The End Of Journalism

Nick_A

Interfaith Forums
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
2
Points
0
One of the most damaging results of this agenda driven politically correct mentality that strives for power is that it has killed journalism.

"Sometime in 2008, journalism as we knew it died, and advocacy media took its place.

Victor Hanson is quite right and no amount of politically correct platitudes will change it. Ethics in journalism no longer exists. It is what we've allowed to occur and IMO we will live to regret it regardless of the platitudes.

The End of Journalism by Victor Davis Hanson on National Review Online=

Humpty Dumpty has had a big fall and there is no way to put him back together. Selective morality will simply not allow it. I have to agree here that ethics in journalism is an endangered species on the way to extinction. It is political progress.
 
One of the most damaging results of this agenda driven politically correct mentality that strives for power is that it has killed journalism.



Victor Hanson is quite right and no amount of politically correct platitudes will change it. Ethics in journalism no longer exists. It is what we've allowed to occur and IMO we will live to regret it regardless of the platitudes.

The End of Journalism by Victor Davis Hanson on National Review Online=

Humpty Dumpty has had a big fall and there is no way to put him back together. Selective morality will simply not allow it. I have to agree here that ethics in journalism is an endangered species on the way to extinction. It is political progress.
Finally something I can agree with you on, Nick. Though again don't know re one of your favorte phrases "selective morality" which you seem to use selectively and idiosynchratically. For e.g. we have MSNBC which takes a rather consistently pro-Democrat stance and Fox which takes a pro-Republican. Personally, of course, I prefer Ketih Olbermann & Rachel Maddow on MSNBC-Olbermann is much funnier than anybody Fox has.;) earl
 
anyone read bias?

I just picked up the books on tape version before my trip and have not heard it yet.. (the library had a bunch of them for a dollar!!)
 
anyone read bias?

I just picked up the books on tape version before my trip and have not heard it yet.. (the library had a bunch of them for a dollar!!)

Not yet but it sure seems legit:

In 1996, veteran CBS News reporter and producer Bernie Goldberg committed the unpardonable sin of publicly mentioning the issue of liberal bias in the media. For that he became persona non grata at CBS. Goldberg tells how friends and colleagues turned on him, from junior CBS reporters all the way to Dan Rather. But much more than that, he exposes a bias so uniform and overwhelming that it permeates every news story we hear and read- and so entrenched and deep rooted that the networks themselves don't even recognize it.

Bernie Goldberg should have known better then to question God.
 
Predictably enough, as expected from the title of the referent article, arch conservative Victor Hanson concludes that the media has been partial to Obama:
The media has succeeded in shielding Barack Obama from journalistic scrutiny. It thereby irrevocably destroyed its own reputation and forfeited the trust that generations of others had so carefully acquired. And it will never again be trusted to offer candid and nonpartisan coverage of presidential candidates.
This is not a novel bit of propaganda in conservative circles. Not in the least. In fact, it's a worn out talking point that has been on life support for some time that was resuscitated for this election.

Now that you've read Mr. Hanson's conclusory statement/claim/assertion, please consider the facts:
The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

In study, evidence of liberal-bias bias - Los Angeles Times

Read on for more evidence that the media favored McCain during this presidential campaign.

It's puzzling to see how the RW factions lapse into a silly blame game, now focusing on the media yet again with characterizations and opinionations that get relayed over and over again in an uncanny unison even though the facts tell us something very different.
 
Predictably enough, as expected from the title of the referent article, arch conservative Victor Hanson concludes that the media has been partial to Obama:
The media has succeeded in shielding Barack Obama from journalistic scrutiny. It thereby irrevocably destroyed its own reputation and forfeited the trust that generations of others had so carefully acquired. And it will never again be trusted to offer candid and nonpartisan coverage of presidential candidates.
This is not a novel bit of propaganda in conservative circles. Not in the least. In fact, it's a worn out talking point that has been on life support for some time that was resuscitated for this election.

