More 'opinions' disguised as news

[EvilMonkey]

http://newsbusters.org/node/9539

President Bush didn't just drink the Kool-Aid, he made it.

Its lines like these by REPORTERS that make one question the agendas in news. Yes, I know, I post things like this before. Sometimes I agree it is just laziness on the reporters part, but this? Come on, her bias is showing about as loud as that pink thing she is wearing.

[YASNY]

http://newsbusters.org/node/9539

 

Its lines like these by REPORTERS that make one question the agendas in news. Yes, I know, I post things like this before. Sometimes I agree it is just laziness on the reporters part, but this? Come on, her bias is showing about as loud as that pink thing she is wearing.

 

In all fairness, Bill O'Reilly use the Kool-Aid analogy quite regularly.

[EvilMonkey]

In all fairness, Bill O'Reilly use the Kool-Aid analogy quite regularly.

Yeah, but O'reilly isn't 'news'. This was a CNN REPORTER broadcasting live, not a talk show host, or someone like O'Reilly, or Larry King.

[NorthSideSox72]

Here is an honest question that I'd like to hear answers on... when is something on CNN. MSNBC or any other news station or show news, and when does it become opinion? What I mean is, there are some instances where you know the difference - an hour long show with pundits doing a panel on Iraq policy is opinion, while the talking head doing the 30 minute cycle on Headline News should be considered news. But it seems to me I am seeing more and more of a blurring there - especially on MSNBC. Its sometimes hard to tell if I am seeing what is supposed to be objective reporting, or if its commentary.

 

So where is the line? Does this grey area pose a risk (or does anyone else even notice it)? Should news networks do more to seperate the two? And is the art of objective reporting going the way of the dinosaur?

[Texsox]

The lines have been blurred on both sides, reporters and consumers. The consumer actually is showing strong trends for not wanting pure news. They prefer to find a news show that mirrors their values. Fox News didn't gain ratings because they are fair and unbiased, they appear fair and unbiased to conservatives. Other networks appear fair and unbiased to liberals. Evil and I could watch the same truly unbiased news show and find bias all over the place, but each would be pointing to different stories. More interesting is I've read more and more where people claim they get all their news from Rush, Air America, or whatever.

 

And, (speaking for shows like Rush, Hannity, etc.) perhaps getting news in this fashion isn't the worst thing in the world. The issues are complex, so packaging the news story with an editorial and tossing in letters to the editor is convenient and fast. And that is basically what talk radio shows are. Here is the news story (front page), here is what we think about it (editorial page), and here is what the public thinks (letters to the editor).

 

Getting back to this style of reporting, beginning forty years ago ratings became important to network news. No longer was the news departments insulated from any monetary pressures. Then the world started to change. Entertainment value crept in. A truly unbiased newscast would get zero ratings. The language would be so neutral it would sound like something that FlaSoxxJim would read to his grad students to put them to sleep at night. Conservatives would think the news was too liberal, liberals would think it was too conservative, and both would be right.

 

And to the KoolAid question. I'm not certain of the subject, but if it was something he said, then in fact he did make the koolaid. That would be accurate. Read all the accounts of the Monica affair. If someone screws up,the article will not appear unbiased. You have to report negatives as negatives and positives as positives.

[CanOfCorn]

The lines have been blurred on both sides, reporters and consumers. The consumer actually is showing strong trends for not wanting pure news. They prefer to find a news show that mirrors their values. Fox News didn't gain ratings because they are fair and unbiased, they appear fair and unbiased to conservatives. Other networks appear fair and unbiased to liberals. Evil and I could watch the same truly unbiased news show and find bias all over the place, but each would be pointing to different stories. More interesting is I've read more and more where people claim they get all their news from Rush, Air America, or whatever.

 

And, (speaking for shows like Rush, Hannity, etc.) perhaps getting news in this fashion isn't the worst thing in the world. The issues are complex, so packaging the news story with an editorial and tossing in letters to the editor is convenient and fast. And that is basically what talk radio shows are. Here is the news story (front page), here is what we think about it (editorial page), and here is what the public thinks (letters to the editor).

