Every time you yap about Benghazi you show yourself to be a rightwing tool.

You still don't understand what I'm talking about re: bias -- I don't believe you actually read the article.

And THAT is exactly why the idea of journalists applying their own biases is such a bad idea..

You immediately assume (as Left Wing journalists assume) that Benghazi is just "right wing talking points".

You (and they) simply REFUSE to concede how important having our ambassador killed really is.. Not to mention all the other Americans who died..

You (and they) simply REFUSE to concede the credibility lost by Obama and his administration..

Obama and his administration KNEW from the very beginning that it was a terrorist attack.

KNEW...

Top Pentagon and Defense officials were briefed IN REAL TIME regarding the quote TERRORIST ATTACK unquote...

And yet, for nearly TWO WEEKS afterwards, the Obama Administration lied and lied incessantly..

Now, call me silly, but if a GOP Administration would have done that, imagine what would have happened?

Oh wait, we don't HAVE to imagine it. We have history to show us unequivocally and completely how the Left reacts when a POTUS lies...

And what makes it even MORE pathetically ironic is that POTUS **DIDN'T** lie...

But your reaction to Benghazi (and the WWII Vet Bullying, AND the AP Reporters targeting, AND the Park Service Bullying) is EXACTLY why it's a really REALLY bad idea to encourage journalists to give their conclusions..

Because their conclusions would be based on their ideology and it's clear that a person cannot be a journalist AND an advocate..

They have to be one or the other...

Michale

"...Assumes facts not in evidence."

This after you decide that 2+ million FOX viewers is "vast" in a 3 hundred million plus population. You wave your magic wand and decide, without any statistics or other data, that, I don't know what, exactly. Basically you wave your wand and say "is too!"

RE: the article. It offers a a model for, as he says: "understanding the practice of journalism in the United States, and the hidden politics of that practice."

IE. what is and isn't covered; what is and isn't asked, and how that affects the media universe, as well as the interplay between this and the "view from nowhere" code of journalism. You don't appear to have actually understood what the article said, at all. You don't address any points in the article, at all. Did you actually even read it?

In all seriousness, try imagining how it looks to other people when all you ever end up doing is repeating, like a parrot, rightwing talking points. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!

The Leftist media ignores MANY facts of Obama's Benghazi debacle.. Facts that, when viewed with a completely objective eye, DEMAND answers.

OUR AMBASSADOR was brutally murdered..

THIS IS FACT

Brutal wars have started over less...

Yet, so-called journalists who follow their ideology instead of doing their jobs, would have us believe it's no big deal..

The Obama Administration LIED about the murder.. Remember this?? "Bush lied and people died"...

Well, it's a bona fide fact that Bush did NOT lie..

But Obama DID lie.. And people DID die.. Our frakin' Ambassador, fer chreest's sake!!

But because the vast majority of so-called "journalists" have a Leftist bent, they don't report on the facts.. The just report what their Leftist ideology tells them is "relevant" or "legitimate"...

I honestly and truly don't believe we need more "journalists" like that. Journalists who worship a political ideology, rather than sticking with JUST the facts and ALL the facts...

Michale

For your stat to be in context, how many of those people are of TV viewing age..

How many actually CARE about news??

When you factor in those who are <18 yrs old, that puts your stats in better context..

Regardless, the simple fact is FNC trounces all other cable news, which is decidedly Left Wing..

Why do you think that is??

It's a big fish in a very small pond -- it's an error on your part to consider it popular amongst a "vast majority" of Americans.

If Obama can say "vast majority of Americans" with regards to Train Wreck Care, I can use the same "vast majority" for FNC viewers :D

Furthermore, while it continually ranks as "more popular" than CNN and MSNBC among the few million who watch cable news shows at all, the people who choose CNN and MSNBC also have several other News sources while FOX fans do not.

Assumes facts not in evidence..

Look forward to your reading of the article.

Done..

It's a Left Wing Hit Piece.. The giveaway was that it attacked the Bush Administration, but left the Obama Admin free from attacks.. :D

The bottom line is that you want journalists to let their ideology influence their reporting..

Yet you castigate the Fox News reporters and accuse them of doing exactly that...

What you REALLY want is journalists that report news in a spin that you agree with and want the journalists to ignore facts that paint the ideology in a bad light..

That isn't journalism. That's political advocacy...

Which is fine if you want that..

"I want a gold covered crapper.."
-Austin Powers

But don't dress up it up in a pantsuit of journalistic respectability and an interest in "just the facts"...

