This has gotta be the greatest example of bias in the media I’ve ever encountered. From here
Pick your poison.
So where’s the media bias?
The second one says COLUMN in really big letters, which means it’s an editorial. Editorials aren’t fair game for accusations of media bias, since they are not journalism.
There’s one good thing about McKinney getting that professorship:
With any luck, it’ll keep her out of Congress for a while.
And to clarify my point, the first cited article is just a typical dry recitation of what some faculty committee did, and why they said they did it. The committee may consist of morons, and their decision might be, shall we say, less than well-informed, but I don’t see how one can criticize the reporter, who was giving us “just the facts, ma’am.”
So, at the risk of being repetitious, where’s the media bias?
How about a boldfaced lie masquerading as “just the facts,ma’am” and the truth dismissed as an op/ed.
Ohhh, another swing and a miss.
Please identify the boldfaced [sic] lie which this reporter has stated as a fact. Caution: this is a trick question, and may be beyond you. Hint: the people the reporter is quoting may be lying (or just confused as hell), but that’s not media bias.
(Don’t get me wrong. I have no love for Ms. McKinney, who I think is a moron.)
Try another example: let’s say the Washington Post reports that President Bush says that Iraq was days away from having nuclear weapons. This would be a bald-faced lie. Could the Washington Post be accused of media bias for reporting what Bush said?
Also, does Cornell’s own internal news page even count as “media” for this purpose? No matter what you think of the appointment, it’d be quite unusual for them to have announced it thusly:
Basically, you’ve proved that a university has hired a person who is disliked by another person, but the university failed to traduce their own appointment’s character despite this. Forgive us if we remain resolutely unshocked.
(Incidentally mods, is it okay to spoof external quotes like this? My apologies if not…)
Depends. Does the Washington Post story include the standard disclaimer after the quote “(remember, the President is a lying idiot)”?
If they leave out an important fact like that, then sure, you can accuse them of bias.
Read Neck, however, wouldn’t recognize media bias if it bit him on the butt: his own bias clouds his vision.
Daniel
wondering who won’t get the joke first
I don’t know what the mods will think, but it certainly made my morning! 
That is priceless.
You’re pissed because the Public Relations department at Cornell put a positive spin on this? That’s their job. If you hadn’t noticed, the Cornell Chronicle is just the weekly university feel-good newsletter. It’s not the student paper, which would be much more critical. Any news coming out of a university that isn’t in the student paper better damn well be positive for the school.
So you posted a press release posing as an article and an editorial piece. You still haven’t come across any journalism, and therefore, no media bias.
Cornell student here. As if the weather and the work didn’t make this place miserable enough already…
Wow, ReadNeck seems to had broken his own record for incoherence with this one.
Apparently it now constitutes media bias for a university newspaper to quote comments made by one of the university’s own Deans, at an official university function.
In case you didn’t realise, Read_Neck, these things (" ") are called quotation marks, and they signify that the words inside have been uttered or written by a third party, and are now being reproduced. Simply reproducing the comments of a third party does not, in and of itself, constitute media bias. And the only non-quoted comments that the Cornell article made about McKinney were simple factual recitations of her education and employment history.
As for the second article, as others have pointed out, it is not a piece of reportage, but an Op-Ed column. It is certainly true that is all the Op-Ed columns in a particular newspaper or website lean in one political direction, then the media outlet might be open to an accusation of bias. But drawing such a conclusion on the basis of a single instance is completely irrelevant and stupid.
All you’ve managed to demostrate is that you disagree with Porus Olpadwala’s statement about McKinney, and that you agree with the opinion of Joe Sabia. Oh, and that you have absolutely no grasp of the concept of media analysis. I’d suggest a subscription to Columbia Journalism Review, but they’re probably just a steaming bunch of pinko lefty traitors.
I don’t think Read_Neck is coming back to this thread. This is no reason for us to drop our guard, however. I’ll wager that his brand of trenchant analysis will pop up elsewhere, requiring another bitch-slapping. On the other hand, maybe this is the beginning of his education. Hope springs eternal.
Another good thing I just remembered:
She might be too busy holding this professorship to run for President.
Thank god someone has taken up the mantel of posting Op-Ed’s as news material then running away. We had almost 15 minutes without that niche filled!
All is right with the world again. . .
Off to the massive anti-conservatives meeting- we holding it in the Super Dome again?
Pretty bold statement for a lard assed coward. Been fantasizing again? How about we meet for a beer soon?
Now that I’ve been enlightened by the elite,we’ll see if you arrogant pricks can play by your own rules.
(Professional journalist checking in here.)
The reporter definitely gave us a straight version of what a faculty member said; you’re right on that count. You’re totally wrong in asserting that means there’s no bias, though.
The reporter told us that Porus Olpadwala, dean of Cornell’s School of Architecture, Art and Planning, said, “Cynthia McKinney is a person of considerable achievement in the political sphere,” etc., etc., etc.
I could now tell you that “Adolf Hitler was an influential German politician in the 1930s and early 1940s, whose leadership brought about much needed rebuilding of the German infrastructure and a boom in the nation’s economy.”
And that would be factually true, but awesomely biased.
The reporter is biased because of the people he didn’t quote, i.e., anyone other than Porus Olpadwala. Rep. McKinney has been an extremely controversial figure, and when reporting “objectively” (let’s not start the debate over whether that’s possible) on such a figure, a dedicated journalist is obligated to check sources on both sides of the issue.
Both of those links are op-ed pieces; the second one is at least bold enough to say so up front.
Read Neack, playground taunts do nothing to help your “argument,” whatever it may be.
jackelope, the first piece is an institution’s own bleeding internal news page - it’s not journalism! No-one’s claiming that they’re presenting all sides of the story, we’re just pointing out that for an institutional announcement of an appointment, to have done so would have been truly bizarre. When you employ someone, you do not try and furtle out all of their detractors, you say “We’ve hired Bob, who we really quite like.”
Do you really think that this is an example of media bias?