 

Getting back to this style of reporting, beginning forty years ago ratings became important to network news. No longer was the news departments insulated from any monetary pressures. Then the world started to change. Entertainment value crept in. A truly unbiased newscast would get zero ratings. The language would be so neutral it would sound like something that FlaSoxxJim would read to his grad students to put them to sleep at night. Conservatives would think the news was too liberal, liberals would think it was too conservative, and both would be right.

 

And to the KoolAid question. I'm not certain of the subject, but if it was something he said, then in fact he did make the koolaid. That would be accurate. Read all the accounts of the Monica affair. If someone screws up,the article will not appear unbiased. You have to report negatives as negatives and positives as positives.

 

That is an excellent explanation. But I'd like to add one thing.

 

I think "biased" newscast will have a slippery slope effect. It'll make this country divide more based on conservative and liberal issues, instead of dealing with issues one at a time (which I admit is already happening).

 

What I worry about with the rise of "biased" news is that the real news isn't getting out. It's getting twisted to fit the viewership. That's not news...it should be called something else entirely. Most news outlets are becoming or have become op-ed pages.

[Mplssoxfan]

That is an excellent explanation. But I'd like to add one thing.

 

I think "biased" newscast will have a slippery slope effect. It'll make this country divide more based on conservative and liberal issues, instead of dealing with issues one at a time (which I admit is already happening).

 

What I worry about with the rise of "biased" news is that the real news isn't getting out. It's getting twisted to fit the viewership. That's not news...it should be called something else entirely. Most news outlets are becoming or have become op-ed pages.

Sadly, many, if not most people don't recognize the difference.

[Texsox]

I think many people confuse stories about when "their" candidate does something wrong as biased. As soon as their candidate screws up, it's biased coverage. It is also impossible to balance every story, every issue. During something like the Monica Lewinsky affair, there just wasn't enough positive news to ever balance the coverage that Clinton was getting.

[EvilMonkey]

I think many people confuse stories about when "their" candidate does something wrong as biased. As soon as their candidate screws up, it's biased coverage. It is also impossible to balance every story, every issue. During something like the Monica Lewinsky affair, there just wasn't enough positive news to ever balance the coverage that Clinton was getting.

Tex, it is biased when the reporter interjects opinion into it. When Clinton scolded the nation with his 'i didn't screw monica' rant, did Brit Hume report that 'Clinton is talking crazy-talk there', or 'I don't know what Kool-aid he's drinking, but maybe he should share'? No, they didn't. She was interjecting her opinion when Bush said that he thought we could still win. He not only drank the Kool-aide but made it' inplies that SHE thinks not only is he nuts, but it is his own doing. And while that OPINION may be true, it does not belong in the news, from a REPORTER. And yes, there are many instinces where the lines are blurred, but when you sign off 'reporting from the white house', that sounds pretty clear what it was supposed to be.

[FlaSoxxJim]

And while that OPINION may be true, it does not belong in the news, from a REPORTER.

 

I agree with that.

[Texsox]

Tex, it is biased when the reporter interjects opinion into it. When Clinton scolded the nation with his 'i didn't screw monica' rant, did Brit Hume report that 'Clinton is talking crazy-talk there', or 'I don't know what Kool-aid he's drinking, but maybe he should share'? No, they didn't. She was interjecting her opinion when Bush said that he thought we could still win. He not only drank the Kool-aide but made it' inplies that SHE thinks not only is he nuts, but it is his own doing. And while that OPINION may be true, it does not belong in the news, from a REPORTER. And yes, there are many instinces where the lines are blurred, but when you sign off 'reporting from the white house', that sounds pretty clear what it was supposed to be.

 

The phrase drinking the Koolaid, is, by itself, distasteful, but I guess most people using it do not know the circumstances that brought this into the lexicon. There are better ways to say that President Bush believes the lies he has told. How would you make that statement in a non-biased way? Would you have objected to the phrase "President Bush now seems to believe the information he has told"?