Because it just ain't...

And, if you want to invite that author over here, I'll be happy to explain to him exactly why he is wrong...

With the facts to back it up, of course. :D

Michale

But it's popularity amongst the vast majority of Americans paints quite a different picture..

Just for perspective: FOX is the highest ranking CABLE news channel. It's viewership is less than 3 Million in a country of approximately 320 Million people. Furthermore, it's viewers are almost entirely over 50 years of age.

It's a big fish in a very small pond -- it's an error on your part to consider it popular amongst a "vast majority" of Americans.

Furthermore, while it continually ranks as "more popular" than CNN and MSNBC among the few million who watch cable news shows at all, the people who choose CNN and MSNBC also have several other News sources while FOX fans do not.

Look forward to your reading of the article.

FOX doesn't practice "journalism" -- it pretends to practice journalism.

I understand why you would think that.. And yes.. There is a lot of opinion and commentary on FNC that is not news..

But the straight news parts of FNC *ARE* news and continues to dominate the cable news ratings...

As I said, I understand why you think that Fox News isn't really news..

But it's popularity amongst the vast majority of Americans paints quite a different picture..

You have to ask yourself.. Why isn't there a Leftist version of FNC that's even on the same planet insofar as popularity goes??

Why is there no Lefist DRUDGE REPORT??

Haven't you ever wondered???

I'll get to your link in the morning. Promise...

Michale

Michale:

FOX is not in the news business, it is in the propaganda business. What FOX does is take a conclusion: Obama Sucks, and makes every "story" reach that conclusion. It cherry-picks "facts"; it cherry-picks "sources", etc.

FOX doesn't practice "journalism" -- it pretends to practice journalism.

I'll withhold further comment until you've had a chance to review the article I linked to -

You just hit on the problem perfectly!!

A reporter who is biased will choose a "representative sample" and "most significant" facts as THEY deem them to be..

Which is why the vast majority of the MSM ignore the FACTS that portray Obama, Democrats and the Left in a bad light..

And THAT is the problem with the kind of "journalism" that ya'all are talking about..

If a "journalist" let's his biases guide the story, they get "tingles" up their legs and ignore the FACTS that don't suit their biases..

THAT is why the kind of "journalism" you are talking about isn't really journalism at all..

It's advocacy...

It's HuffPo or Daily Kos... It's not journalism...

Michale

As usual, you demonstrate how different our worlds are... :D

Journalism is about Who, What, When, Where and How...

Period...

REAL journalists leave the "WHY" up to the viewer/reader..

I am a fairly intelligent person and don't need ANYONE to tell me how to think.. As I have readily demonstrated time and time again. :D

Just give me the facts and let me make up my own mind..

But (inadvertently, I am sure :D) you hit on the EXACT reason why Liberal/Leftist/Democrat/Progressives media outlets fail and fail so miserably..

They think that Americans MUST be told how to think and what conclusions to come to...

That's why Fox News is so undeniably successful and is number one in the cable news race time after time after time after time...

They, by and large, do not insult the intelligence of their viewers/readers/patrons...

The Left, by and large, has raised insulting their patrons to an art form..

That's why the Right is so far ahead of the Left in practically every media venue...

Give me the facts and keep your opinions to yourself...

THAT's my advice to journalists...

But bias is not a bar to objectivity.

For the disciplined person (such as me, fer instance.. :D) I would agree with you..

But, as we have agreed time and time again, our media are greedy and lazy...

" A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
-K, MEN IN BLACK

:D

Michale

Your hypothetical is illogical. Because your underlying argument is illogical. You <i>cannot</i> "compare and contrast" without presenting conclusions. The "facts" you choose to present are those you conclude are comparable or contrasting. Conveying ideas is what reporting is all about.

News Writing 101: The lead paragraph should tell who, what, when, where, why, and how, do to the short attention span of readers, <i>then</i> you report the underlying supporting facts (assuming you still have an audience.) Reporting is about conveying conclusions and a representative sample of the most significant supporting facts. That is not what Faux News does! Presenting conclusions does not <i>necessarily</i> mean cherry-picking and distorting facts to fit a predetermined bias. It means rejecting conclusions that conflict with the facts. Faux News practices the former, not the latter.

