Fox News reporter gets disciplined

[diamond geezer]

Fox reporter carpeted for spoof report
AFP
October 05, 2004

WASHINGTON: A senior reporter at US television network Fox has been disciplined for posting a fake article about John Kerry on its website.

The story, which purported to cover Senator Kerry's comments to supporters after last week's debate, said the Democratic challenger highlighted his "metrosexual" qualities.

"Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate", the story by chief political correspondent Carl Cameron said. "Women should like me! I do manicures."

Fox News spokesman Paul Schur said Cameron had been reprimanded over the bogus report, which had been "written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast".

He said Fox News apologised for the error, "which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice".

"This was a stupid mistake and a lapse in judgment, and Carl regrets it."

However, Mr Schur declined to explain how the spoof article appeared on the Fox News website, and said Cameron would continue to report on the campaign.

Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, is often criticised for a perceived Republican bias.


"perceived bias"?? Try obvious! Just try clicking on the Links from Foxnews and see what sort of websites you end up at.

Fair and Unbiased, my ass.

[makisushi]

"perceived bias"?? Try obvious! Just try clicking on the Links from Foxnews and see what sort of websites you end up at.

Fair and Unbiased, my ass.
Just like NPR, fair and unbiased, right?
I think that it is almost impossible to have an unbiased news organization. If there is one, I have yet to see it.

[zimv20]

Just like NPR, fair and unbiased, right?

please survey today's NPR offerings and point out instances where they show bias.

i'm sick of these unsubstantiated "liberal NPR" claims. substantiate it.

[IJ Reilly]

Precisely. Show me the bias at NPR. What are they covering that they should not cover? What aren't they covering that they ought to cover? What are they covering unfairly? Where is the NPR equivalent to Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity? Where is the NPR anchor who one minute is reading the news and the next minute feeding out party-line commentaries?

I'll tell you one thing FOX has managed to do. They've managed to erase the distinctions in some people's minds between quality journalism and pure gutter tripe.

[solvs]

Well, there's Al Franken. But he's just an entertainer. Like Rush said he was after the whole "pill-popping" thing. People on the far right call anyone in the middle the far left. They aren't all Michael Moores, or even Dan Rathers. Criticize Clinton and you're a patriot because it's your right. Criticize Bush and you're a commie, pinko, liberal, hippy, tree-hugging, frenchy, blah, blah, blah.

I shouldn't know what Hannity, Coulter, O'Reily, et al thinks or feels about the issues. They should learn to report more, and editorialize less. Otherwise, they should stop with the "Fair and Balanced/No Spin Zone" slogans. Or Robert Navak releasing the name of a federal agent because her husband spoke out against the Bush administration. At least the lefties can admit to being liberals.

The only thing I feel like I can trust is the Daily Show. They make fun of everybody. And :eek: MSNBC. I hate M$... but you gotta admit, it has good news coverage.

[wordmunger]

The only thing I feel like I can trust is the Daily Show. They make fun of everybody.

I love the Daily Show. Have you seen their latest ad campaign: "The Most Trusted Name in Fake News"?

They've got a billboard right across from the Fox News headquarters, and a full-page ad in this month's Atlantic.

I love it!

[Taft]

please survey today's NPR offerings and point out instances where they show bias.

i'm sick of these unsubstantiated "liberal NPR" claims. substantiate it.

Hear, hear!!

NPR has to be the one source I've found that gives BOTH sides of the story no matter what topic they are covering. Their stories are more in-depth than anything on Fox News or any other news station I know of.

I agree with Zim. Substantiate this baseless claim, please.

Taft

[Ugg]

Hear, hear!!

NPR has to be the one source I've found that gives BOTH sides of the story no matter what topic they are covering. Their stories are more in-depth than anything on Fox News or any other news station I know of.

I agree with Zim. Substantiate this baseless claim, please.

Taft

I'm convinced that the reason NPR is viewed as being liberal is that they avoid soundbites. Soundbites are easy to classify as being conservative as they come only in black and white. When an issue is discussed in depth, it is impossible not to explore the nuances of it, in other words a multitude of shades of gray are exposed and there is no way at all that such discussion can be labeled left leaning. Why are so many on the right so willing to push ignorance as a basis for their actions?

