"Shove it" and media labeling

[catsix]

sqweels said:
What’s your take on CNN, the 3 major network’s news reporting, etc.?

I think that CNN is slightly left, with the influence of Ted Turner, although not nearly as far left as FoxNEWS is right leaning, and that for the most part ABC, CBS, NBC do a decent job of not appearing to be too biased in actual news. Their news magazine shows, rather than having just partisan slant are more or less ‘sensationalistic’.

I think all news outlets tend to have a biased view on firearms, but mostly because the 'shoot ‘em up’ stories will get larger ratings than ‘thinker’ stories. But I suppose that’s true of all subjects. If it bleeds, it leads.

News radio tends to be slanting right, and as much as some people here would love to just call me a conservative or a pubbie, I can’t listen to more than about 30 seconds of Jim Quinn without screaming at the radio. I don’t listen to Rush at all for the same reason.

Television news tends to be more or less all suffering from the need to get ratings, which means that stories are editorialized such that they sound more ‘enticing’ to viewers. Things like ‘car accident’ are replaced with ‘firey crash’ etc. All in all, I think it’s incumbent upon all of us to sort through a lot of fluff and shit to get to what the facts are no matter what our choice for a news outlet is.

I also think that if anyone is watching MTV for hard hitting political issues, they should probably have their head examined just as much as someone who’s taking all their cues from Bill O’Reilly.

[jshore]

@John Mace

You missed the point entirely. Go back to jshore’s post that the NYT could not be considered “liberal” because it published articles by “conservatives”.

Well, you seemed to determine it was liberal based on just about as many articles (cited in that Public Editor piece that you linked to), and I would argue articles that were way less influencial in influencing the course of events than the Judith Miller pieces were. I am willing to believe that the N.Y. Times leans liberal, for the reasons that its editor notes, on social issues…I.e., it reflects more the mentality of New York City than it does the mentality of, say, Alabama on those sort of things. However, I’m more concerned about its leanings on big issues like war and peace and economics issues.
Also note that rjung was citing a study that looked at the full statistics of the guests on those Fox shows. It was not a matter of cherry-picking a few things here or there.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@KRM

Most of you have probably heard that Teresa Kerry told a member of the media to “shove it”. While I have no problem with her telling a reporter to shove it, what bothers me is the characterization of conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review in this link and many other reports.

Now, I have never read the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, but is it appropriate for a major media players such as ABC or the AP to label a newspaper in this way? Can you imagine the uproar if CNN referred to the “liberal New York Times” in a news story and not just when editorializing? What say you Dopers?

In this case, I believe the characterization is relevant. In the Boston Globe’s story on the incident there is this about the reporter involved:

Promotional material for McNickle, posted on the Tribune-Review website states: “What happens when a conservative commentator infiltrates the Democratic National Convention? An outbreak of the truth. It’s a dirty job dealing with liberals, but somebody’s gotta do it.”

The article also mentions Scaife and has this comment from

Marla Romash, senior adviser to Heinz Kerry, said “This was a moment of utter frustration in response to a right-wing newspaper that has consistently and purposely misrepresented the facts over the years about Mrs. Heinz and her family.”

I’d say the examination of the newspaper’s and reporter’s bias in this case provides necessary context for understanding the incident.

[David_Simmons]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

In this case, I believe the characterization is relevant. In the Boston Globe’s story on the incident there is this about the reporter involved: The article also mentions Scaife and has this comment from I’d say the examination of the newspaper’s and reporter’s bias in this case provides necessary context for understanding the incident.

On the Today show Heinz-Kerry told Katie Couric she “didn’t know who he was.”
Heinz Kerry: “No, I don’t. And I think that I say what I believe. I’m plain-spoken. I really wanted him to back off, you know, back off. And he and reporters generally don’t do this — they don’t trap you and they don’t misrepresent you when they talk to you. That’s exactly what he did. I didn’t know who he was [bold added] and I heard him say two words that [were] not what I had said. I saw the potential of a misrepresentation and so I defended myself. Wouldn’t you if someone attacked you like that?”