There’s no doubt that some UK papers only publish whatever their owner wants.
If he’s trying for a big business deal with China, the papers won’t mention human rights, Tibet or Tiananmen Square.
The Guardian newspaper is owned by a trust, so avoids this horrible bias. Its motto is “Comment is free, but facts are sacred.”
Pretty much. IIRC Fox got in legal trouble in Britain because they tried to argue they had a right to lie, and the British courts said “No, you don’t.”
I keep seeing this claim on the SDMB (and hearing it from Palin, of course), but I have not seen any evidence that this actually happened.
The MSM steadfastly ignored all the rumors that Governor Palin was Trig’s grandmother and pretty well ignored the story of her “child endangering” or “life endangering” flight home to give birth to Trig until it appeared in a celbrity rag in a story written by a McClain supporter. This despite the gfact that the “grandmother” rumors had been sliding around various Left leaning blogs for many days (with slightly more posters dismissing it than promoting it), and that the flight home was based entirely on her own press releases from the time the event happened. Bristol’s pregnancy was also left off the MSM radar until it was announced by the McCain/Palin campaign.
Her involvement with the Moneghan/Wooten imbrolgio was in public records all summer. Her involvement with the bridge to nowhere (where she changed her support to opposition only after it became a point of public ridicule), and all the other issues were standard fare for anyone in the public spotlight.
What “lies” have you seen published in the MSM?
Yeah, but they won a lawsuit about the same thing here in the US.
“Comment is free, facts are expensive”, from the sound of its recent cost-cutting measures.
'Guardian reader" is the closest British translation of ‘liberal’ (a word we usually reserve for members of the Liberal Party)
U.S. outlets are not permitted to lie with impunity. In the cases of libel, the U.S. standards allow a bit more “flexibility” on a couple of different issues, The plaintiff must be able to prove harm. In the case of public figures (however that gets defined) the plaintiff must prove a certain degree of actual malice or a reckless disregard for the truth. Private persons may successfully sue holding the press to stricter standards of accuracy.
The UK rulings tend to favor the plaintiff (even if it is clear that what was printed was probably true, unless there is explicit evidence that the news outfit can provide, the plaintiff wins). The US rulings tend to favor the defendant. In either case, which method is “better” often is based on whose ox is being gored.
David Irving used UK protocols in an attempt to vindicate himself from charges of being a holocaust denier. He sued in the UK over statements made in an American book re-printed in the UK. The assumption going into the trial was that he was going to win because he had no explicit “holocaust denial” statements in print and he did not have to demonstrate malice on the part of Deborah Lipstadt to win in the UK. Fortunately, Ms. Lipstadt had collected an enormous amount of information about his actual statements contrasted against information that he had clearly collected to demonstrate that her evaluation of his book was not libellous.
You are mistaking lack of conservative bias for liberal bias. A common error among conservatives.
The press/media isn’t/aren’t a single-minded monolith. It’s lots of smaller players, and each of them is biased in some direction.
In college, I once tried to write an unbiased article and concluded it can’t be done and if it could, the result would not be worthwhile. Nothing I’ve seen in the interim has changed my mind. The best journalism is done by people who wear their bias on their sleeves.
My two favorite news outlets are Pacifica Radio (far left) and Fox News (far right). I’d rather get the two extremes and do my own filtering than find someone who filters it for me.
The New York Times published that she had been a member of the Alaska Independence Party. Yesterday they had to retract it.
Several papers uncritically reported the Obama campaign’s claim that Palin supported Pat Buchanan in 2000, and even the smear that this somehow made her sympathetic to Nazis. In fact, Palin supported Steve Forbes.
Several papers have reported that Palin wants creationism taught in school. She has explicitly said, on several occasions, that creationism should not be part of the curriculum, and she has never campaigned on that idea or even suggested it during either of her terms as mayor or as Governor.
John McClain’s running for president? Where the hell was he in '04?
[sub]Sorry, couldn’t resist.[/sub]
Not really: Guardian reader = Socialist for the most part, often hard left / Communist. A reader of the Independent is more likely to be a Liberal (LibDems these days). FWIW the ‘centre’ of U.K. politics is well to the Left of American politics and all major parties would be considered to the Left of the Democrats.
You know, I’ve always thought this, but you expressed it a lot better than I could. And really, when hasn’t the media been biased. As you’ve said, it just can’t be done, and I’d even question if it was *ever *better than now.
