14 Responses

  1. My first post. Seems like it might be better to post these on the main page rather than the link dump. Whatya think?

    Like

  2. I think so. I'm going to read it in a minute. I put a post up at the same time but put it back as a draft for now. Pretty interesting day as far as posts and comments are concerned.

    Like

  3. I saw that Lms, then it disapeared and I wondered it I did something. Put yours up whenever you want, I just wanted to try a post instead of the link dump to do my part for content. No biggie, thought it was interesting.

    Like

  4. Troll- I think if it's a topic like this, media bias, that making it a post rather than a link dump is the way to go. As for the article itself, I think using interviews done 7 years apart and by different interviewers to prove bias is…err… a stretch. That isn't to say there isn't a liberal media bias which I have perviously (at the PL) conceded exists, just to say that this seems an odd way to go about proving it. Also, what a terrible question this was: "So do you agree," Curry said to Suskind, "that if you cannot get these details right, then the broader analysis … that you put forth in this book … has got to be questioned?" Yikes.

    Like

  5. Agreed about the stretch part, ashot, but Curry was hilarious in her shilling.

    Like

  6. If it involves Anne Curry, perhaps we should write it off to stupidity and incompetence rather than some mass conspiracy. Seriously….the woman gets on my last fat nerve. Haven't watched the Today Show since she took over.

    Like

  7. To me, the key word is what do you mean by "media"? It seems to be we often tend to group CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and selected shows and papers and whatnot together, and deem that to be "The Media", when Fox News, rating wise, often beats them all (in terms of news programs) combined. Add the conservative media landscape, liberal media bias simply does not mean what it meant 20 years ago. The fact is, of course, all media is biased, because all the people in media are biased, in one way or another, about stories, or about how they should be covered, or what should be emphasized. Indeed, lots of folks agitate for more bias in media, deeming what, say, a climate skeptic with a phD has to say less important versus what Al Gore has to say (or what Glenn Beck has to say versus what a highly credentialed climate scientist has to say, depending on the venue). While the word bias, of course, has meaning, I like the idea of "the narrative". There is a narrative framework which people subscribe to, and then that narrative becomes how they choose to go about doing what they do. In the case of the media, the narrative can encompass a lot of things, but it's not always pure partisan bias. There is a narrative regarding Ron Paul, for example (kook), and a narrative regarding the Tea Party, and a narrative regarding the amazing continuity between the Bush and Obama administrations (that is, the narrative is that it's not worth mentioning, most of the time). These narratives are shaped by partisan biases, but also are influenced by groupthink, echo-chamber news sources, who writes the checks and who pays the bills (I refer you to John Stewarts piece on how Fox folks talked around a particular Saudi potential terrorist sympathizer who also invested in Fox). Ever wonder why our intrepid news media rarely has any hard hitting pieces of the pharmaceutical industry? I like bias in the media. I just think folks should acknowledge it. The pretensions of supreme objectivity annoy me; almost none of them are as objective as they pretend.

    Like

  8. Stupidity can be biased, too. Regardless of the transparent and idiotic way in which Curry attempted to cross-examine Suskind, she could have been doing it to protect Obama. If so that's bias, stupid bias, but still bias.My question to Troll is whether or not he thinks Curry's bias is part of some grand, orchestrated media effort to protect Obama or merely a reflection of Curry's personal bias. Of course, it could be both, but I demand a black or white answer, accuracy be damned. The other thing is that the accusation of bias distracts (in this case probably appropriately) from whether or not Curry, now, or Couric 7 years ago were accurate in their questioning.

    Like

  9. After reading the interview, I've gotta go with SCat. Maybe I'm supposed to care that Anne Curry was trying to ask pointed questions, but I've never cared for her either. I always feel she's trying to hard to ask the tough question but doesn't understand how to draw out the answers that would make the interview interesting. I suppose you could see it as shilling, but I see it as inept.Re media bias, they've mostly lost all their investigative analysis IMO, pretty much all the way around.

    Like

  10. "My question to Troll is whether or not he thinks Curry's bias is part of some grand, orchestrated media effort to protect Obama or merely a reflection of Curry's personal bias."Bernard Goldberg often makes the point that he doesn't believe there is any conspiracy (and as I always argue, if people generally agree about things and are fellow travelers, no conspiracy, or Meester Beeg, is necessary). He believes for folks in traditional media, they aren't biased. For them, it's just how things are. There's not an intentional bias, they are being objective from their worldview. The bias others may perceive, they cannot see, because we may be looking at a distance, while they are in the middle of it. I have a pretty stong oxygen bias, but I never think of it that way, because it's right there, and I just breathe in and out. What we sometimes see as a conspiracy (Rush Limbaugh has a bit where he takes a certain news story where pretty much ever anchor and pundit and every outlet starts using the exact same phrase to describe something, and makes the argument that "the talking points have gone out") is more likely the product of inhabiting a bit of an echo chamber, and each member of the media watching, and picking up on, what the others are doing. Combined with peer pressure and group think, no Masonic lodge or secret handshakes (or even Journolists) are required.

    Like

  11. I was taught in J-school that if you're at the press conference, you're doing it wrong.

    Like

  12. I'm not a believer in some overarching media bias conspiracy just a believer that our own biasis color how we percieve things. Curry didn't like the book (or, more likely, the producer who was responsible for the segment and wrote her questions didn't like the book) and it showed in her tone and agressiveness. I think many reporters come from a leftist viewpoint and should be up front about it, so the consumer can be better informed. Bias isn't always about how something's written or said, it's often about what's not asked, what's not printed. I think the concept of objective journalism is, well, stupid. I'd rather here something like, "Good Evening, I'm Brian Williams, a registered Democrat, here tonight with what I think is newsworthy," rather than "I'm Brian Williams and here is the news."

    Like

  13. McWing: I agree. It should be generally known. Even if it's not announced right at the outset . . . but I wouldn't mind that either. Hence, why newspapers used be called things like The Podunk Democrat and The Shmutz County Republican (and some still are). They had a point of view, and sometimes it was in their name. I don't know if you remember Brill's Content, but the idea was to be a media watchdog of news organizations. Yet from the first issue, they had issues with disclosures, and eventually he started disclosing party affiliations and who the reporter had donated to . . . I don't know if that was universally implemented, as I didn't read much past the first 3 or 4 issues, but that certainly seems like it would be a good part of a byline. Reporters do it to politicians, why not do it to reporters (and pundits).

    Like

  14. Kevin, the thing about Brill's was the fact that any success they had was due to Limbaugh constantly referencing it.

    Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: