Comments on: The trouble with the news

By: ann bolyn

ann bolyn — Fri, 05 Aug 2005 05:30:32 +0000

what

By: JennyD

JennyD — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:09:05 +0000

There’s an amazing look back at a series of stories from 15 years ago, when David Shaw at the LAT carefully showed how the major media revealed its bias toward abortion through word choice in news stories. You can read the look back at the National Review here:

http://nationaljournal.com/powers.htm

It’s surprising to see what reporters wrote, and then hear their comments that they are neutral in their reporting/writing.

By: PG

PG — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 06:54:57 +0000

I'd say that Posner misses a few points, including how blog links actually have the potential to increase newspapers' advertising revenue, and the degree to which 12 million online participants increases the public's engagement in political debate.

By: Eileen

Eileen — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 03:36:36 +0000

“…millions of reasonable people tired of over 3 decades of an information monopoly that became its own political party, and has reported only information that would support or enhance its agenda. The old media have no one to blame but themselves.”

Bingo, Senator. Unfortunately, clearly they STILL don’t get that truism. And they also don’t get the fact that they’re dust in the wind due to their arrogant failure to give us FACTS, nothing but the FACTS, without their twisted, politically biased spin regarding not only what they’ve determined ‘is’ the news, but the way in which they distort it. ‘Fair and balanced reporting’ has become a ghost of the past, a chimera, a tumbleweed tale.

I recently connected with a news writer/producer for ABC, who lamented the inherent control and bias she encounters…even as she professed her own left wing bias. She’s ready to get out due to the box she finds herself in. Yearning for fair and balanced reporting even by those who produce the news And admit their bias doesn’t survive in the current club. Bingo again. Even the well meaning within the profession can’t fight it.

xcruscesx: I feel for you. Clearly you are a good enough writer to well express your angst, frustration and sincerity about doing your job well. Your editor’s policy re ‘mistakes’ is so telling, and completely representative of all we know to be wrong with the dinosaurs. I wish you well; it must be very difficult…

But I must say thank God for the Internet and for blogs. The sun is shining again.

We the people really just want the truth. And come hell or high water, I believe we’re going to find it.

By: Bad Luck

Bad Luck — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 01:17:07 +0000

This is my first comment ever. I definitely agree with the basic premise re the media: that they are largely untrustworthy and reserve for themselves the proclivity to cover up their own errors while magnifying those of everyone else. Additionally, my personal feeling is that they think that they just have to know some of the facts regarding a story before they “authoritatively” write about it. I say this based on my limited exposure as a 19 y.o. marine in VietNam to “journalists” who would swamp us after we came back from a patrol – they’d ask us everything about what happened. My suspicion was (as still remains to this day) that they file their reports as if they were out there with us. I suspect that’s what they continue to do today (i.e., file their “authoritative” reports from Bagdhad based on piecemeal info (usually incomplete) that they culled from multiple sources. I feel many in the public are beginning to see the duplicity and arrogance of many in the media and are now voting with their feet. Many in the media, undoubtedly will have to become honarable and report even things that they don’t like/agree with, or look for another line of work.

By: Senator_MJM

Senator_MJM — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:23:18 +0000

The blogsphere wouldn’t have been created if it wasn’t necessary due to millions of reasonable people tired of over 3 decades of an information monopoly that became its own political party, and has reported only information that would support or enhance its agenda. The old media have no one to blame but themselves.

By: xcrucesx

xcrucesx — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 23:44:18 +0000

I don’t disagree with the three pieces; there are some major problems with journalism today. I’ve been a newspaper reporter for a few years now. I’m also a loyal reader of blogs. I think both formats can complement each other. There are some things that mainstream media do that, for now at least, blogs can’t or don’t do. (Namely, large investigative pieces, though there are a few cases, such as the Rather situation, where the blogs do investigate.) And blogs are able to tap a much wider, deeper pool of expertise and opinion.

As a reporter, though, it’s frustrating to come to work anymore. I do my absolute best to write accurate, fair stories in less and less space; I don’t cheat or lie or use unnamed sources. In most cases, I call my sources a few days after a story runs, to make sure I got everything right. But it doesn’t really matter what I do because I’m part of “the media,” and we’re all of us, to a person, stupid, evil, filthy, unpatriotic, lazy and misinformed, according to the blogosphere.

Re: Michael Martine’s comment on corrections. Some reporters fear printing corrections because they fear they’ll lose their jobs. Where I work, if you make more than three mistakes in a calendar year, you’re put on suspension; make any more, and you’re eligible for firing. All this shows up during your annual evaulation. These mistakes could be huge, they could be relatively minor. Doesn’t matter. Our editor doesn’t care about trying to create the most accurate account of the truth possible. Instead, the emphasis is on zero tolerance.

By: Michael Martine

Michael Martine — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:15:05 +0000

Mainstream media are used to being the watchdogs. Under their very noses, another tier has been constructed, seemingly overnight, that watches the watchdogs, and the watchdogs don’t like it. Bloggers are used to calling each other out at a moment’s notice when factual errors occur. MSM is not used to this. Most bloggers are humble enough to apologize and acknowledge any discovered errors. This enhances trust and credibility. MSM snorts and grumbles about upstart amateurs. This creates the perception of a coverup. Before they even knew what was happening, millions of people have sprung up around them to watch them and, eventually, replace them. And they are the only ones who don’t believe it.

By: KirkH

KirkH — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:35:06 +0000

Of course if you’re a liberal you can’t buy Posner’s argument because it uses Hayek’s logic. And if Hayek’s logic is sound then what makes it work in this case and not in the case of the economy? I think the religious right are in a similar position as the left here except with stem cells. What if they cure cancer? Are the religious right going to refuse treatment?

By: The Lonewacko Blog

The Lonewacko Blog — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:18:06 +0000

One of the downsides with the b-sphere is what we saw in the presidential election. Most of the attendees to the GOP convention were supporters and they offered supportive “coverage”. Likewise with the other side.

And, the major blogs were able to push a relatively insignificant story into prominence (Rathergate) while ignoring more important issues.

Somewhat OT, you might be interested in this table. I compared the first three paragraphs of two “news” stories advocating for the DREAM Act side-by-side. Most people would assume that there’s some sort of formula at work. Perhaps someone with sources inside newsrooms could look into those and all the other very similar articles that have been written advocating for that Act.