Mall Shooting

[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.

[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.

[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.

In fact, I pretty much agree with what Shiner says above (that's the second time this month I've agreed with him. I must be getting old or something).

The cable networks, in my opinion, struggle along to "compete," and pray for sensational stories because that's pretty much the only time they get a ratings spike.

And, very much like talk radio, most of the cable "stars" are more interested in hearing themselves talk (or shout) than report legitimate, "ballanced" (with apologies to Roger Ailes) reportage.

So, if it's cable and talk radio that you consider "main," we may not be as far apart as it seems.

[shinerbock]

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.

[UGAalum94]

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.

[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.