The Degradation of Journalistic Integrity

[Belegon]

OSLO -- Despite less than one year in office and leading two wars, President Obama snatched the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, stunning the world one week after failing to win an Olympic bid for his adopted hometown.

Shall we count the negative connotations in this lead? As someone with at least a rudimentary journalistic education, I find this to be fucking disgusting. This isn't a news lead, it's a fucking op ed piece.

WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHY. That's what should be in a lead. Sometimes HOW is appropriate. Not always.

Beginning with an implied negative, then using a verb (snatched) that a) implies action on the part of a passive participant and b) carries an unavoidable negative overtone, THEN referencing a completely separate and unrelated piece of old news while AGAIN assigning an inappropriate amount of causation...

I wish they at least had the honesty to call it a column instead of a news item, but they don't.

For balance:

OSLO, Norway - President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.

Much better. The language which gives the appearance of favortism is at least from the appropriate sources,as these are indeed the reasons cited by the Nobel Committee.

However, either NBC needs to be slapped on the wrist or the AP is using the NBC writer as a primary source, as this is the exact lead available on the Associated Press feed.


Can we please quit fucking pretending that Faux News is "fair and balanced" when this passes for journalistic integrity there?

 

[JamesSD]

I really wish they'd at least call it "Fox News and Commentary", and gradually transition to just Fox Commentary. Still, this is par for the course for lying, horrible Fox.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Shall we count the negative connotations in this lead? As someone with at least a rudimentary journalistic education, I find this to be fucking disgusting. This isn't a news lead, it's a fucking op ed piece.

WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHY. That's what should be in a lead. Sometimes HOW is appropriate. Not always.

YES!!!

OMG I was the editor of my high school paper (some accomplishment... lol) and it's SO BASIC, writing a lead. You're 100% correct, this isn't real journalism by ANY stretch of the imagination. I can see my journalism teacher cringing from here.

There used to be a true differentiation between ed pieces and "straight" news. There SHOULD be still. I'm so tired of reading stuff like this (from BOTH sides, I might add...) It's all kinds of wrong and it drives me crazy!

 

[Belegon]

When I started this post, I really expected the MSNBC lead to be at least somewhat biased, if not as blatantly twisted as Fox.

I probably owe them an apology.

The worst part is that people without the awareness and knowledge of how language shapes thoughts on subtle levels don't even realize what they are reading. It's propaganda, not news.

 

[Recidiva]

I think journalistic integrity is a bit of a myth. It's an ideal, but it's impossible for an individual to have no agenda, nor is it possible for any publication that accepts advertising dollars to be agenda-free.

Most people tend to gravitate toward news outlets that have their own personal bias because since they're blind to their bias, they don't see it in the outlet.

But anyway. Ew.

 

[Belegon]

I think journalistic integrity is a bit of a myth. It's an ideal, but it's impossible for an individual to have no agenda, nor is it possible for any publication that accepts advertising dollars to be agenda-free.

Most people tend to gravitate toward news outlets that have their own personal bias because since they're blind to their bias, they don't see it in the outlet.

But anyway. Ew.

If not an actual myth, it is at the very least an ideal rather than a reality. And it is fairly recent.

Judging by all the idealistic love of the founding fathers, many of us would probably be dramatically surprised to discover just how vicious their political maneuvering was and how they shamelessly manipulated the media of the time.

But at least most of the media is trying to fake it. They are attempting to be unbiased in many ways, sometimes taking it to ridiculous levels by showing true fringe lunatics in an attempt to be balanced. There isn't even an attempt here by Fox.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

But at least most of the media is trying to fake it.

That could, perhaps, be seen as MORE manipulative by some... in a weird sort of twisted way.

 

[rgraham666]

The second the news became a profit centre rather than a public service was the second it was doomed.

Killing the Fairness Doctrine didn't help either.

 

[Recidiva]

If not an actual myth, it is at the very least an ideal rather than a reality. And it is fairly recent.

Judging by all the idealistic love of the founding fathers, many of us would probably be dramatically surprised to discover just how vicious their political maneuvering was and how they shamelessly manipulated the media of the time.

But at least most of the media is trying to fake it. They are attempting to be unbiased in many ways, sometimes taking it to ridiculous levels by showing true fringe lunatics in an attempt to be balanced. There isn't even an attempt here by Fox.

This is why I survey several outlets and sorta take the average answer. I prefer a mathematical approach and deal with Venn diagrams than rely on someone's integrity to provide me with the truth. I think the truth is also a bit of a myth. I get as many perspectives as I can and try to factor out the noise. But in doing that, you notice that the noise is also the truth, so you'd probably listen carefully to that as well. People tell lies and have agendas for reasons, and those reasons are just as important as the facts.

