This brings another point: is the news coverage around the world adopting a similar level of pap or is this an American issue?
Also, as my little chunk of the USA as well as many other areas of the country becomes more immigrant integrated, it is an interesting observation that they seem to lean to the conservative side here as well. This seems to be counter-intuitive but, in my limited experience, many of the immigrants in central Indiana are deeply conservative and would probably be viewed as Moderate to Far Right.
Just my luck. This discussion centers around defining “conservatives, liberals and leftists” in a way that is not commonly accepted; not unlike people who refuse to call a certain game a sport because it doesn’t conform to some arbitrary definition of what a sport should be in someone’s mind.
I gotta practice doing analogies 'n stuff. I suck at it.
My main point was that self evaluation by individual reporters on whether they consider a specific piece to be liberal, conservative, objective, etc, to sometimes be a little skewed.
So when Sarahfeena mentioned wanting slant/warning labels, I think even those labels would need to be taken with a grain of salt or a critical eye.
Is my point incorrect?
For example: Fox News Channel claims to be “Fair and Balanced”. They even justify that claim by pointing out that they have multiple talking heads to provide different opposing viewpoints. Granted, the “F&B” label is more of a marketing tool at the moment, but I believe that some of the journalists at FNC actually believe that they are more F&B than that which the denizens of the SDMB perceive…
Have you ever noticed that, if you preceed any statement with “With all due respect…” that you’re pretty much free to say just about anything afterwords?
“Mr. President, with all due respect, you’re a moron.”
To one’s boss - “With all due respect, piss off.”
“Mom, with all due respect, you’re a bit bitchy today.”
(ok, maybe not that one, that’s probably an ass whippin’ right there.)
Maybe, maybe not. This doesn’t automatically make the statement inaccurate though, or even offensive. If you’re trying to imply that my use of this phrase was inappropriate, then with all due respect, I think you’re wrong.
No, I don’t think you are incorrect, but I think that part of the problem is the necessity that they currently have to pretend that they are always objective. As it stands now, everyone vehemently denies being biased…and, indeed, probably tries not to be biased, because it is considered to be journalistically ethical to be as neutral as possible. If the culture of journalism allowed people to declare and admit bias, I think there would be less chance that the slant would be misrepresented.
I think for most news outlets it’s not as though they have a policy of being “right” or “left,” they simply are due to the leanings of the people who work there. If journalists could say “I am conservative, and I’m going to go work at Fox News so I don’t have to worry about trying to overcome my political bias in my reporting,” why would they feel the need to cover up that bias?
Why do you feel that they feel the need to “cover up”?
Maybe (speculating here) that some of those hypothetical folks want the “journalistic freedom” to be able to write social or political news pieces without having to wrestle with the editor-boss over every other word in every story they do. They don’t want that drama, they would rather work in a place were things seem more “relaxed” or whatever. Finding a workplace enviornment were you feel comfortable, or at least reasonably so, is very important to job satisfaction.
I am not sure who you are referring to, here? My thought was that your average journalist is in a position, due to the culture of journalism, of having to try to write without showing bias. I would think that if they were able to work for a paper that declares the same slant that they personally have, and it’s known and accepted that this is a “liberal” or “conservative” paper, they would not have to do so. I would think that THAT would lead to a more relaxed working environment.
As it is now, major cities often have papers that are tacitly known as the “liberal” and “conservative” papers. (Such as here in Chicago, with the Sun-Times & the Tribune, in Washington with the Post and the Times, or NY, with the Times & the WSJ.) Although the papers might admit to an editorial slant, I can’t imagine they would ever admit to a slant in their actual news reporting. Wouldn’t it be more honest & easier for all concerned (staff and readers), if the papers were just honest about it?
I think you’re making WAY too much of a piddling issue.
Why should this phrase be followed by agreement? The very nature of its phrasing (“With all due respect…”) indicates DISagreement. One may as well criticize someone for failing to say “I think you’re wrong” to express both discord and accord.
And what the heck does this have to do with the thread anyway (for which you provided the OP, I note).
Heh. Considering that the OP was describing something like that as “being led down the dark side”, wouldn’t these labels only “dumb us down” even further?
Now I don’t have to figure out which way an article or organisation is slanted, it does it for me.
For the sake of “honesty”? I guess… however, I still have faith in my ability in deciding for myself whether an article is slanted (and which way), or whether the views expressed therein just plain makes sense. I don’t feel the need for the labels.
However, I am curious as to why you feel that the readers need to have it made easier for them? Wouldn’t this only encourage the “sheep mentality” or polarise things a little further?
I guess I don’t see the value of having to ferret out bias in a piece. When I read news and commentary, I’m looking for facts as well as various points of view on an issue, in order to be well-informed enough to form a solid opinion on it. I would much rather know where the writer is coming from, which will help me determine if there seems to be bias, and whether or not I need to go look for some opposing views. I read a lot of opinion columnists, and knowing what the POV of the columnist is helps me to know how big of a grain of salt I need to take it with.
