Re: obviousman the movie
- From: "Detox" <detox665@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 5 Sep 2005 19:28:25 -0700
HS WRand Om wrote:
> Dann wrote:
> > If only there were a way to make the NYTimes (or CNN or) more responsive
> > to people in Peoria.....
>
> Do you think news outlets should give people the news the people say
> they want or should outlets give them the news that the outlets think is
> most important?
I think the word I used was "responsive". That is to say that the big
media might consider some of the views of Middle America when they
decide what to present as "news". The local TV station, radio station,
and newspaper clearly constrain their local reporting to that which is
newsworthy. I rarely feel preached to by those outlets as I do when I
read the Washington Post or watch CNN.
The fact is that the act of deciding what to report and how it is
reported involves biases. In some cases, I think the media ought to
present stories that might not otherwise gain national attention. How
else are we to learn about the deprivations of the South under Jim
Crow?
On other occasions, I think they need to make more of an effort to
counter their institutional biases so as to provide broader coverage.
For example the decision to cover Ralph Nader but not to cover Harry
Browne's candidacy.
>
> Also interesting that you seem to focus a lot on the New York Times and
> CNN as liberal news outlets. If you take a stroll through some of the
> more liberal web sites you'll see those two outlets criticized more
> often than other news outlets for biased (in Republicans' favor)
> reporting. More so than, for example, The Washington Post or MSNBC.
>
Well, yeah. But they also talk about accessorizing with tinfoil hats,
too.
Seriously, the Gray Lady takes a lot of flack due to her prominent
position within the print media. To be fair, the NYTimes has actually
published a couple of articles that explore some of our successes in
Iraq. Something I don't see coming from many other mainstream news
sources.
> > It's more of a libertarian bias with modest and infrequent conservative
> > tendancies. Thankyouverymuch.
>
> At least from what I read in your posts you appear to swallow Republican
> spin points hook, line and sinker. I haven't seen any hint of
> libertarian views coming through.
>
I believe I've posted in favor if drug legalization in the past and I
have also posted criticisms of Mr. Bush's lack of fiscal restraint. I
have voiced support for privatization of SS; something the Libertarians
have been talking about for at least 20 years.
Mostly you have read my almost unequivocal support for our War on
Terror including our campaign in Iraq. I've yet to hear anyone present
another country as being a better target for invasion. As far as I'm
concerned, the administration may have executed policy poorly on some
occasions, but the overall decision was correct.
I can understand why you might think this constitutes swallowing GOP
spin whole.
> > Yeah, I have considered that. Somehow I don't think my biases make Dan
> > Rather (his entire frickin' career), Abu Graib-ophilia, odometer based
> > coverage of Iraq, fascination with Mrs. Sheehan (to the exclusion of
> > other parents with an opposing view), and a half a hundred other things
> > appear to be "centrist". And, no, don't read anything into that list
> > other than recent events. My Fruedian slip isn't showing at the moment.
> > Perhaps later if you watch closely and tuck a dollar in my garter. <grin>
> >
>
> Well, Dan is one guy (albeit one guy conservatives obsess over.) I'm not
> sure what the objection to coverage of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal
> is. I think the follow up to that story has been badly done by all but a
> few news organizations.
Danny-boy is the poster child for cluelessness and bias in the media.
I don't mind the fact that the media covered Abu Ghraib. What I mind
is their relentless pushing of a story that was over by the time they
got around to it. A group of people did the wrong thing. One soldier
did the right thing in reporting their actions. The Army investigated.
Trials were scheduled. And THEN the media lets loose with the
story??? Talks about late for supper.
Particularly when there were other worthy stories coming out of Iraq.
For example, the story of Sgt First Class Paul Smith. The first person
to win the Medal of Honor since 1993. The Sept 05 issue of The
American Enterprise magazine has a story that indicates via Nexis-Lexis
there have been over 5,000 stories including the name "Lynndie
England", over 4,600 stores involving the phrase "Koran abuse", and
just 90 stories regarding Paul Smith.
This is a prime example of the sort of bias about which I am concerned.
A bias that seeks out and promotes stories that make our servicepeople
look bad while shunning stories about their honor, valor, and bravery.
Abu Ghraib is a story that needed to be told so that we could correct a
problem. The story of SFC Paul Smith is equally deserving of national
attention on at least the same scale as Abu Ghraib.
> I'm not sure
> what "odometer" coverage of Iraq means but I know conservatives HATE the
> coverage of Iraq now.
Odometer coverage is when every aspect of the conflict is measured by
the body count.
What happened in Iraq today? X more servicemen died in a carbomb bring
the total American dead to X,XXX.
What will happen in Iraq tomorrow? Based on the current rate of
deaths, there will be another X American servicemen dying bringing the
total to X,XXX.
What progress has been made in Iraq? A total of X,XXX servicemen and
women have died in the campaign.
It is the sort of coverage that ensures that you know the price that is
being paid, but tells you little about what has been purchased in the
exchange. It hurts me in a very personal way when I read about people
dying in Iraq. It hurts more to know that the successes that are
purchased with those deaths go unreported.
>
> You say that you've considered your perception of bias to be your own
> bias (and, I guess from your writing after that, discarded as not a
> factor) but you don't mention anything which favors your viewpoint in
> news coverage. Do you truly believe that most news outlets always skew
> the news to viewpoints opposite your own? Can you not find any example
> where news has been misplayed, overlooked or badly covered in a way
> which favors your viewpoint? If you can only see bias against you then
> it seems pretty clear that it IS your own bias at play in the bias you
> perceive.
I'm not sure if you've read my comments on the subject, but I consider
NPR to be an outstanding and invaluable news resource. Their opinion
programs drive me nuts, but the news programs do an outstanding job of
covering stories from lots of different angles. Do I perceive a bias
in NPR news programs? Of course. But I also perceive a great desire
on their part to avoid that bias and present a larger view of the news
of the world.
Do I find news coverage that favors my point of view? Occasionally.
Things like NBC's "The Fleecing of America" and ABC's John Stossel come
to mind.
The bad analogy that keeps coming to mind is the spray pattern from a
shotgun. Generally the distribution should be just about even. A shot
that is in the bullseye will have a roughly equal distribution left and
right of center as well as top and bottom.
IMO, the spray pattern of our media is a bit left of center and a bit
down. Plenty of pellets still in the bullseye. Many pellets on the
right and many in the top half as well. Just not a fully centered
grouping.
--
Regards,
Dann detox665@xxxxxxxxxxx
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
USMC - When it absolutely, positively has to be destroyed over night....
.
- Prev by Date: Re: The Great Blondie Crossover Event of 2005...
- Next by Date: Re: DS Alert - 9/4
- Previous by thread: Re: obviousman the movie
- Next by thread: Re: Candorville 8-30-2005
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