[makisushi]

please survey today's NPR offerings and point out instances where they show bias.

i'm sick of these unsubstantiated "liberal NPR" claims. substantiate it.
Alright, before everyone gets their panties in a bunch...

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting first addressed these questions in a 1993 study, which concluded that NPR's news programs failed, "in reporting, analysis and commentary, to reflect the diversity of the public." And here is part of the conclusion of that study.
"Like the network's core listeners, many congressional Democrats likely consider NPR to represent the most liberal perspectives within acceptable public policy debate. NPR's rare public stand on a national issue staked out "safe" ground for liberal-minded Democrats, and by extension, made taking a stand further to the left appear more radical and thus less politically attractive."
Granted the study was done ten year ago.

Here is an interesting article (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20031022.shtml) from a year ago.

Here is another quote from Jeffrey A. Dvorkin the NPR Ombudsman about a recent study by the Pew Center for the Public and the Press looking at the state of journalism, journalists and journalistic attitudes.:
"It found that a majority of American journalists say they are liberals. Not surprisingly this has been grist for conservatives because it confirms the impression that journalists are overwhelmingly liberal compared to the public in general." There you go.


I think you get the picture...these are just broad generalizations. If you want me to quote specific instances, I will.

I am sick of people thinking the media isn't biased.

[zimv20]

a professional journalist is able to separate their own beliefs from what they report. heck, even crap journalists know to do that. not all NPR correspondants are left of center (though many are), but that doesn't automatically taint their journalistic standards.

townhall.com? you'll have to do better than that.

my original challenge remains. pick a day, listen to NPR programming, and point out the bias.

otherwise, stop the BS that their reporting is liberal, and the inference that, because of that, their reporting is less valuable.

or does "in depth" automatically equate to "liberal" these days?

[makisushi]

Where is the NPR equivalent to Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity?
Terry Gross and John Ridley

[blackfox]

I am sick of people thinking the media isn't biased.

I beleive there is a significant difference between how NPR and FOX handle "news", even if you wish to paint them as both being "biased".

So I have to ask, doe this automatically equate the two? Since media is obviously "biased", do we throw our hands up in the air and allow any crime against journalism to go unpunished in a race toward the lowest-common-denominator?

What happened to judgements not based merely on comparison?

[makisushi]

a professional journalist is able to separate their own beliefs from what they report. heck, even crap journalists know to do that. not all NPR correspondants are left of center (though many are), but that doesn't automatically taint their journalistic standards.

townhall.com? you'll have to do better than that.

my original challenge remains. pick a day, listen to NPR programming, and point out the bias.

otherwise, stop the BS that their reporting is liberal, and the inference that, because of that, their reporting is less valuable.

or does "in depth" automatically equate to "liberal" these days?
I didn't set out to raise your blood pressure. I feel like I am participating in the Spanish Inquisition. I apoligize.
Look, I am not bashing NPR, I am just stating that ANY news program is bound to have bias. I listen to NPR everyday, I give money to them every year. I can listen to any news program or read any newspaper and pick out instances that show bias, liberal and conservative alike. I believe that most journalists do their best to report the facts, but I also believe that it is impossible to tell a story without some form of bias. Meaning, we are hearing and reading the journalists representation and summation of the news.

[Taft]

Terry Gross and John Ridley

Terry Gross is the antithesis of Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly CONSTANTLY injects opinions into his interviews because he is constantly running commentary. If a guest says something Bill O'Reilly doesn't like, he responds with, "Oh, COME ON! You really believe THAT!?!?" An interviewer with a shred of objectivity would not inject his opinion into an interview like that.

Further, their styles are COMPLETELY different. Bill O'Reilly strives for conflict, most of which he himself produces. He is not objective and doesn't claim to be. This allows him to literally attack his guests and cause confrontation. If you go on his show with an opinion which runs contrary to O'Reilly's, you can be assured you WILL be attacked. Gross, on the other hand, and in the traditional style of journalists, asks questions without injecting her reactions into the conversation. She doesn't attack based on her own beliefs. She tries to extract information.