Just my smartassedness getting in the way. The short “With all due respect…” commentary was never meant as an offhanded slight, just a totally off topic observation. Nothing personal implied.
However, with that said, I do think the whole “Bias” sidebar is very relavent to the OP.
Personal bias is like personal opinion: there are as many individual biases as there are individuals. Bias and opinion can be varied even within established social groups like “Liberals” and “Conservatives”.
The optimal media professional is one who is adept at setting aside his or her personal biases to report the facts of a story. But house fires and drive by shootings don’t win Pulitzers, human interest and “soft side” reporting does.
Moderate, honest and unbiased news reporters don’t attract viewers, listeners and readers; Pulitzer prize winning journalists do.
It seems to me as if fewer people are interested in knowing what is going on in the world. More people are concerned about seeing Nancy Grace cry about this weeks lost autistic child or seeing Bill O’Reily calling one of the Westboro Babtist people a nutcase (not that they don’t do a good job in proving his point).
People, in my opinion, are getting lazy. We don’t just want to hear the news, we now need someone to tell us how to feel about it.
Commentary and opinion columns are great way’s to see the story from another point of view.
To some people Hitler was a monster, to others he was a hero. It is easy to formulate my own point of view based on the historical facts and I could find a lot of cooberating points of view to back me up. But it is also of value to hear the other side in order to relate to them as a people.
I realize that is a rather extreme example but, in short, I don’t need to know someone elses personal biases or opinions of an issue to know whether I agree with them or not. But I do like to read things I do not agree with just to keep focused on the bigger picture that other people do not necessarily share my POV.
I would just like to get the facts of the story up front and without embellishment so I can make up my mind before being assulted by other POVs suggesting a line of thought for me.
I should clarify something from my last post. My hope with this would be that it would discourage sheep mentality. As it is now, when people read or hear something from a supposedly “objective” source, I think they are more inclined to take it at face value. If they knew that it came from a biased source, on the other hand, I think it would encourage people to examine it more closely, or to at least think to themselves, “Well, of course that paper advocates X…it fits their party line. I wonder what the opposing POV to that is.” Essentially, it will keep them aware that there IS an opposing viewpoint.
Another reason I like the idea is because there are cases of bias that are not possible for your average person to Rrecognize. Sure, you might be able to detect a slant in writing, but that’s not the only kind of bias. For instance, we have no way of knowing how particular news stories are selected, and what other stories might be pushed to the back page or not reported at all, due to editorial bias when making decisions about what the public most needs to know.
Or, take a scientific issue, such as global warming. The vast majority of people do not have the scientific background to know for themselves what the issue is all about…they rely on the media to tell them. If reporting on it is biased one way or the other, how would your average citizen know? So, I’m not worried about “dumbing it down” at all…I think it just gives the media consumer more power.
The columnist is telling you what their POV is, you just have to read the article. scratches head I just don’t understand, yet, what advantage your looking for here.
If you consider yourself “liberal”, and you see an opinion piece that has the warning label of “liberal”, are you going to assume that it is more factual? Less?
Isn’t there a danger that, based on whatever “label” is on a piece or news organisation, that label will bias you? By that, I mean if, based on your preconceptions of those who use that label, you will become unfairly critical (or more likely to unquestionally accept) the info or opinion presented?
Let me try my (weak) analogy skills again. The members of the SDMB already feel that Fox News Channel has a conservative bias. FNC, because of your watching it over time, already has that slant applied to it. You don’t need the “label”, you already accept or reject what they say based on your own opinions of their integrity.
What do you, personally, expect to gain by FNC coming out and point blank stating 'this piece contains elements of conservative opinion"?
Are you just looking for a “Hah! I knew it! You guys are NOT F&B!”
Consider my own (mlees) posts, here on SDMB. Over time, some folks (if they actually give a hoot and paid attention to the posters’ names) will come to sense a little of how I may perceive things. A couple may think, when they see my login name on the post, may think “Great… here comes the ‘peanut gallery’ again…”. And that perception of me (and my opinions) is based entirely on what I say, how I say it, and so on. Any bad (or good) impressions I leave around here are (mostly) of my own doing. I feel it’s the same with the news agencies.
Well, of course, but my point was that ALL reporting has bias. There is simply no such thing as getting the facts up front and without embellishment. There are degrees, of course, but human nature being what it is, it’s impossible for reporting to be done in a 100% neutral manner. So, even in straight reporting, I’m not sure it would be a bad idea for media outlets to declare their bias. The more subtle the bias is, the greater need for this kind of information, I think.
The members of the SDMB already feel that Fox News Channel has a conservative bias. FNC, because of your watching it over time, already has that slant applied to it. You don’t need the “label”, you already accept or reject what they say based on your own opinions of their integrity.