Mall Shooting

[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.

[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. I think its fairly common knowledge that Fox News is conservative slanted. I've even heard media refer to them as "right-leaning Fox News" or something of the sort. Thats fine, they are biased. It does annoy me, however, that nobody applies a label to other organizations like CNN or MSNBC. You never hear anyone but conservative blogs say "liberal leaning CNN." I hate it when people act like Fox News is some unreliable brand of news media, yet CNN and MSNBC are legitimate. Its always going to be something towards the middle.

Also, for anyone who is about to say something ridiculous like "MSNBC isn't biased" I need only remind you that their "top political team" consists of Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann.

[UGAalum94]

Yep. It is kind of why I like internet sources; very few make claims of objectivity. By reading source A and knowing how they lean and reading source B to kind of counteract A, I can usually get some good information. You have be be careful though, because if you go too far from center, it makes you wondering if the extremist are even aware of any objective reality.

(Why did anyone at Fox think "fair and balanced" was a good slogan for a source which comes so close to owning up to the fact that they aren't? Fox tends to drive me really crazy because they as much as anybody can make conservatives look stupid. The same with right wing talk radio. Damn, some of those people are very impassioned without actually really knowing anything. At least NPR seems smart and reasonable, however left leaning, IMO.)

More than anything, I'm just not interested in any self-righteousness about how the media is best qualified to determine what should be reported when they blow it so frequently.

[UGAalum94]

I wish I could link to something to back up this memory, but I was listening to NPR and they were reporting that according to an audit, they actually tipped right. There's NO way that it's true by any reasonable measure, and yet they were reporting the results of the audit, and I guess I was supposed to say, "oh, gosh, I guess NPR is balanced in its reporting."

(I love NPR, but they clearly tip left.)

ETA: the thing I'm thinking of was before the Thomlinson shenanigans, which I think were total crap. I'm looking for a link.
Edited Again to Add: Maybe it was part of the Thomlinson stuff, but I still can't find a link to what I'm looking for.

[shinerbock]

My biggest problem with Fox News is how much attention they pay to stupid stories. They really should be based out of Hollywood, because they'd generally much rather talk about Anna Nicole or Britney. Granted, MSNBC is pretty bad about that too, but I can usually at least get some discussion of something worthwhile on there (although its like listening to a DNC discussion). CNN can be good, although it seems every time I want to watch the news on CNN they're doing some 20 minute segment on something stupid.

I've gotten to the point where I enjoy getting news from CNBC, because they generally do it from a financial perspective, which means its not as dumbed down as other networks. Despite my dislike for how anti-administration Matthews is, I enjoy his non-Hardball show. I'm not sure what it comes on, but the other night it was a discussion about the Court with Rosen and another SCOTUS scholar. Thats the kind of stuff I'd like to see on a regular basis. I wish somebody would come out with an intelligent cable network, some sort of CNN/CSPAN/CNBC/History Channel/Public Television blend.

I can see what you're saying about NPR. I hate it because its so slanted, but they're generally a little better about some things than conservative talk radio. The problem with conservative radio is that the personalities are so over the top that the program loses legitimacy. I don't mind that they're extremely conservative, but I'd much rather hear someone like George Will or William Kristol, who could actually discuss policy without feeling the need to talk about how great their new book is every 10 seconds.