I think they're trying to make money. There are some true believers, but they all believe in something...and unfortunately they're also quite willing to look the other way when given evidence that contradicts their world view.

I see bias in every outlet. Some more offensive to me personally, but omnipresent.

I don't think the idea of telling the truth or bringing the facts to people without bias is new. I just think it's impossible. You can minimize it, you cannot eliminate it.

Seeing it blatantly exhibited is a new direction of news, but not one that's invalid. It's just becoming polarized because it needs to be. This IS the truth and the news for lots of people. Or else nobody would be watching that channel.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

FOX has more Democrat guests than most other venues. Ed Koch was on this morning. He's a pretty liberal guy. Susan Estrich is certainly liberal. Juan Williams, too.

Theyre forced to be on FOX cuz few watch CNN or MSNBC.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Actually, what FOX did was set itself up as "The Other Side". Then under Bush they ran with it. That was okay as long as Bush was in office because he was generally hated. Now under Obama FOX is hated because Obama is such a "nice guy." Wait until Obama has a couple years in office and see what happens.

And remember, Obama has mistreated FOX as much as FOX has mistreated Obama. What goes 'round, comes 'round.

 

[Recidiva]

Actually, what FOX did was set itself up as "The Other Side". Then under Bush they ran with it. That was okay as long as Bush was in office because he was generally hated. Now under Obama FOX is hated because Obama is such a "nice guy." Wait until Obama has a couple years in office and see what happens.

And remember, Obama has mistreated FOX as much as FOX has mistreated Obama. What goes 'round, comes 'round.

Outlet Bias:

BBC - Isn't being British the coolest thing ever? Except we suck. But that makes us better, because we KNOW we suck. We're still much better than Americans. Way.

PBS - Humans are evil and vile and will destroy the planet. So let's look at some animals, learn to love them, and in the last 7 minutes, see how humans have destroyed their habitats.

CNN - This Is Wolf Blitzer: BE AFRAID. IF YOU'RE NOT MAINLINING CNN EVERY SECOND, YOU ARE GOING TO DIE. And I'm going to laugh because you're dumb and didn't listen to me.

FOX - We're real. Real prejudice. Real anger. Real emotion. No filter. Suck it.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Belegon - just think of the ridicule CNN would have heaped on George W if he'd gone to promote a Chicago Olympic bid and failed.

No comment from you how Obama was giving payback to the corrupt Mayor Daley who wanted to line 'amigos' pockets with building contracts and had helped him to the presidency. Can you spell 'pork-barrel'?

Shame on you!

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Outlet Bias:

BBC - Isn't being British the coolest thing ever? Except we suck. But that makes us better, because we KNOW we suck. We're still much better than Americans. Way.

PBS - Humans are evil and vile and will destroy the planet. So let's look at some animals, learn to love them, and in the last 7 minutes, see how humans have destroyed their habitats.

CNN - This Is Wolf Blitzer: BE AFRAID. IF YOU'RE NOT MAINLINING CNN EVERY SECOND, YOU ARE GOING TO DIE. And I'm going to laugh because you're dumb and didn't listen to me.

FOX - We're real. Real prejudice. Real anger. Real emotion. No filter. Suck it.

They are all biased because they are all trying to "sell" us the news. What would happen if MSNBC, CNN and the rest were barred from having advertising on their web sites?

 

[Recidiva]

They are all biased because they are all trying to "sell" us the news. What would happen if MSNBC, CNN and the rest were barred from having advertising on their web sites?

Well, the only benefit to that, is that there are people busy selling us their version. There's easy, cheap access to lots of points of view and in the end, I think that's good.

The only thing worse than paid news is what we'd get if there was no funds or attention units available for news. Worse.

Comedy Central does well lampooning them. I wouldn't want a world without Jon Stewart.

 

[ClaudetteLauzon]

Jon Stewart and real news

Sad isn't it? We are forced to get the real news in the world from Jon and Steve Colbert! CNN has gone crazy with it's hunky, heartthrob anchors and correspondents-- remember the original scud stud-- Nic Robertson? Now replaced by Michael Ware (alright, who is a hottie). How unbiased can any of the big five really be when advertising dollars control their programming?!

Oh, and on a related note, do we really need an "everything anderson" blog?

 

[Recidiva]

Sad isn't it? We are forced to get the real news in the world from Jon and Steve Colbert! CNN has gone crazy with it's hunky, heartthrob anchors and correspondents-- remember the original scud stud-- Nic Robertson? Now replaced by Michael Ware (alright, who is a hottie). How unbiased can any of the big five really be when advertising dollars control their programming?!

Oh, and on a related note, do we really need an "everything anderson" blog?