As usual you are making inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims of equivalency in spite of the facts. <i>That's</i> what Faux News does. Like them, you have an agenda. Like them, you cherry-pick opinions and misrepresent them as facts in support of your predetermined conclusion. Everyone is biased. But bias is not a bar to objectivity. Claiming that it is is just an attempt to justify deceit and validate propaganda with false equivalency.

Wouldn't be the first time. :D

Michale: try reading this: http://pressthink.org/2009/01/audience-atomization-overcome-why-the-internet-weakens-the-authority-of-the-press/

ASAHP

Michale

Am I totally mis-understanding what you are proposing???

Yes.

Let's say a reporter wants to report on this incident and compare and contrast it to Obama's actions during the WWII Memorial incident.

Now, a JOURNALIST would simply report the facts of both incidents and let the viewing public decide if they are comparable...

An ADVOCATE would list the facts, then dispute/disprove/emphasize the facts that support their chosen conclusion that they want to put forth...

It's an identical situation or it's a false equivalency...

You see the difference??

You see how one is journalism and the other is advocacy..

Now, if you want journalists to forgo journalistic integrity and be advocates for a specific agenda, that's fine.

But don't confuse it with real journalism and don't think that all the advocates will move the masses in the direction that you would prefer...

As we have seen, when it comes to media advocacy, they Right leaves the Left in the dust...

In other words, be careful what you wish for.. :D

Michale

The former is objective and knows no political master and the latter is highly subjective and situationally dependent..

For example..

Ten years ago, the Left's "truth" was that torture, rendition and domestic surveillance were morally repugnant actions worthy of daily, if not hourly, condemnation..

Flash forward to today and NOW the Left's "truth" has been changed.. NOW, the "truth" is these actions are necessary.

The "fact" that these actions are necessary tools that are needed to keep our country safe has not changed just because the "truth" has....

Michale

I would agree.. They are nothing to object to.. WHEN they are "straightforward" and "factual" conclusions..

But what happens when a reporter advocates a "straightforward" and "factual" conclusion that ya'all disagree with?? As OFTEN happens with FoxNews, ya'all's favorite whipping post..

All of the sudden biased reporting is a BAD thing..

You see my point??

Ya'all's "truth" might be completely different than some Right Wing fanatics "truth"..

So, which truth is the more correct truth??

You see the quagmire that is created when journalists forgo the facts and simply report their truth??

Michale

A thing best left on the scrap heap of history...

Other factors play roles as well -- the bottom line is that we live in a different world now and we have to respond to what's been going on between Walter Cronkite and now.

Yes, we definitely live in a different world.

But somethings should not be changed.

There is absolutely NO REASON why a journalist can't be a Walter Cronkite today..

Moreover, networks did not expect their News division to be profit centers; additionally, the big networks were not owned by multi-national corporations.

You say it as if it's a bad thing (it is..) but your suggestion would epitomize this very thing..

The bottom line is that you seem to think people are too stoopid to take the facts and come to their own conclusion.

You want journalists to TELL people what they conclusion SHOULD be...

But what if you disagree with they conclusion the "journalist" is coming to??

Would that still be journalism in your opinion??

Ya'all rail against FoxNews at every opportunity.. You claim they are biased and it influences their reporting.

But, you seem to be advocating this EXACT approach for ALL journalists..

Am I totally mis-understanding what you are proposing???

Michale

Glad you agree on disclosure.

You believe journalists used to be able to be unbiased, and present facts without accompanying conclusions. I think several things were at work in the past that are no longer operable. For one thing, the Fairness Doctrine was in force.

For another there were many more major media outlets compared to today's media consolidated landscape. Many cities had competing newspapers. Moreover, networks did not expect their News division to be profit centers; additionally, the big networks were not owned by multi-national corporations. And, of course, a lot of things didn't get reported.

Other factors play roles as well -- the bottom line is that we live in a different world now and we have to respond to what's been going on between Walter Cronkite and now.

That's the problem.. Journalists CAN meet that standard... They used to meet that standard just fine...

It's just more lucrative for them and EASIER for them to NOT meet that standard..

Journalists have just gotten greedy and lazy...

Basically, it sounds like ya'all are advocating that all journalists meet the FoxNews standard of journalism...

Now, personally (and the FACTS back me up) FNC presents more sides of an issue than any other media outlet...

But it sounds like you are saying that people are too stupid and need to be told what their opinions are...

I don't buy that...

As far as full disclosure, I completely and unequivocally agree with that... You and I are 10000% on the same page as far as that goes..

So, if a journalist is on Soros's payroll, they need to disclose that...

