what I wondered. 50% of a city being any one denomination is actually giganitic, but I think most of us assume it's even more than that.

To not report about religion when there's likely to be an assumption about religion made seems like a significant omission.

If you had a Southern Baptist shoot up the Vatican, I think we'd all expect coverage of religion.

On a different note, I rarely tell people "to give it a rest," the first time I talk to them about an issue. Deltalum, are you hearing from a lot of people about the blogs and the mainstream media? I wonder why that is.

ETA: Since the guy wasn't at the Temple, maybe rather than Vatican, I just should have said a shopping center in Rome.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

On a different note, I rarely tell people "to give it a rest," the first time I talk to them about an issue. Deltalum, are you hearing from a lot of people about the blogs and the mainstream media?

Actually, no. I seldom hear anything about blogs.

I can think of only one real success, and that was Drudge during the Monica Lewinsky thing, I think. Otherwise, I don't think even his track record is so good.

I want to be absolutely sure that it is understood that I am not a journalist, but worked in TV newsrooms (and during that time was around print journalists) for many years and stand by my comments that most journalists are honest, hard working, ethical people. Intimating that all journalists are bad is like saying that all doctors are quacks or all lawyers are dishonest.

A lot of people complain about TV news in particular, but it is by far the most used source for news. I think that's too bad, because print really can cover a story in greater depth and detail.

And I still don't think religion is a newsworthy piece of this particular story.

[shinerbock]

I think most people respect journalists. I personally think it is a very intriguing and necessary field. However, I think many people lose their patience because of the attitude possessed by many journalists. The news media often comes across as having an attitude of superiority and entitlement. I think it is probably based in the idea that journalists have a responsibility to the public. However, I think that notion is similar to hollywood types who advocate for causes...once good intention is now mixed with selfish motivations. I often get the impression that some journalists feel they have an obligation to the public and a right to information, but that obligation only extends to information which advances their own opinions. It just annoys me personally when I see "unbiased" reporters demanding information from the administration (or whoever) about some almost-scandal, and acting as though they're representing the public. They may very well be pursuing something of public interest, but when I see them refuse to pursue another story of equal significance but impacting a different party or demographic, I begin to question just who they're working to serve.

[UGAalum94]

I'm with you on this one Shinerbock.

It's not that I think individual journalists are particularly corrupt or self serving, but I think we've had too many cases in which journalists went with a story that they wanted or expected to play a certain way because of their general world-view, even though that the actual facts might not have supported the conclusion that the journalist reached. And the rest of the mainstream media didn't seem to want to call them on it as much as maybe the general public and the blogs did. (Dan Rather and the forged Bush service documents is the most obvious case, but the huge discrepancies in Iraq coverage depending on who is reporting are also an issue; as well as the Plame story too.)

I think journalists may be very well intentioned, but that ultimately we can't depend on the press to be anymore unbiased than anybody else, despite what journalism ethics professors teach.

And when people defend the idea that we should trust the press to know should is part of the story or not, it's insulting. Those days are over. If they weren't over before Rathergate, they are over now.

[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.

[shinerbock]

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.

[PeppyGPhiB]

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.

[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?

[shinerbock]

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.

[UGAalum94]

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.