I'm not saying Bill O'Reilly is the devil. But he is NOT a journalist in the traditional sense. His show is one of constant commentary. Gross' show is one of news and journalism.

Are the questions Gross picks sometimes indicative of her own bias? Probably. But that is true of ANY journalist or person out there. What seperates the good journalists from the bad is that the good one's try to limit the amount their own bias affects their work. O'Reilly doesn't even attempt to and THAT is what make him and Gross different.

Taft

[IJ Reilly]

Terry Gross and John Ridley

Funny, but I listen to NPR news every day and I have never heard Terry Gross appear on a news program. And Ridley? Never heard of him. And in any event, you haven't demonstrated in any way shape or form any how either one of them is the equivalent to O'Reilly or Hannity in their naked political partisanship.

[makisushi]

Are the questions Gross picks sometimes indicative of her own bias? Probably. But that is true of ANY journalist or person out there. What seperates the good journalists from the bad is that the good one's try to limit the amount their own bias affects their work.
Ok, I will agree with you about Bill O'Reilly.

And thank you for re-stating my point, above.

[blackfox]

And thank you for re-stating my point, above.

I am not sure anyone is disputing the inherent bias in using actual humans for use in delivering News. This tendency is recognized and actively mitigated by competent journalism.

Fox is not so abhorrent because of it's bias, but because of it's appalling lack of journalistic standards both as a result and in pursuit of that bias.

To equate NPR is an insult.

Perhaps we are talking past each other here....

[makisushi]

Funny, but I listen to NPR news every day and I have never heard Terry Gross appear on a news program. And Ridley? Never heard of him. And in any event, you haven't demonstrated in any way shape or form any how either one of them is the equivalent to O'Reilly or Hannity in their naked political partisanship.
Terry Gross-Fresh Air
John Ridley-commentator for Morning Edition (he is not on everyday)

Terry Gross is not as blunt as Bill O'Rielly, but has on many occasions used Bill O'Reilly type tactics when asking questions. I apologize if I can't remember any off the top of my head.

I will admit that Terry Gross and John Ridley are not nearly as brash as Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, but neither of those guys claim to not have an opinion on what they are reporting on.

I will assume that NPR will never have the equivelant of Bill or Sean, simply because it is Public Radio.

The spanish inquisition continues... :D

[makisushi]

To equate NPR is an insult.

Perhaps we are talking past each other here....
Thank you. I too think we are talking past each other.
I never meant to EQUATE NPR to FOX News. I was only trying to point out that bias exists in all reporting.

[IJ Reilly]

I didn't set out to raise your blood pressure. I feel like I am participating in the Spanish Inquisition. I apoligize.
Look, I am not bashing NPR, I am just stating that ANY news program is bound to have bias. I listen to NPR everyday, I give money to them every year. I can listen to any news program or read any newspaper and pick out instances that show bias, liberal and conservative alike. I believe that most journalists do their best to report the facts, but I also believe that it is impossible to tell a story without some form of bias. Meaning, we are hearing and reading the journalists representation and summation of the news.

Sorry, but I have to point out that this argument is based on pure deconstruction, of the "everybody is biased therefore nobody should be trusted" variety. Where this leads in journalism is to the conclusion that since FOX and NPR are both "biased" that they're "about the same," even though NPR strives to provide information and FOX has no greater mission than trumpeting the Republican Party line. The differences in approach to reporting could hardly be more apparent. I think we owe it to ourselves to be able to make these none-too-subtle distinctions so that we do not fall into the trap carefully created by the right wing, which is to destroy the credibility of all sources of information that don't promote their agenda. After that, it's all bread and circuses.

[mischief]

So the arguement here is over perceptioons right?

I'll just be brief.

With no other source of input than our imperfect senses and no mode of reasoning than our imperfect and highly individual neural pathways we have no proof that anything exists, let alone has truth, meaning or relevance. For all we know Terry Gross and Bill Oreilly are simply a neurological twitch, a mental compensation for a lack of adequate data... a hollucination if you will. In fact I may as well stop pretending I'm typing this because nobody really exists except me anyway because it's all in my head after all and reality is simply a complex series of small personal nerological disfunctions. Can someone pull the plug? I don't like this coma anymore.