Now that you've read Mr. Hanson's conclusory statement/claim/assertion, please consider the facts:
The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.
In study, evidence of liberal-bias bias - Los Angeles Times

Read on for more evidence that the media favored McCain during this presidential campaign.

It's puzzling to see how the RW factions lapse into a silly blame game, now focusing on the media yet again with characterizations and opinionations that get relayed over and over again in an uncanny unison even though the facts tell us something very different.

Hmmmm....The date of the Times article is July 27, 2008. The democratic convention was August 25-28. Before the convention Obama was running against Hillary. Who would the press support? Sneaky.

Breaking News: Palin didn't violate ethics rules in firing, Alaska panel says.

What!! an unsubstantiated personal attack as a political smear? Who could have anticipted it? Where is the good intentioned liberal love?:D
 
Namaste Netti-Netti,

thank you for the post.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

[/indent]In study, evidence of liberal-bias bias - Los Angeles Times

Read on for more evidence that the media favored McCain during this presidential campaign.

isn't it interesting how a few months can make a difference?

Winning the Media Campaign | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)

The media coverage of the race for president has not so much cast Barack Obama in a favorable light as it has portrayed John McCain in a substantially negative one, according to a new study of the media since the two national political conventions ended.
Press treatment of Obama has been somewhat more positive than negative, but not markedly so.
1_lead_image2.png

But coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable—and has become more so over time. In the six weeks following the conventions through the final debate, unfavorable stories about McCain outweighed favorable ones by a factor of more than three to one—the most unfavorable of all four candidates—according to the study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.
For Obama during this period, just over a third of the stories were clearly positive in tone (36%), while a similar number (35%) were neutral or mixed. A smaller number (29%) were negative.
For McCain, by comparison, nearly six in ten of the stories studied were decidedly negative in nature (57%), while fewer than two in ten (14%) were positive.



McCain did succeed in erasing one advantage Obama enjoyed earlier in the campaign—the level of media exposure each candidate received. Since the end of August, the two rivals have been in a virtual dead heat in the amount of attention paid, and when vice presidential candidates are added to the mix the Republican ticket has the edge. This is a striking contrast to the pre-convention period, when Obama enjoyed nearly 50% more coverage.


It's puzzling to see how the RW factions lapse into a silly blame game, now focusing on the media yet again with characterizations and opinionations that get relayed over and over again in an uncanny unison even though the facts tell us something very different.
it would seem that the facts, as you say, allow reasonable people to come to very different conclusions regarding the import of said facts.

during the early part of the election year the situation was somewhat different:

The press also gave some candidates measurably more favorable coverage than others. Democrat Barack Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, enjoyed by far the most positive treatment of the major candidates during the first five months of the year—followed closely by Fred Thompson, the actor who at the time was only considering running. Arizona Senator John McCain received the most negative coverage—much worse than his main GOP rivals.​
image003.gif
Meanwhile, the tone of coverage of the two party front runners, New York Senator Hillary Clinton and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, was virtually identical, and more negative than positive, according to the study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.
In all, 63% of the campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign. That is nearly four times the number of stories about the personal backgrounds of the candidates (17%) or the candidates’ ideas and policy proposals (15%). And just 1% of stories examined the candidates’ records or past public performance, the study found.​
The press’ focus on fundraising, tactics and polling is even more evident if one looks at how stories were framed rather than the topic of the story. Just 12% of stories examined were presented in a way that explained how citizens might be affected by the election, while nearly nine-out-of-ten stories (86%) focused on matters that largely impacted only the parties and the candidates. Those numbers, incidentally, match almost exactly the campaign-centric orientation of coverage found on the eve of the primaries eight years ago.​
All of these findings seem to be at sharp variance with what the public says it wants from campaign reporting. A new poll by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted for this report finds that about eight-in-ten of Americans say they want more coverage of the candidates’ stances on issues, and majorities want more on the record and personal background, and backing of the candidates, more about lesser-known candidates and more about debates.[1]
image002.gif
Among other findings from the PEJ-Shorenstein study:

  • Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband.

