In general, I personally prefer people’s claims to be accurate, myself. YMMV.
Do you personally feel there are no issues in which one side gets an unfair free pass in an attempt to report on some sort of “controversy”? For example, take evolution - do you think the media handling of evolution is fair, or does it prop up a “controversy” when one side is factually wrong.
You’ll have to rephrase your question, I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking.
But I will say that judging which of two presidential candidates is better is not near as decided an issue as something like evolution. Wouldn’t you agree?
Some matters are strictly factual, and people are wrong about them. Say, evolution, or vaccinations. There is a clear cut right and wrong side.
Do you think the media likes to pretend the other side has a valid, equal point, in order to have something to report on, generate controversy, and basically make money? That is “Let’s pretend anti-evolutionists and anti-vaxxers have a point, and we’ll report on ‘both sides’ and claim we’re balanced” is the viewpoint of a lot of the media.
Do you think it’s inappropriate for a news professional to say “Don’t do that, it’s dishonest”? This is without if it’s warranted or not in this specific case, just in general.
As far as the memo, you seem to be conflating accuracy with explicitness. Just because Halperin wasn’t as explicit as what you would make you more comfortable, doesn’t mean that the take-away offered above isn’t accurate. Surely you know that a non-idiot public figure will couch his statements so that there is a remnant of plausible deniability. Which, according to BPC and possibly you, worked swimmingly.
I see. I will remember this when reading your statements in the future, as I am sure I can see the “real messages” that you’re trying not to make “explicit”, and I get to freely proclaim what those are and not be challenged or have to provide quotes, cites, or sources.
I think it’s a matter of degree, don’t you. And I’m surge you’d agree that there are some issues that aren’t quite as settled for the public as they might be for me, or you, or someone else.
As far as what the media “likes”, that’s hard to answer, as it isn’t a monolithic entity these days. I do think they have a desire for sensationalism, and will dial up any bad news to eleven. Whether it be a storm watch, a “black-white” confrontation, school shooting, etc. They want to shock and tittilate. And if it can be an “exclusive”, we’re supposed to drop the baby and turn up the TV.
Somehow, for some reason, I’m a tad less than surprised that you would think that logically followed from what I wrote.
I disagree with the claim that Halpern intended for reporters to treat Bush and Kerry differently. His intention was for them to hold them to the same standard, but not to present different levels of lies as being equivalent.
I agree with him about this. The real problem is something else.
A judgment as to whose lies are more signficant is itself a highly subjective one, and impossible to divorce from partisan bias. Halpern’s perspective about the magnitude and significance of Bush/Kerry lies was colored by his own liberal sympathies - as was that of the vast majority of his reporters. And he was effectively instructing them to allow this judgment to go through, regardless.
OTOH, there’s no way around it. They could present them as equivalent or not, and one way was going to be inaccurate. My point here is not that Halpern - or anyone else in the business who does things this way (which I assume is virtually everyone) - is going to be biased by his own ideology, like it or not.
Which is why it’s a mistake to assume that conservatives and liberals will be treated evenhandedly by the media. Even if the media does its best to be evenhanded, at some point they will have to choose between evenhandedness and accuracy, and they will (correctly) choose the latter - despite their judgment about accuracy being a biased one.
Oh, please. The boiling point of water may be a matter of degree, but not in the sense you are suggesting. The sum of the squares of a right angle may be a matter of degree, but not in the manner you are suggesting. But Kerry was a combat veteran and Bush dodged the draft via the National Guard – that’s NOT a matter of degree, that’s a simple fact … which the Swiftboating campaign was designed to obscure, with the media playing into their hands beautifully with their stupid false equivalencies masquerading as objectivity. That too, is a simple fact.
You seem to be dismissing the obviously-troubling fact that the underlying story of Bush’s dishonorable conduct in the ANG was true, regardless of the CBS forgeries. Cecil even had a column about it. The anti-Kerry campaign was fundamentally a campaign of lies, resting only on the inventions and reversals of the swiftboaters and their puppeteers, and that was revealed as such almost immediately.
To some of us, factual truth and falsehood really are critical factors. When they’re handwaved or simply ignored, we can be pretty confident that what follows is merely more partisan choler.
No, but it would be nice if when someone claims “a reporter asked for a double standard” the reporter’s own words didn’t demand the same standard. This assertion of bias only makes sense if you assume to begin with that Halperin and ABC news both have a liberal bend. You assume you can’t take Halperin on his word on this, that there’s a hidden message or that he’s denying his own biases. Yet you neglect that when it comes to the magnitude and importance of the lies in the respective campaigns in 2004, there was no valid comparison. Halperin was completely and utterly correct.
Gotta go with Budget Player. Halperin is no liberal sycophant. In fact, just a month ago he revived the “death panels”, although it doesn’t look like the rest of the media noticed:
In an interview on Monday with the conservative Newsmax, Time’s Mark Halperin said that so-called “death panels” are enshrined in the Affordable Care Act.
“It’s going to be a huge issue,” Halperin said. “And that’s something else about which the President was not fully forthcoming or straight-forward.”
“So, you believe there will be rationing, a.k.a ‘death panels’?” host Steve Malzberg asked Halperin, the co-author of the 2012 election chronicle “Double Down.”
“It’s built into the plan. It’s not like a guess or like a judgment. That’s going to be part of how costs are controlled,” Halperin said before arguing that it’s necessary to ration care.
Of course, if he’s saying this, it calls into question his ability to distinguish truth from lies. Which is one reason the media plays it cautious. No one is wise enough to say that one side’s lying is worse than another’s.
Halperin bent hard right after 2004 in an attempt to distance himself from claims that he had a liberal bias. Funny how that works.
We already ration care, we just do it very badly, and do it on the basis of income.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
When viewed by you and your very clear bias.
And proof of that is that you question if ABC has a liberal bias.
IOW, “I believe it because it’s true, and it’s true because I believe it.”
The facts say otherwise.
That’s not rationing, because it renders the word meaningless. If that was true, everything would be rationed, since everything is “rationed” by price. What you are referring to is just supply and demand. Someone please call the textbook companies. They should replace all references to supply and demand with the term “rationing”.
This Republican (although I voted for Obama twice) thought that the treatment of Kerry was deplorable. Even if the allegations were 100% true, I’d still find bringing them up during a campaign to be reprehensible. It had nothing to do with his positions on the issues.
I found the treatment of Palin (whom I can’t stand) and the whole “That’s not really her baby” thing to be equally sickening.
Well the point is, adaher, that some committee in a health insurance corporation decides who lives and who dies, based on cost. How is this different from a government committee doing pretty much the same thing?