I'm sorry, I used to like Anderson Cooper until I saw him dishing out something about Anna Nicole Smith with his earnest face like I gave a damn. Or the Michael Jackson fiasco.

You'd think he'd say "No. I'm not repeating that."

But he didn't...so...sorry, Anderson. Ew.

I miss Aaron Brown

 

[Belegon]

Jenny and elfin, in the vernacular of a card game popular when I was in college....

BULLSHIT!

IF you want to add to the discussion, do so in a formative way. Don't just heap more hate.

READ my post. Now TELL me where in the AP lead you see a twisting of the actual news item. I already performed that same function with the Fox lead. I said at the outset that I went to MSNBC expecting greater bias than I found.

Once upon a time, television news was barred from having advertising and networks were required to devote a certain amount of air time. That idea is, of course, not applicable in today's environment. Cable, if nothing else... nor would it necessarily be advisable.

But it did create the environment within which men like Cronkite and Murrow thrived.

No, the two of you entered this thread with an opinion of it already formed and already thinking about what you were gonna say -- like I perhaps would a thread created by amicus.



Something we have ALL forgotten, yes including me.

Q.When does the act of listening stop?
A. When you start thinking about what you are going to say in reply.

 

[Recidiva]

Jenny and elfin, in the vernacular of a card game popular when I was in college....

BULLSHIT!

IF you want to add to the discussion, do so in a formative way. Don't just heap more hate.

READ my post. Now TELL me where in the AP lead you see a twisting of the actual news item. I already performed that same function with the Fox lead. I said at the outset that I went to MSNBC expecting greater bias than I found.

Once upon a time, television news was barred from having advertising and networks were required to devote a certain amount of air time. That idea is, of course, not applicable in today's environment. Cable, if nothing else... nor would it necessarily be advisable.

But it did create the environment within which men like Cronkite and Murrow thrived.

No, the two of you entered this thread with an opinion of it already formed and already thinking about what you were gonna say -- like I perhaps would a thread created by amicus.

Something we have ALL forgotten, yes including me.

Q.When does the act of listening stop?
A. When you start thinking about what you are going to say in reply.

Cronkite and Murrow were good men. They were good reporters. They were NOT unbiased. They were passionate and involved. That does not make them unbiased.

I like passion and involvement and the realization that there should be humility before the idea of "truth."

Murrow was a crusader. The opposite of detachment. He picked a target and he went after it. His legacy? Pick a target that's easy to discredit because they're entirely whacko. It's all about looking better than who you're lambasting at the moment.

Listening stops when information begins to repeat itself without change, without any alteration of content, or without any consideration of new information.

There is no doubt that Fox has conjured its own reality. It is clearly in accord with other realities or it'd have no readership. Whether or not you approve of that reality, that does not make you unbiased.

You are passionate and involved.

 

[DeeZire]

They are all biased because they are all trying to "sell" us the news. What would happen if MSNBC, CNN and the rest were barred from having advertising on their web sites?

You would have NPR. In a study after the Iraq war, (which I posted on two different threads recently) NPR listeners had the highest rating for fact comprehension - Fox had the lowest, and the other major media outlets fell somewhere in between.

 

[Recidiva]

You would have NPR. In a study after the Iraq war, (which I posted on two different threads recently) NPR listeners had the highest rating for fact comprehension - Fox had the lowest, and the other major media outlets fell somewhere in between.

And that there's the bias. Which facts were being checked? Who did the study? What were the questions?

NPR also had a policy of "not interviewing people unless they would attribute Global Warming to solely human contributions." Whether that bias is an individual reporter's or public policy, anybody from the other side of any global warming debate wasn't heard and wasn't interviewed or had their interviews edited ridiculously.

There's bias aplenty.

There's plenty of stuff that NPR would NOT report, anything that makes it seem like there's a glimmer of hope regarding human future seems to be one of them. It's just as fear mongering and biased in my opinion, and I occasionally have just as much trouble listening to it as I do listening to any other outlet.

 

[trysail]

I listen to NPR. I hate it because they're so clueless, treacly and saccharin. They know absolutely nothing about business and economics; they're completely bent on the topic of anthropogenic global warming. Half the time, I want to throttle the buffoons— especially the arch-idiot Daniel Schorr. Nevertheless, I suck it up and listen to it. It is rare that any of 'em ever get a story straight.

The media, in general, are a bunch of frustrated dictators, yappers and gossips who are certain that the world would be a much better place if only they were in charge. They are, of course, wrong.

The reason that ninety-nine percent of reporters/"news presenters" know nothing about business and economics is, of course, simple: none of 'em have ever met a payroll or run anything larger than a lemonade stand.

 

[DeeZire]

And that there's the bias. Which facts were being checked? Who did the study? What were the questions?