  • Democrats generally got more coverage than Republicans, (49% of stories vs. 31%.) One reason was that major Democratic candidates began announcing their candidacies a month earlier than key Republicans, but that alone does not fully explain the discrepancy.

  • Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were neutral or balanced.

  • Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12% positive.) When those two candidates are removed from the field, the tone of coverage for the two parties is virtually identical.
There were also distinct coverage differences in different media. Newspapers were more positive than other media about Democrats and more citizen-oriented in framing stories. Talk radio was more negative about almost every candidate than any other outlet. Network television was more focused than other media on the personal backgrounds of candidates. For all sectors, however, strategy and horse race were front and center.

THE INVISIBLE PRIMARY?INVISIBLE NO LONGER: A First Look at Coverage of the 2008 Presidential Campaign | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)

as i say, reasonable people can view the same information and come to different conclusions about it.

metta,

~v
 
Hmmmm....The date of the Times article is July 27, 2008. The democratic convention was August 25-28. Before the convention Obama was running against Hillary. Who would the press support? Sneaky.
Speculation.


Breaking News: Palin didn't violate ethics rules in firing, Alaska panel says.
The ethics charge has to do with Palin's abuse of power, which took the form of allowing her husband to function as an extension of her personal agenda after she had been warned to back off repeatedly by several professionals, including a judge. Which she did and then promptly turned it over to her husband. This is a completely different issue from the firing itself.

If you are truly interested in who Sarah Palin is, you will take the time to read the report and the numerous articles that have come out about her conduct instead of spending time here recycling talking points.


reasonable people can view the same information and come to different conclusions about it.
This is true. But we are not talking about the same information. You are referencing a different study and a different data set.
 
I didn't say anything about the firing. The ethics charge has to do with Palin's abuse of power, which took the form of allowing her husband to function as an extension of her personal agenda after she had been warned to back off repeatedly by several professionals. Which she did and then promptly turned it over to her husband

If you are truly interested in who Sarah Palin is, you will take the time to read the report and the numerous articles that have come out about her conduct instead of spending time here recycling talking points.



his is true. But we are not talking about the same information. You are referencing a different study and a different data set.

Careful Netti...you are in imminent danger of coming into agreement with me!


tao
 
I didn't say anythig about the firing. The ethics charge has to do with Palin's abuse of power, which took the form of allowing her husband to function as an extension of her personal agenda after she had been warned to back off repeatedly by several professionals. Which she did and then promptly turned it over to her husband

If you are truly interested in who Sarah Palin is, you will take the time to read the report and the numerous articles that have come out about her conduct instead of spending time here recycling talking points.



It's not the same information. You are referencing a different study and a different data set.

Pehaps one day a study will come out explaining why so many women thinking themselves feminists have such a difficulty with strong women with character and traditional values doing more than complaining..
 
Pehaps one day a study will come out explaining why so many women thinking themselves feminists have such a difficulty with strong women with character and traditional values doing more than complaining..
Bollox Nick. If you really think a matriarchal suffix of placatory homage to the notion of a wholly patriarchal agenda constitutes "liberation" then you are a sad sad sad mind indeed.

tao
 
Pehaps one day a study will come out explaining why so many women thinking themselves feminists have such a difficulty with strong women with character and traditional values doing more than complaining..

Having your husband do your dirty work for you is what you'd expect for a strong woman "with character and traditional values" ? :confused:

More detail here: http://www.interfaith.org/forum/165769-post222.html
 
In the words of John Kennedy: Think not what your husband can do for you but what you can do for your husband.

I profound concept only a few women are capable of in these times.

I thought I might join in....

In the words of John Kennedy: Think not what your wife can do for you but what you can do for your wife.

A profound concept only a few men are capable of in these times.:D
 
Netti-Netti said:
This is true. But we are not talking about the same information. You are referencing a different study and a different data set.

that is quite true.

do you disagree with the study and it's conclusions? if so, why?

metta,

~v
 
Back
Top