[makisushi]

I think we owe it to ourselves to be able to make these none-too-subtle distinctions so that we do not fall into the trap carefully created by the right wing, which is to destroy the credibility of all sources of information that don't promote their agenda. After that, it's all bread and circuses.
I am going to open my big mouth again. Are you saying that there are no traps set by the left wing? and that the left wing doesn't try and destory the credibility of all the sources of information that don't promote their agenda?
I think that it is a naive thing to say. But at least we know where you stand.

[IJ Reilly]

I am going to open my big mouth again. Are you saying that there are no traps set by the left wing? and that the left wing doesn't try and destory the credibility of all the sources of information that don't promote their agenda?
I think that it is a naive thing to say. But at least we know where you stand.

Apparently you don't have any idea where I stand, because I haven't said any of those things. If you'd like to try again to respond to my last post, then by all means, feel free, but if you think I can be bated into changing the subject, then you're wasting your time.

[makisushi]

Apparently you don't have any idea where I stand, because I haven't said any of those things. If you'd like to try again to respond to my last post, then by all means, feel free, but if you think I can be bated into changing the subject, then you're wasting your time.
Ah poop....foiled again. lol
Don't flatter yourself. :D

[blackfox]

I am going to open my big mouth again. Are you saying that there are no traps set by the left wing? and that the left wing doesn't try and destory the credibility of all the sources of information that don't promote their agenda?
I think that it is a naive thing to say. But at least we know where you stand.
I believe the meaning of the above snippet is easy enough to discern when taken in context of the whole paragraph.

I think it is too early to piss IJ off, and that is surely what you are going to do with comments like these, which obviously ignore the fact that IJ, myself and others have gone to various pains to explain that one must judge each source by it's own merits regarding the standards of journalism and not get mired in comparisons or relativism.

[IJ Reilly]

So the arguement here is over perceptioons right?

I'll just be brief.

With no other source of input than our imperfect senses and no mode of reasoning than our imperfect and highly individual neural pathways we have no proof that anything exists, let alone has truth, meaning or relevance. For all we know Terry Gross and Bill Oreilly are simply a neurological twitch, a mental compensation for a lack of adequate data... a hollucination if you will. In fact I may as well stop pretending I'm typing this because nobody really exists except me anyway because it's all in my head after all and reality is simply a complex series of small personal nerological disfunctions. Can someone pull the plug? I don't like this coma anymore.

I'm sorry, were you saying something? (I keep hearing this buzzing sound.)

The windup, the pitch... it's banana cream! :)

[Taft]

Here is another quote from Jeffrey A. Dvorkin the NPR Ombudsman about a recent study by the Pew Center for the Public and the Press looking at the state of journalism, journalists and journalistic attitudes.:
"It found that a majority of American journalists say they are liberals. Not surprisingly this has been grist for conservatives because it confirms the impression that journalists are overwhelmingly liberal compared to the public in general." There you go.

Couple things about this quote.

First, I'd like to highlight that this came from NPR's ombudsman. This man is dedicated to resolving conflicts and accusations leveled against NPR. If there is public compaint about objectivity at NPR, the ombudsman takes the case and tries to determine right from wrong, where a journalist at NPR might have crossed the line. He frequently criticises NPR reporters when they deserve it.

I'd like to point out that Fox News does not have an ombudsman. When the public questions Fox's fairness and objectivity no internal person is assigned to investigate. The complaints, to an extent, fall on deaf ears.

Second, look carefully at what he said. He wasn't AGREEING with what the report said. In fact, the quote didn't comment on the accuracy of the report at all. Let's view the quote in some fuller context, shall we?

From http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1919999&columnId=2781901

It found that a majority of American journalists say they are liberals. Not surprisingly this has been grist for conservatives because it confirms the impression that journalists are overwhelmingly liberal compared to the public in general.

This is only a small portion of the study. But it is likely to follow news organizations around for the rest of the political year like Marley's ghost. For some, Bush's rise or fall in November will be inextricably linked to this poll.

And that leads to some serious concerns about the Pew poll as well.

First, the poll never asks exactly how personal political attitudes impact on the ability of journalists to do their job. In that sense, I think the poll may be a disservice. It implies -- but never explains how or if bias has an impact on journalism. The poll simply assumes -- as conservatives constantly point out -- that bias makes its way into the journalism.