If a journalist is on Rove's payroll, they need to
disclose that..

I COMPLETELY agree...

But a journalist that tells us the "truth"?? Uh uh....

*I* can decide what's the "truth" on my own, thank you very much. :D

Just give me the facts and I'll make up my own mind what is true and what is not...

Michale

Conclusions may change with more information. That doesn't make conclusions derived from the facts at hand biased or wrong. If a conclusion can be refuted or modified by a further examination of additional facts, those facts and conclusions should be presented. But automatically discounting obvious conclusions based on the assumption that there simply must be additional facts which would alter any conclusion is intellectually dishonest, not objective unbiased reporting. If you've reported all the facts you have, then you should report the conclusions they support. Refusing to do so is a deliberate attempt to mislead by enabling misconceptions and false equivalency.

Michale: No, I'm not talking about having Journalists do ALL Commentary. Instead, what I think would actually be helpful would be if journalists, as just part of the job, disclosed any ties they might have to pertinent figures they might be investigating, and any views they might start out with when embarking on a story. Go public, IOW, with any obvious bias, and then, after full disclosure, start reporting what they discover and check it against their own bias.

Now, people are notoriously poor at recognizing their own biases, while far more alert to the biases of others, so this would be a challenge for journalists. But if you start with the acknowledgement that biases are natural, inevitable and need to be recognized and evaluated you introduce honesty out of the gate. Full disclosure and self-examination would, I believe, cause both the journalist and the public to be more critical (meaning careful/thoughtful) in their assessments of reports and more open to considering multiple points of view before reaching their own conclusion.

Right now, holding journalists to a standard they can't meet reduces the quality of their work while providing an evergreen strawman for people with axes to grind to use to divert the public's attention from facts. The oxygen gets used up arguing about the journalists' possible partisanship instead of the journalists' actual stories.

Could you give me an example?

CW,

OK, so there's an outlier.. One or two Opinion commentaries do not negate 4 decades of journalism..

What Paula is talking about is to have journalists do ALL commentary, ALL opinion pieces..

That's not journalism..

Ya'all rail and scream at Fox News for doing the EXACT same thing ya'all are cheering on the other reporters for...

If you want advocacy, fine.. I have no problem with that..

But just don't call it journalism, because it's not...

Journalism is an unbiased reporting of FACTS... period...

When a journalist gets away from the facts and starts rendering opinions and conclusions, they are no longer journalists.. They are advocates..

I am honestly surprised that ya'all would think more "journalists" of the FNC variety is a GOOD thing...

Michale

I beg to differ:

Tonight, back in more familiar surroundings in New York, we'd like to sum up our findings in Vietnam, an analysis that must be speculative, personal, subjective. Who won and who lost in the great Tet Offensive against the cities? I'm not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout but neither did we.

This is Walter Cronkite. Good night.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106775685

-CW

Fine, replace "truth" with facts.

A journalists job is to get to the FACTS, not the "truth"...

Facts lead to conclusions.

And, there is a difference between facts and assertions. When both are reported as though they are equally valid then you get what we have today.

If assertions are made and the "facts" contradict them, how is it possible to report the facts without reaching a conclusion? Or appearing to reach a conclusion?

What many journalists do today is not follow up on the assertions, thereby not having to reach or publish a conclusion. That leaves facts and assertions at the same level and is a failure. When the conclusion is obvious: someone is lying, they let the lie stand rather than investigate it because pointing out that someone is lying indicates that the party on the other side is telling the truth. Following stories to their conclusion will often lead to one side or the other being wrong or dishonest or both. The facts, in other words, vindicate one side or the other. How do you disentangle those "facts" from the appearance of "bias"?

Exactly.. Because so-called news organizations have gone into the business of advocacy...

You have your Fox News and your MSNBC...

That proves my point perfectly...

Journalists are people like Walter Conkrite.. He never advocated a position. He never reported the "truth"...

He simply reported the facts...

THAT is journalism..

What those reporters you quoted are talking about is advocacy..

Which makes them no different than MoveOn Dot Org, Code Pink or American Crossroads...

Michale

The point is to report..

NOT to advocate...

A journalist can reach all the conclusions they want.. They simply can't report on them..

Put another way.. A cop may have certain opinions on this law or that law.. But he can't let those opinions influence how he does his job..

A journalist is the same way..

Finally, (I'm thinking about this as I write) I think the highest goal of reporting should be getting at the truth, wherever it leads. That, to me, trumps being "unbiased".

