Comments on: Guardian column: Fess up, journalists

By: Dipali

Dipali — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:46:05 +0000

This is bad news, but its good to know. This is just as bad as gvnmreeots considering journalist a threat (Information supremacy is the new air supremacy)

By: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Obama has not won

BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Obama has not won — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:36:23 +0000

[...] than link-whoring. Or influence peddling. Or maybe they just hate Clinton. But they’d never admit [...]

By: Evil Pundit

Evil Pundit — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:24:30 +0000

Interesting how bias in the media only becomes an issue when it’s hurting a Democrat.

The media bias against Republicans has been quite blatant for many years, but it never seemed to bother anyone. Except for Republicans, that is, and they don’t count.

Ironically, this has helped Republicans get elected, since many Democrat candidates have never undergone hostile scrutiny until they campaign for real. Then they suddenly find their weaknesses exposed, as John Kerry did four years ago.

This campaign is unusual in that the Democratic front runners are now both getting a little taste of how it feels to be a Republican candidate.

By: Marilyn

Marilyn — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:00:04 +0000

Just read your blog, picked up from the c span site. I agree with you 100%. This campaign is quickly becoming a racial issue. The media have painted Sen Clinton as racist, at the very least, or conniving and criminal . In 40 years of voting in presidential elections, I’ve not seen so much bias in the media. I also voted in the Tx primaries for Hillary and know of several incidents where Obama supporters tried to suppress Clinton delegates. Much of the press for Obama has skewed the thinking of our young voters . This is a very dangerous thing, & I’m just happy to read a different take on things. My fear is your voice is not being heard ,to any great extent.

By: John

John — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:24:58 +0000

I don’t disagree with your core argument, but plenty of successful blogs covering politics do so without disclosing the blogger’s personal preferences: talkingpointsmemo.com (neutral at least on the Dem primary), Ben Smith on Politico. I don’t believe these reporters are pushing agendas, but if they did disclose who they voted for, that gives fodder to people who want to paint them as tools of the campaign. (“He voted for X, so why should we believe him?”)

If reporters do their jobs well (granted, a big if), I’m not sure that what we gain from knowing their vote. The press supposedly has a love affair with McCain too, but do you think that’s because the people covering him are Republicans? We need more considered, evidence-based reporting. Disclosure alone won’t fix that.

By: Robert I. Laitres

Robert I. Laitres — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:53:32 +0000

If anyone has any expectation that the press will improve its quality in any way, they are very much mistaken. The media companies have been taking the “easy money” and “easy way out” for so long that if they actually had to “work” to get any real stories (sorry for using the four letter word “work”) they would die from exhaustion. Too many of their members, those you see on television or hear on radio, consider themselves “stars” and, as long as they can keep “raking in the big bucks” there is no reason for them to change, and they won’t. Looking, listening and reading their products, it leads me to believe that most don’t know the difference between reporting facts, advocating (propagandizing), or opining on issues. Having met several reporters, editors and publishers, what I find is that they would sell out their own mothers for a buck. They are merely reflecting the prevailing attitude in thsi country “Everything for a buck!” and others and even the country be damned.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:00:23 +0000

I completely agree with this. It’s time the press stopped giving Hillary a pass on her tax records and start getting on her about the earmarks. Honeymoon over!

By: Christopher Davis

Christopher Davis — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:12:50 +0000

No American who collaborates with the Guardian can be trusted.

By: I Am Barack, And So Can You!

I Am Barack, And So Can You! — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:29:39 +0000

After the volcanic mis-fire that was “Playing the race ace” (gimme a break puh-lease), this is more like it.

Let’s not all forget that a certain George W. Bush also got the exact same treatment 8 years ago, when investigative journalism collectively went AWOL and he had a very cosy time indeed, with many profiles focusing on the aw-shucks down-home-with-you-folks idiocy. This the guy born with a silver-boot in his mouth, a ‘regular guy’ ?

So. A little bit more journalistic back-bone and tough questioning – equally applied to all candidates – would be lovely to see. Enough of blind acceptance of intangible, vaucous rhetoric. It’s great that someone trying to get elected to the office of President can actually string a few words together and generate such fervour amogst people at public rallies – what a pleasant change after years of head-scratching faux-pas and illogical, confused statements on matters of international importance!

But then again, fantastic oratory skills aren’t everything. After all, a certain Adolf Hitler was pretty effective when it came to big speeches and that didn’t end too well.

You might flich at the parallel (I could care less) but it might hopefully underscore the larger issue at stake here: people seeking positions of political power need to be vetted and not be given the star treatment – they haven’t earned that right yet.

The public expects more of its journalists, whatever medium they present their opinions in.