The University of Maryland's Program International Attitudes did the study. Here is the link to the wiki article. Scroll down to the "Iraq" heading.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News

Judging by comments here, no media source is free of bias. Does that mean we discount the ones we don't like in favor of the ones we do like? I hear that argument all the time from readers of the Weekly Standard or viewers of Fox News.

I think a combination of NPR/PBS, and sources like the AP and print outlets like "The Week" - which gathers information from both sides - should comprise a fairly balanced view of the facts. If one wishes to search out global warming skepticism, or economic theories that oppress the working class, information like that is not hard to find, but to discount NPR for not presenting fringe views would seem to be the same as discounting their integrity. Do people like David Duke deserve a national forum? Where do you draw the line?

I respect where NPR draws the line, but I don't respect where Fox draws the line. Factual studies like the one done by the University of Maryland validate my choice. That really is what it's supposed to be about - verifiable facts. When someone like Trysail wants to argue the very existence of facts, all I can do is walk away, just as I would do if David Duke came to my door.

 

[Recidiva]

The University of Maryland's Program International Attitudes did the study. Here is the link to the wiki article. Scroll down to the "Iraq" heading.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News

Judging by comments here, no media source is free of bias. Does that mean we discount the ones we don't like in favor of the ones we do like? I hear that argument all the time from readers of the Weekly Standard or viewers of Fox News.

I think a combination of NPR/PBS, and sources like the AP and print outlets like "The Week" - which gathers information from both sides - should comprise a fairly balanced view of the facts. If one wishes to search out global warming skepticism, or economic theories that oppress the working class, information like that is not hard to find, but to discount NPR for not presenting fringe views would seem to be the same as discounting their integrity. Do people like David Duke deserve a national forum? Where do you draw the line?

I respect where NPR draws the line, but I don't respect where Fox draws the line. Factual studies like the one done by the University of Maryland validate my choice. That really is what it's supposed to be about - verifiable facts. When someone like Trysail wants to argue the very existence of facts, all I can do is walk away, just as I would do if David Duke came to my door.

I'm not saying to dispense with any of them. I'm saying they all have their place and each specialize in something, and have something of value to offer to someone or they wouldn't exist.

If you don't value that thing, fine. But I can't hold NPR up to a higher standard. I don't consider several sides of the pollution issue that became "global warming" to be fringe. Having done my own research into global warming and seeing what news outlets do with the footage...watching NPR refuse to interview and PBS make what someone said sound scarier than what they actually said...that is their bias.

That doesn't mean toss out NPR. Nor does it mean toss out Fox either. It means they speak the truth for some people, and other people don't like it because their truth differs.

When NPR won't report on the facts that the global warming trend numbers have been doctored and cherry picked. When they won't deal with any sunspot activity issues and any of the science brought to bear on the subject regarding ice cores and otherwise that doesn't support their stance on the subject, they stonewall.

And that's bias. It's not fringe, it's science. Stuff I researched myself and I pulled from many, many sources because some of it just bugged the hell out of me, and now I know why.

That's their blind spot and their passion. They've built their identity on it and they've gone waaaaay too far into ceasing to report fact into reinforcing opinion and winnowing out anything that might possibly disagree. Because they believe. It's not a bad thing to believe in. But they ceased reporting long ago on the subject, their mind's made up and to report anything contradictory would be damaging to their viewer/listener base.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Shall we count the negative connotations in this lead? As someone with at least a rudimentary journalistic education, I find this to be fucking disgusting. This isn't a news lead, it's a fucking op ed piece.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox News
OSLO -- Despite less than one year in office and leading two wars, President Obama snatched the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, stunning the world one week after failing to win an Olympic bid for his adopted hometown.


WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHY. That's what should be in a lead. Sometimes HOW is appropriate. Not always.

Beginning with an implied negative, then using a verb (snatched) that a) implies action on the part of a passive participant and b) carries an unavoidable negative overtone, THEN referencing a completely separate and unrelated piece of old news while AGAIN assigning an inappropriate amount of causation...

I wish they at least had the honesty to call it a column instead of a news item, but they don't.

For balance:



Much better. The language which gives the appearance of favortism is at least from the appropriate sources,as these are indeed the reasons cited by the Nobel Committee.

However, either NBC needs to be slapped on the wrist or the AP is using the NBC writer as a primary source, as this is the exact lead available on the Associated Press feed.


Can we please quit fucking pretending that Faux News is "fair and balanced" when this passes for journalistic integrity there?

Was this a straight news item or an opinion piece? If the former, it was pretty biased. If the latter, the bias is not unreasonable. Do you have a link to it?

Personally, I think prizes such as this one should be awarded for accomplishments rather than rhetoric. For the period being considered, The Big O hadn't really done much, nor was he in a position to do much, but he had made promises.