No, it's way BELOW un-biased..

Why??

Because "truth" is subjective...

A journalists job is to get to the FACTS, not the "truth"...

"If it's truth you're after, Professor Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."
-Indiana Jones

Your "truth" is far FAR different from someone else's truth..

At one time, it was "true" that they earth was flat...

At one time, it was "true" that politicians had a brain and a conscience...

These days?? Not so much...

Truth is for philosophers and angels...

A journalist MUST deal in FACTS and facts only...

If they don't, they are not a journalist...

Michale

In my view, raising "avoiding bias" to the highest goal sacrifices getting at the truth.

Does anyone trust anyone now? People don't believe that journalists are unbiased -- all sides constantly hurl accusations of partisanship. Trust in the media is right down there with respect for Congress.

And how are we to measure bias? How do we know when people are biased or not biased? Them proclaiming their lack of bias isn't particularly persuasive.

People don't know who to believe on a number of levels anymore, and some of this is because so often journalists will refuse to state a conclusion. They'll report on a series of "facts"; they'll report the "other side's" response, and then they leave it hang there. The don't evaluate the response. The public then has been treated to competing stories with no conclusion. That reduces them to puppets and stenographers, not journalists.

Better, he believes, for everyone to report their evidence, report their conclusions, then duke it out based on evidence. If they have a political persuasion, report it as well -- that way people can factor it in. Pretending that they have no political views is a fiction and it gets in the way of actual reporting.

The problem with that mind-set is that, once a journalist takes that step, they cease to be journalists and become advocates..

Journalists aren't SUPPOSED to "conclude" anything..

How can ANYONE trust the reporting of a biased advocate??

Journalists, by definition, cannot take sides.. It totally decimates the idea of non-biased reporting...

Michale

Here's a link to Jay Rosen's blog "Pressthink" describing this new venture. Look for the story (a few stories back): Why Pierre Omidyar decided to join forces with Glenn Greenwald for a new venture in news from October 16th. Tag paragraph is "Yesterday word leaked out that Glenn Greenwald would be leaving the Guardian to help create some new thing backed by Pierre Omidyar, the founder of eBay. I just got off the phone with Omidyar. So I can report more details about what the new thing is and how it came to be."

More recently on December 19th: A First Look at NewCo’s structure and after that an interview with Bill Gannon.

Some good folks are involved here. The goal is a truly independent, self-supporting public interest news operation. If they can pull it off it might finally start to undo the damage done by years of corporate, false-equivalency, payola-infested media.

Rosen (I believe) coined the phrase "the view from nowhere" to describe the prevailing notion that journalists can be "non-partisan". He argues that aiming for "non-partisanship" leads to the "he-said, she-said, you-decide" form of journalism, rife with false-equivalency. He believes the effort to not-take-sides keeps journalists from coming to obvious conclusions based on evidence. He has a lot of good stuff to read on his blog.

Let us know what you think!

As can Democrats...

I am all for addressing hard data..

But as we have seen both in the political arena and here in Weigantia (much to my disappointment), no one wants to address ALL the data...

Unless one is willing to do that, it's ALL spin..

Michale

OK, do tell -- haven't heard of this new journalism experiment, do you have a link to a story?

I'm a fan of Froomkin, personally, so this sounds interesting. I guess I've been distracted by the rumors that Ezra Klein is going to leave the WashPost and set up his own site...

Anyway, let us know more! Inquiring minds want to know...

:-)

-CW

I agree that these two hotly debated/contested/hyped topics will now begin to generate "hard data". I'm not absolutely sure that will matter. We see, for instance, that all sorts of misconceptions exist about social security, even though the there's decades of available data.

IOW, spinners will continue to spin because that's what spinners do, and a lot of the media will continue to report spin because that's what they do.

On the media front what is needed is some kind of actual incentive to dig for facts and present those facts -- maybe the new experiment undertaken by Pierre Omidyar, joined by Glenn Greenwald, Dan Froomkin, Jay Rosen and others will provide some actual competition, which might ignite more widespread genuine reporting.

Politically, though, politicians and spinners will have some genuine material to work with. If the Dems take advantage of the opportunities presented thereby, memes can be introduced, "conventional wisdom" influenced, etc. Repubs can take anything at all and spin it -- facts are not required. The burden will be on the Dems to use the data they are reputed to love so much and spread it far and wide. Hopefully they will.