Honest reporting??

[ecoli]

What the hell is wrong with news networks these days? This is a gross display. Remember when reporters used to question and report, and not insert snide remarks about the people they're supposed to be interviewing? Not to mention attacking a rival network in the middle of a news report.

 

And I thought CNN claimed to be pretty neutral.

 

6G3fvNhdoc0

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G3fvNhdoc0

Not sure if video works for you guys

Edited April 16, 2009 by Pangloss
fixed video

[SH3RL0CK]

No, I do not remember those days.

 

I think what is wrong with the newsmedia (in general) is that they have lost such marketshare they are quickly becoming irrelevant. Back in the 1960's, 95%+ of the households in America watched one of the big three TV networks nightly. IIRC, it was less than 50% several years ago (I'll try to find a source when I get a chance and more time).

 

With the advent of cable and now the internet (not to mention Fox News), there is more competition as well.

 

And I have to say the quality of the news reports has become horrific...I've seen atrocious reporting in recent years. Who gives these "journalists" their degrees??

 

So, to compete, I believe they think actions such as described are necessary (why couldn't they instead deliver a superior product?). But I think this turns people off from them (I know I have been, I haven't regularly watched any nightly news program in years), which worsens their position.

[ecoli]

It just bothers me to no end that networks can bash Fox news as being slanted and corrupt (which they are) but put pundits and "reporters" like this on and expect viewers just to accept it.

 

Has their elitism made them blind to their hypocrisy, or is something deeper.

 

I would except competition to lead to better reporting... very few people I talk to claim to actually like the biased, 'blog-like' reporting. How do networks not realize this?

[bascule]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G3fvNhdoc0

Not sure if video works for you guys

 

Nope' date=' but this does.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G3fvNhdoc0

 

What the hell is wrong with news networks these days? This is a gross display.

 

Yeah, looks like the two of them are just talking past each other, responding with red herrings. Seems a lot like what goes on in these forums

 

That's not good reporting, but it's not a "gross display" to me. Not exactly sure how that reporter became a CNN correspondent, but I'd just chalk that up to ineptitude.

 

As far as what constitutes a gross display, about about Cavuto's defense of why Fox News was devoting so much time to the teabagging?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UThpJCxzSYY

 

Cavuto says Fox will be there, even though "some other news organizations" will not. In traditional hearsay-fueled "some people say" Fox News style, Cavuto doesn't mention which news organizations he's talking about, but ambiguously refers to the unnamed THEM who wish to stifle the teabagging. (Of course as evidenced from the clip above CNN was there, reporting ineptly)

 

He notes these other, unnamed news organizations (or "THEM" in Cavuto-speak) covered the Million Man March. He takes this opportunity to note that unlike THEM, Fox News also covered the Million Man March, because it was a big deal "even though, as [Cavuto] pointed out, it was well short of a million men"

 

Fox News didn't exist at the time of the Million Man March. The CNN reporter was rude and inept, but not dishonest. Fox News lied outright.

[john5746]

I thought the first half was pretty good, but the remarks at the end were unprofessional, but typical these days. The main problem is that you can see she just wants to score a soundbite - she isn't going to have more than a minute to report.

[ecoli]

She claimed right at the end of the video that Fox news is behind the march, without bothering to ask any of the thousands of protesters if that was true. That seems pretty dishonest to me.

 

You're right about fox news, but I think both situations go beyond ordinary ineptitude.

[Pangloss]

As far as what constitutes a gross display, about about Cavuto's defense of why Fox News was devoting so much time to the teabagging?

 

Indeed, I've been wondering why Fox News Channel anchors seem to know so much about teabagging. Of course, they say they hire more expert consultants than any other network, so I guess we should give credit where it's due!

[bascule]

She claimed right at the end of the video that Fox news is behind the march

 

She claimed it was "highly promoted by the conservative network Fox," which it certainly was. Former CNN turned Fox News personality Glenn Beck's 9/12 Project was one of the driving forces behind teabagging. Fox News devoted considerable airtime to it and I think there's little doubt the turnout can largely be attributed to Fox News's promotion.

 

I think the fact that a network like CNN would ever employ a whack job like Glenn Beck really speaks to their desire not to come off as overtly left wing.

[Pangloss]

CNN highly promoted the tea parties as well, for exactly the same reason that they don't want to mention regarding Fox (because it shines a light on the real problem of 24-hour news networks and their motivation to create drama).

 

Amusing.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Esteemed CNN journalist Anderson Cooper talking about how it's "hard to talk when you're teabagging":

 

I64Ed5iLu4M

Edited April 16, 2009 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

So, where could a guy go to get some reliable and unbiased news?

[Saryctos]

So, where could a guy go to get some reliable and unbiased news?

 

I don't think that's possible anymore. The populace as a whole needs to start filtering their own bias from all the sources they have available. Know what bias you're getting and retroactively spin it the other direction in your head =P

[Kaeroll]

I don't think that's possible anymore. The populace as a whole needs to start filtering their own bias from all the sources they have available. Know what bias you're getting and retroactively spin it the other direction in your head =P

Unfortunately, in this country at least (the UK), critical thinking skills seem to be at an all-time low. I dread to think of the situation in the average American household.

[swansont]

She claimed right at the end of the video that Fox news is behind the march, without bothering to ask any of the thousands of protesters if that was true. That seems pretty dishonest to me.

 

The truth of the statement is independent of the protesters' knowledge of it.

[CaptainPanic]

So, where could a guy go to get some reliable and unbiased news?

 

Everywhere: check the news from both left and right, or conservative and liberal or whatever division you think is relevant for the news topic you want to learn about.

 

Be your own journalist.