He said that basically, this will be used as ammunition by conservatives as, on the surface, it confirms their suspicions. But digging deeper, he saw some problems with the study which consequently leads him to disagree with the conclusions of those conservatives. They address what journalists identify themselves as, he says, but not what affect that has on their coverage. That, I think, is an important point.

These out of context sound bites are EXACTLY the kind of thing that stinks about journalism today. O'Reilly, after his "conflict" with Gross on Fresh Air (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133177,00.html gives a good overview), used the ombudsman report (full text: http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/2003/031015.html), against her. However, I would say that he completely overstated the ombudsman's critique of Gross. In fact, I'd say the ombudsman had some harsh words for BOTH O'Reilly and Gross. To turn O'Reilly's (il)logic against him, why did he not mention the fact that the ombudsman scolded O'Reilly? This was never addressed by O'Reilly, nor did Gross have time to respond to that accusation on his show. That's entertainment, not journalism.

Taft

[Taft]

I will admit that Terry Gross and John Ridley are not nearly as brash as Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, but neither of those guys claim to not have an opinion on what they are reporting on.

I will assume that NPR will never have the equivelant of Bill or Sean, simply because it is Public Radio.

I'm not saying this to be flip, but doesn't that say something about the two organizations? Maybe something about NPR being inherently more balanced given that an O'Reilly or Hannity cannot exist at NPR?

Hmmm...makes you think, no?

Taft

[mischief]

I'm sorry, were you saying something? (I keep hearing this buzzing sound.)

The windup, the pitch... it's banana cream! :)

Good translation. Can I bang my shoe on the table now? ;)

" My feet hurt from these damn shoes and now you're bitching about Nukes!!?!"

-Nikita kruschev breaks down from the lack of a good cobbler in the kremlin and is quickly covered by a quick-thinking translator, inadvertantly changing history.


Haven't we heard this media bias bitch before from 2 or 3 incarnations of a certain banned member?

[IJ Reilly]

Good translation. Can I bang my shoe on the table now?

Neyt. You would be out of order and be removed from the hall in leg irons.

[skunk]

"Neyt"?

[IJ Reilly]

Somebody is being too literal again... I've run out of banana cream. What would you like?

[skunk]

Make mine a double Jamesons, no ice, no water. :D

[mischief]

*Flips borscht pie a few times for practice, hefts, begins juggling with a political-hot-potato pie and an ideologue-mousse torte*

"I could always really get involved..."

*WHAP!* *SPLAT!* * WHOP!*


"But what would be the point?"

*Walks away whistling.....* :D :rolleyes: :p

[zimv20]

i'd like to point out that while terry gross is an employee of NPR, john ridley is not.

[zimv20]

i'd next like to point out that we still have yet to hear an instance from today or yesterday of liberal bias sneaking into NPR programming.

[zimv20]

i'd now like to wonder aloud about why journalists tend to identify liberal. could it be because seeking truth is a liberal trait?

[zimv20]

finally -- sushi guy -- you've gone from bashing NPR as liberal, and implying they're deficient because of it, to rapidly retreating to the vapid position that humans are inherently flawed. is this really how you're propping up your argument?

how does "all humans are biased" necessarily lead to, "therefore, NPR is liberal"?

also of interest is your "who, little ol' me?" tactic. you make an unsubstantiated claim, then proclaim your innocence when it causes discussion. further, you slyly poke fun at people for overreacting.

amusing.

[mischief]

further, you slyly poke fun at people for overreacting.

amusing.

Sly-ly.... Funny... I like it. 2 points.

[makisushi]

i'd next like to point out that we still have yet to hear an instance from today or yesterday of liberal bias sneaking into NPR programming.
While I don't have time to listen and critique every minute of NPR right now, I will give you an instance when I hear it.

I understand that political discussions get very emotional and I apologize if I have offended anyone.

