Mall Shooting

[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.

[UGAalum94]

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

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.

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.

[shinerbock]

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.

[MysticCat]

^^^ 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.

[shinerbock]

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

[MysticCat]

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?)

[UGAalum94]

"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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

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

Has Gracie had a finest hour?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

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.

[PeppyGPhiB]

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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

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