 

There is no lack of information, just a poor quality of reporting. We ourselves (and our short attention spans) are to blame. We click, zap and surf and traditional media are using any technique possible to keep our attention until the next commercial break. That means that they will not start an elaborate explanation of all facts, but will prefer to show some screaming people on the street who are being interrupted. The fact that this reporter was pushed around a bit has no news-value, but it IS the only thing that people will remember tomorrow.

 

I believe that many European countries have state sponsored, but supposedly independent tv channels. The Dutch and Belgian versions of that seem more independent than American news, but they too are biased... People are always biased, and news is created by people.

 

[edit] I think that in the Netherlands, traditionally our media have been very biased. Our newspapers are socialist, religious, liberal, etc. The same goes for TV channels (there are many broadcast stations who share the state sponsored channels, and the news agency is one of them). People just knew that this was biased. It was no secret, but in fact the opposite: it was out in the open (the names of the newspapers and channels suggested that they are biased). With the coming of commercial channels, a new type of bias is introduced: the bias to attract viewers regardless of content.

Edited April 17, 2009 by CaptainPanic

[Sisyphus]

I believe that many European countries have state sponsored, but supposedly independent tv channels. The Dutch and Belgian versions of that seem more independent than American news, but they too are biased... People are always biased, and news is created by people.

 

Interestingly, the impression I get from the BBC is one of considerably less bias than most American TV news. British members might feel differently, I don't know.

 

With the coming of commercial channels, a new type of bias is introduced: the bias to attract viewers regardless of content.

 

Please, we practically invented sensationalist journalism.

[ecoli]

The truth of the statement is independent of the protesters' knowledge of it.

 

Then she should have been interviewing a media analyst, not protesters. She should have been focusing on why the protesters where protesting, not slamming a rival network.

 

I wonder if it was the other way around (If the anchor worked for Fox) if you guys would still be defending her.... clearly this is a partisan issue for many.

[swansont]

Then she should have been interviewing a media analyst, not protesters. She should have been focusing on why the protesters where protesting, not slamming a rival network.

 

I wonder if it was the other way around (If the anchor worked for Fox) if you guys would still be defending her.... clearly this is a partisan issue for many.

 

I'm not defending her, per se. I just don't see the difference between her saying it or the anchor in the studio saying it. Quite often reporters convey information without the interview being a part of the report. The protesters are probably not the most reliable source of information on whether Fox was promoting the protests, and I'd hope that we can agree that "if some random guy on the street said it it must be true" is below even network journalistic standards.

[ParanoiA]

We ourselves (and our short attention spans) are to blame. We click, zap and surf and traditional media are using any technique possible to keep our attention until the next commercial break.That means that they will not start an elaborate explanation of all facts, but will prefer to show some screaming people on the street who are being interrupted. The fact that this reporter was pushed around a bit has no news-value, but it IS the only thing that people will remember tomorrow.

 

No kidding. You know there's a problem when this is top news:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090417/ap_en_ot/people_winfrey_twitter

 

We, Americans, are a shallow lot.

 

[edit'] I think that in the Netherlands, traditionally our media have been very biased. Our newspapers are socialist, religious, liberal, etc. The same goes for TV channels (there are many broadcast stations who share the state sponsored channels, and the news agency is one of them). People just knew that this was biased. It was no secret, but in fact the opposite: it was out in the open (the names of the newspapers and channels suggested that they are biased). With the coming of commercial channels, a new type of bias is introduced: the bias to attract viewers regardless of content.

 

I think this is a better alternative though. Instead of the unbiased pretense, which damages any resemblance to critical thinking, it openly declares the bias so we know how the information is favored.

 

Of course, this may require a change on our part now. Instead of writing off reports from a biased source 180 degrees counter to our ideology, we should require a fair burden of verification instead.

[ecoli]

I'm not defending her, per se. I just don't see the difference between her saying it or the anchor in the studio saying it.

Being somewhere with protesters implies that she's covering the event, not the whole story around the event. At least to me.

 

How would you like it, if you were the protester:

 

Reporter (in a snarky voice): "Oh well this is clearly small government, Fox news crowd"

Protester: "Uhh... you asked a question, cut me off while I was trying to answer and made a questionable assumption while supposedly making a report on our event without bias?"

 

What if a fox news reporter was covering an Global Warming rally and said something like... "Oh it looks like we have a lot of hysterical liberals out here... Excuse me sir, what are you doing here? ....

(ignores protester)

... Oh yes, clearly this is a rally being supported by the Communist News Network (CNN)"

 

I exaggerate the point somewhat. I'm just annoyed by the double standard.

 

Quite often reporters convey information without the interview being a part of the report.

Usually they can do that without sounding obviously biased against the people she's supposed to be reporting on.

The protesters are probably not the most reliable source of information on whether Fox was promoting the protests, and I'd hope that we can agree that "if some random guy on the street said it it must be true" is below even network journalistic standards.

Quite true, but am I supposed to take a news anchor's biased opinion of it instead? (A reporter, mind you, who is clearly not interested in what the protesters are trying to say)

[Mr Skeptic]

I think this is a better alternative though. Instead of the unbiased pretense, which damages any resemblance to critical thinking, it openly declares the bias so we know how the information is favored.

 

Of course, this may require a change on our part now. Instead of writing off reports from a biased source 180 degrees counter to our ideology, we should require a fair burden of verification instead.

 

I'd agree, but openly stating the bias could also result in an increase of bias: they would no longer be trying/pretending to be neutral. As it is, most people are aware of the bias of specific news sources. We still have to account for the bias either way though.

[ecoli]

Of course, this may require a change on our part now. Instead of writing off reports from a biased source 180 degrees counter to our ideology, we should require a fair burden of verification instead.

This is why I almost prefer blogs to TV media. I'll be sorry to see print journalism go, however.