[makisushi]

finally -- sushi guy -- you've gone from bashing NPR as liberal, and implying they're deficient because of it, to rapidly retreating to the vapid position that humans are inherently flawed. is this really how you're propping up your argument?

how does "all humans are biased" necessarily lead to, "therefore, NPR is liberal"?

also of interest is your "who, little ol' me?" tactic. you make an unsubstantiated claim, then proclaim your innocence when it causes discussion. further, you slyly poke fun at people for overreacting.

amusing.
If you go back and re-read my original post you will see exactly what my point is. I did not set out to "bash" NPR.

I will concede this arguement to you, as it seems to be much more important to you than me.

[zimv20]

Sly-ly.... Funny... I like it. 2 points.
ha! actually, it was entirely unintentional.

[Taft]

ha! actually, it was entirely unintentional.

Has what you guys are dancing around been substantiated? Is he back?

Taft

[Rower_CPU]

Has what you guys are dancing around been substantiated? Is he back?

Taft

Not so far as the evidence at hand can determine.

Given the tone/style of his posts, I'd say no.

[makisushi]

Has what you guys are dancing around been substantiated? Is he back?

Taft
who me?

[zimv20]

I will concede this arguement to you, as it seems to be much more important to you than me.
i do not accept. if NPR regulary has liberal bias creeping into their programming, i want to know about it. further, i want to know which programs and which correspondants do so. i want to be informed, not "win" a forum discussion.

[zimv20]

Given the tone/style of his posts, I'd say no.
i agree. i didn't mean to imply anything w/ "slyly".

[makisushi]

i do not accept. if NPR regulary has liberal bias creeping into their programming, i want to know about it. further, i want to know which programs and which correspondants do so. i want to be informed, not "win" a forum discussion.
Ok, over this next week, I will make a conserted effort to write down instances.
The last thing I want to do is get into a bashfest. I appreciate your candor, zim.

[zimv20]

Ok, over this next week, I will make a conserted effort to write down instances.

excellent. i look forward to what you find.

[Taft]

who me?

Yeah. Its a long story, but to shorten it up: a guy kept coming back after bannings and you aren't him. ;)

BTW, I too am very interested in hearing examples of bias on NPR. Given that I have myself have liberal leanings, getting "the other side's" perspective on this should be illuminating. I can certainly see the bias in Fox News, but if it exists at NPR, I'd like to see that, too.

Know however, that I'll look at any evidence you cite with a critical eye. Tis my nature. :)

Taft

[makisushi]

Yeah. Its a long story, but to shorten it up: a guy kept coming back after bannings and you aren't him. ;)

Well, I certainly hope I haven't done anything to warrent a banning.

Know however, that I'll look at any evidence you cite with a critical eye. Tis my nature. :)

Taft
You have given me no reason to think otherwise! ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Well, I certainly hope I haven't done anything to warrent a banning.

I'm not a moderator so my word is far from official -- but no, you haven't broken any rules as far as I can tell.

Understand, though, if you're new here: this is a tough audience. This board is not a good place to make a casual argument, because evidence to support it will be demanded. Don't take it personally.

[Taft]

Understand, though, if you're new here: this is a tough audience. This board is not a good place to make a casual argument, because evidence to support it will be demanded. Don't take it personally.

Lately, I've actually been posting with that in mind. Looking back on this thread, I was afraid we'd scared another newbie-conservative away. Trying to go a little easier on these new members might help make this board a little more diverse.

Lull them in, then let the real debate begin!

Taft

[diamond geezer]

Thank you. I too think we are talking past each other.
I never meant to EQUATE NPR to FOX News. I was only trying to point out that bias exists in all reporting.

Yes, but other media organisations don't constantly harp on about how unbiased and fair they are.

How can you trust anything Fox say, when their main tenent is a complete and transparent lie.

[makisushi]

Yes, but other media organisations don't constantly harp on about how unbiased and fair they are.


You mean like how you are harping on Fox News. Let's be real, there is mudslinging from both sides.

[diamond geezer]

You mean like how you are harping on Fox News. Let's be real, there is mudslinging from both sides.

Much as I wish it were otherwise, I don't have the circulation/influence of Fox News.

Should a major news organisation be compared and held up to the same scrutiny as an individual?

Your really grasping at straws here.

[diamond geezer]

I'm posting this story in a new thread, but this comment really sums up Fox News's thoughts on "fair and balanced"

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so

[skunk]

Neither "fair and balanced" nor "shame" are in their lexicon.