I will probably get flamed for this, and it might possibly be deserved, but I think journalism (or at least American journalism) has another dirty little secret:
Journalists aren’t that bright. Do you remember the journalism majors from your college? Because I remember the journo’s from mine, and they weren’t what I would call geniuses. I knew and had classes with two journo majors at my university who later went on to moderate degrees of success. They were sort of articulate, and they had loads of ambition, but they weren’t, well, “sharp” is the word I’m looking for, I guess. One of the journo’s and I were going over essay questions after a history test we took. His essay was articulate in that it had no obvious spelling or grammar mistakes, and it fit together well, but his logical conclusions just . . . weren’t, and the professor drenched it in red ink, deservedly so, IMHO.
Still, he was affable, good-looking, and he was also ambitious without being stupid. He worked his ass off, and now he’s a successful editor of a medium-sized paper. Whenever I visit home, I make a point to read it, and I find myself shaking my head. Same old, same old. His jokes fall flat. His logic is all over the place. His prose is still OK, which is why I can read it to the end, but I can’t help thinking that if he joined the Dope, his thigh-mastered ass would last about 15 posts in Great Debates, before he went off to play in MPSIMS for the rest of whenever.
The other journo major went into television reporting. She was worse. Again, nice kid, very articulate, but one of those undergrads who believed everything that came out of the ex-60’s radical professor’s head. I was not overly impressed with her critical thinking skills. I’ve been posting here for a while, and I doubt many people would disagree with me when I say that I’m not very smart, but damn, I was better than these two.
Journalism is an extremely competitive, hyper-Darwinian world, and I can’t imagine either of these two having succeeded without swimming through a ton of bullshit. The really bright people of the world probably don’t do this. They become doctors or lawyers or high-powered Wall Street executives. Scientists. Teachers and professors. Authors. Why would they subject themselves to that amount of bullshit just to be able to run a lousy newspaper or program or get on TV someday? Oh, there are some that happily would, sure, but not the majority.
Now I should emphasize that these two weren’t terribly bright, but they were by no means stupid. I have no problems imagining that they could learn to track down stories and run leads to earth. Then again, anyone with a masters in library science could do the same thing, given enough time. It doesn’t take a huge amount of brains. Analyzing all the leads and stories to come up with the “real” truth? That’s where a humongous brain is needed, and I just don’t see many of them in journalism.
Just my $0.02.
Are you sure of all that? Brief Googling at least led me to a find that your second point is possibly true but at least debatable. I also found a quote refuting your last “lie”, but I haven’t fully investigated and don’t have the original source. At any rate, it’s off topic for this debate.
Any paper which publishes facts will have a certain percentage wrong. Do you have any evidence that the percentage is higher when reporting on one political party or another? I’m talking about overall, because I actually believe in this case it would be true that recently there have been more errors about Palin than about other candidates. This would be expected since she’s so new on the national scene, and newspapers do not have as much to work with as usual.
Kind of a broad brush there, don’t you think?
However, I think it really depends on how you define “bright”. Most of the other professions you list require specialized knowledge of a particular field. If you’re a doctor, you have to know medicine like (pardon the pun) the back of your hand. If you’re a lawyer, you have to know the area of law you practice in the same manner. Ditto a scientist. A teacher obviously has to know whatever topic he’s teaching very well.
That’s not a journalist’s job. Journalists get paid to talk to the people who DO know about all those things, and then tell you what they said so you can understand it – and why it should matter to you. They don’t HAVE to know why the nuclear reactor blew up and all the science behind it, because they get to be at the press conference where someone explains it. You don’t get to be there, and they take what the smart guy says, translate it for the general public, and tell you what you need to know.
Yes it is. In this case, I think it’s true.
True. But I don’t think they’re doing a very good job at this, because they’re not that bright. It’s not the only reason, of course, but come on! Look at Fox News, look at CNN, look at all the major news outlets and tell me that the days of Cronkite and Murrow aren’t dead. I miss Woodward and Bernstein. Those guys were bright. Today’s journalists? Meh. A bunch of well-toned scrubs with more luck than brains.
Thanks for the info on the Buchanan claim.
Todd Palin was a registered member from 1995 through 2002. There is a recording floating around of the Secretary or President of the AIP describing Palin as a “former member” who had become a Republican in order to get past the election hurdles in the state, assuring the rest of the gathered AIP that she would continue to be a friend to the AIP. Given that endorsement, (which I have heard), and her hiusband’s membership, the NYT story was clearly an error, not a lie.
In 2006, campaigning for governor, she called for Creationism to be taught alongside (not in place of) evolution. Since she was elected, she has taken no action to impose carry out that idea, but she has not distanced herself from her campaign rhetoric.