[Jedi Matthew]

Not trying to get my head cut off here, but I agree that in every news agency there are certain individuals that tend to show their bias a bit more than others. But I don't agree that any organization is inherently one way or another. It is true that, per management, those who seem to lean a certain way may get more air time or better stories, but I don't think you can say that a certain offering is ABSOLUTELY conservative/liberal.

I do agree that it is easy to generalize the entire Fox News channel as being "conservative." I can see in some ways how you might called NPR "liberal," but that is just if liberal means "not conservative." My local NPR station is KQED San Francisco. A locally produced radio program it airs is called 'Forum' with Michael Krasny. (I believe this is syndicated to other NPR affiliates as well.) He is the only offering from this NPR affiliate that I sometimes perceive as going too far in his assessment of current affairs. (I'm not saying he does this a lot, but Krasny is known to slip up sometimes and give away how liberally he feels about things.)

With a program like Forum, however, expressing an opinion is expected. Heck, it's the whole point of having a "forum" discussion. It is important to distinguish between "editorial programming" and "reporting."

Unfortunately, in the case of Fox News, they (and this is my opinion) don't recognize this distinction. Editorial and opinion flow into news reporting and the end result is so garbled and distorted by sensationalized "bumper teasers" you have no idea whether the story you just watched was about an imminent Mt. Saint Helen's eruption or Cheney dropping the F-bomb.

In NPR it is obvious when you're listening to the news. It is clearly indicated that a top or bottom of the hour news report is beginning and "here are the headlines." Not, "...and an unbelievable day at the Democratic National Convention." Just plain and simple, "this happened."

NPR is the only news source I rely upon. I may check CNN.com throughout the day for a headline or two, but my mornings and evenings and trust are rooted in the offerings of NPR.

I want to hear what happened, not to hear why someone thinks it happened and what it all means. I can determine what it means to me, I don't need to be spoon fed an ideology.

[IJ Reilly]

Just as a point of order, I'd like to add that NPR isn't a radio station or even a chain of radio stations, it's a service which provides content, which affiliated stations purchase at their option. One of these products is news (ATC, Morning Edition and Weekend Edition). The local station may choose to buy no other content from NPR, buy from other public radio services (such as PRI), or to fill the balance of their schedules with local programming over which NPR has no control. Public radio stations I've listened to around the country take on very different and local characters as a result. The only obvious thing they have in common is NPR news. So when I talk about NPR, I'm referring only to their news organization. Whatever other programming the affiliates run the rest of the time is entirely their business, and not germane to this discussion, IMO.

[Jedi Matthew]

Just as a point of order, I'd like to add that NPR isn't a radio station or even a chain of radio stations, it's a service which provides content, which affiliated stations purchase at their option.

Great point. It is worthwhile to mention that what is classically described as "NPR" also involves offerings from PRI, American Public Media, Minnesota Public Radio, and the BBC World Service (among others.) A stream of content from npr.org is not necessarily what you'll hear when you stream from kqed.org

Whether or not the offering is germane, I offer it simply because I think most persons perceptions are shaped by what their local affiliate offers and what they peg as "NPR." But for the sake of discussion I guess we can presume that by NPR we're talking the national news offerings and key programs.

[makisushi]

Much as I wish it were otherwise, I don't have the circulation/influence of Fox News.

Should a major news organisation be compared and held up to the same scrutiny as an individual?

Your really grasping at straws here.

I think you are missing the point. You are making it sound as if Fox News is bullying other news organizations. If you have such a problem with Fox News, don't watch or listen to it.

And as far as straws go, I will take what I can get.

[diamond geezer]

I think you are missing the point. You are making it sound as if Fox News is bullying other news organizations. If you have such a problem with Fox News, don't watch or listen to it.

And as far as straws go, I will take what I can get.

No, what I'm saying is that Fox News deliberately misinforms the public when it says it's fair and unbalanced.

I only watch Fox to try and understand why so many yanks are ignorant.

[makisushi]

I only watch Fox to try and understand why so many yanks are ignorant.
It is statements like this that make you look ignorant.