The Buchanan story is a bad thing, particularly if it, indeed, linked her to Nazis. You say “a number of papers.” I’d be curious which ones. If it turns out to be the local weeklies from Berkley CA or Cambrige MA, I’m not going to be too impressed with claims that the “mainstream media” was lying about her.
Similarly, if what was reported was simply that the idiot idiot Robert Wexler (D-FL) made those claims, that hardly counts as lies.
You’re batting (possibly) .333 on the “lies” charge.
John Hockenberry, formerly of Dateline, has a good commentary here. (Registration is required - the article is worth it.)
That’s how it is NOW. It used to be, they’d send someone to report on politics that had some indepth knowledge of politics; someone to report on science who had some knowledge of science; and so on. Now, they don’t bother, with the result that they report lies and errors uncritically - which, really, is their job these days.
How can a journalist ask intelligent questions if he hasn’t a clue about what he’s reporting on ? How can they tell if a politician is lying if they don’t know politics, or that politician’s history or what he said yesterday for that matter ?
Journalists are supposed to discover what’s really going on and report it - but even if they were inclined these days, they can’t do that if they don’t understand what they are hearing and seeing. What you are describing aren’t really journalists at all, but rather parrots. People who’s only real purpose is to serve as insulation to make it look like what’s being “reported” is the result of investigation and not the output of someone’s Public Relations Department.
On the other hand, it’s hard to reconcile that assertion with the the fact that a substantial part of the sponsorship comes from business advertising services exclusively aimed at the well-off, who would normally be presumed to have a conservative bent. I can’t open a copy of the Los Angeles Times or turn on commercial television without seeing ads for luxury automobiles, upscale transoceanic air service, or similar products and services that the average person can seldom anticipate ever needing. And just today there was an ad in the Times for a service that helps landlords screen out bad risks. You’d think we were a country where nobody makes less than 150K a year, and are all awash in liquid assets and revenue-generating real estate. How can the socioeconomic disparity between the the audience of the content and the audience of the advertising be so enormous?
Yes, it was an error. But funny how it’s easier to make errors when they promote your favored candidate. This is the unavoidable part of bias - that even people of good faith make selection and validation errors when operating under bias. I doubt that Dan Rather intentionally lied and participated in forgery when he reported forged documents as fact. But I think he was already so certain that George Bush had done those things in the guard that when presented evidence that confirmed his bias, he let his guard down, and set his criteria too low. It’s something we all have to guard against.
One of the most insidious, and yet most powerful effects of media bias is the subtle promotion of stories that confirm the bias, and demotion of stories that do not.
It wasn’t ‘campaign rhetoric’, it was a response to a question in a debate, and she distanced herself from it immediately thereafter:
That clarification has been part of the transcript this whole time. Anyone who prints the first part without printing the second is guilty of being at best willfully misleading.
Anyway, to me it sounds pretty much like she’s punting on the question. She’s saying she believes in a creator, but has no clue or qualification to speculate on the details, so she just thinks people should talk about it if they want. But she specifically says it should not be part of the curriculum.
I don’t think her position is particularly sophisticated or thoughtful. She sounds to me like a lot of Christians I know who don’t know how to mesh their religious views with the inreasingly strong evidence of science. They’re not physicists or theologians, so they just punt. They give vague answers about humility and not questioning God’s plan or something so they can avoid thinking about an essentially intractable contradiction. That doesn’t scare me if that’s the case, because in my experience such people are generally uncomfortable enough with their own position that they have no desire to force it on others. And indeed, Palin has never made it an issue.
I think you’re on stronger ground if you go after her pro-life position, but it really is quite extreme compared to where the public is at. But I don’t think the ‘scary creationist’ dog will hunt. Palin’s a woman of strong moral conviction (too strong, perhaps), but she doesn’t strike me as a moral crusader. Even her pro-life stance seems relatively inoffensive in application: She’s a member of ‘Feminists for Life’, who come from the viewpoint that the best way to stop abortions is to give pregnant women a whole lot of support to make it easier to choose to have the baby. I personally don’t see a whole lot wrong with that approach. They’re not marching to overturn Roe v Wade.
First published in The Nation. Reported on in The New Republic. I found other newspaper reports, but every one I could find waited until Palin had a chance to respond, and published her rebuttal along with it, which is totally fair. So I’ll amend this one - Robert Wexler - [D, Pluto], The Nation, and The New Republic are to blame, the rest of them did their jobs as they should have.