[zimv20]

It is worthwhile to mention that what is classically described as "NPR" also involves offerings from PRI, American Public Media, Minnesota Public Radio, and the BBC World Service (among others.)
really? well... the people who lump all those together shouldn't call it NPR. in this thread, i don't believe anyone has made that mistake.

[mactastic]

It is statements like this that make you look ignorant.

Why would you say that?

Hadn't you heard that FOX News viewers are the most mis-informed of all the cable news viewers?

[diamond geezer]

It is statements like this that make you look ignorant.

Just who was ignorant on Iraq and their WOMD? Or on the Al Quaeda link. Or on the Iraqi welcome involving throwing flowers at US troops.

The rest of the world knew what was going on, it's your media that makes you so ignorant.

[Thomas Veil]

Good translation. Can I bang my shoe on the table now?
Okay, I got that reference even before you mentioned Khrushchev. [*feels old*]


"Neyt"?
I think he meant Nate. You know, that annoying smelly guy who keeps tripping over the MacRumor server's power cord.


i'd now like to wonder aloud about why journalists tend to identify liberal. could it be because seeking truth is a liberal trait?
Okay, time to be serious.

I've heard journalists explain it thusly: when you go out to various locations to do stories, and you see the kinds of misery and suffering that people go through, often at the hands of the powerful, it tends to make your views rather liberal, even if you weren't that way to begin with.

[makisushi]

Just who was ignorant on Iraq and their WOMD? Or on the Al Quaeda link. Or on the Iraqi welcome involving throwing flowers at US troops.

The rest of the world knew what was going on, it's your media that makes you so ignorant.
Well, I am glad to know that you are so enlightened. Please save us from our black hole.

[mactastic]

Well, I am glad to know that you are so enlightened. Please save us from our black hole.

Our media did a piss-poor job during the lead up to the war. He was commenting on that, not calling you ignorant. No need to get personal here.

[zimv20]

link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/28/comedy.politics/index.html)


Survey reveals late-night TV viewers better informed

(CNN) -- So, three guys are watching TV.

One turns on Jay Leno. One tunes into David Letterman. And the other watches Jon Stewart.

Who's better informed politically?

In a recent survey, viewers of Stewart's "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central tested better than Letterman and Leno viewers on a six-question politics quiz. (How do you stack up? Take the quiz and compare your score.)

Viewers of all three shows know more about the background of presidential candidates and their positions on issues than people who don't watch late-night TV.

On top of that, "Daily Show" viewers know more about election issues than people who regularly read newspapers or watch television news, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey.

(more)

[zimv20]

that CNN quiz (javascript:CNN_openPopup('/interactive/entertainment/0409/late.night.quiz/frameset.exclude.html','620x430','toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollb ars=no,resizable=no,width=620,height=430');), btw, is pretty darn easy. even someone paying almost no attention should get at least 4 of 6 right.

edit:

whoa! just saw my results. seems people are pretty dumb...

You got 6 out of 6 correct on your first attempt.

Excellent work! But when do you sleep?

Check your score against these averages:
• "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart viewers - 3.59 correct
• "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno viewers - 2.95 correct
• "Late Show" with David Letterman viewers - 2.91 correct
• No late-night comedy viewing - 2.62 correct


edit 2:

yeah, that link i made is pants. go to this page (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/28/comedy.politics/index.html) and click on "Take the quiz" (inside the story)

[solvs]

I got all 6 right, I'm a Daily Show and Tough Crowd viewer. I watch Fox news occasionally, and find that they are far more conservative than NPR is liberal. The only part I have a problem with is them saying that they are "Fair and Balanced", which they are not.

[Thomas Veil]

Same here. Got all six right.

To be fair, I only knew the answer to question #1 because I snuck into a Bush rally and heard him say it.

[vniow]

Link to original source pleeze (beginning of thread)?

Thanx.

[pseudobrit]

Don't say I never did nothing for ya.

ask and ye shall receive (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041003/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_kerry_media_041003210627)

[solvs]

I saw it on MSNBC. It was actually kinda funny because they were making fun of them, but still trying to remain fair. Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are pretty good IMO if you're looking for somewhat even coverage.

(yeah, I know, M$... but it's still good coverage)