 

And I'll bet if we searched all the stories about Clinton, we'd have found plenty of examples that mirror this.

 

Almost everything that is reporter is opinion. Take this phrase

 

In a bloody firefight this morning twelve soldiers died . . .

Shall we change bloody? Is firefight too graphic? should we say murdered? should we say heroic death? should we mention somewhere all the people that didn't die?

[Jenksismyhero]

Interesting discussion.

 

I think another form of bias is what is considered news in the first place. Most of the time the stories that are covered aren't really news at all.

 

Laci Peterson is the greatest example of whats wrong with this country. Is it sad that she was killed? Absolutely. Did it need a year of complete, 24/7 coverage? Hell no. Compound that with the 'Do Nothing Congress' passing the Laci Peterson Act in like two weeks, even though they couldn't get anything important done in two whole years.

 

I think now that money is involved and cable news is so big, 'news' is being created by the media. Whatever sells papers/commercials is considered news. Everything else is just everyday life that doesn't matter, even though it should.

Edited December 11, 2006 by Jenksismybitch

[Texsox]

Interesting discussion.

 

I think another form of bias is what is considered news in the first place. Most of the time the stories that are covered aren't really news at all.

 

Laci Peterson is the greatest example of whats wrong with this country. Is it said that she was killed? Absolutely. Did it need a year of complete, 24/7 coverage? Hell no. Compound that with the 'Do Nothing Congress' passing the Laci Peterson Act in like two weeks, even though they couldn't get anything important done in two whole years.

 

I think now that money is involved and cable news is so big, 'news' is being created by the media. Whatever sells papers/commercials is considered news. Everything else is just everyday life that doesn't matter, even though it should.

 

Good points. The media has a tightrope to walk, tell a story and no follow up and they get slammed, too much follow up and they get slammed. The biggest evil is they are competing for money. Money that comes from readership and ratings. The Soviet Union solved all this by creating their own state run media. Unbiased coverage directly from the source. Can't get any better than that.

 

I believe, overall, the media is honest and principled at it's core. Some outlets use a reporting style that attracts a more mature audience, others a younger, likewise for other demographics including conservatives and liberals. But politicians are trying so hard to have the citizens reject anything negative about them by shooting the messenger. That is far more dangerous to our country than if the wording was slightly left or right of center.

[Damen]

For four years, Bush has been telling us Iraq has been getting better while things have gotten steadily worse. How do you propose a reporter describe the obvious disconnect between what President Bush is telling the American people about Iraq, and what is actually happening in Iraq, without being biased?

[EvilMonkey]

For four years, Bush has been telling us Iraq has been getting better while things have gotten steadily worse. How do you propose a reporter describe the obvious disconnect between what President Bush is telling the American people about Iraq, and what is actually happening in Iraq, without being biased?

"While many feel the situation in Iraq is an unwinnable one, the President still stands firm in his belief that the United States will prevail. However, his view may be in the minority when compared to the rest of the country." There was a different way to say it without trying to slam the President. We get it, you don't like Bush, think he is dumb, think he is the devil, Hitler, whatever.

[Texsox]

"While many feel the situation in Iraq is an unwinnable one, the President still stands firm in his belief that the United States will prevail. However, his view may be in the minority when compared to the rest of the country." There was a different way to say it without trying to slam the President. We get it, you don't like Bush, think he is dumb, think he is the devil, Hitler, whatever.

 

I like your version better. Of course we both know that Rush would attack that and show a pretty map that shows most of the country agrees with Bush and call this media bias.

[YASNY]

I like your version better. Of course we both know that Rush would attack that and show a pretty map that shows most of the country agrees with Bush and call this media bias.

 

Yep. That map would look real good on the radio.

[Rex Kickass]

Funny, I think Rush Limbaugh looks better on radio too.

[Texsox]

Yep. That map would look real good on the radio.

 

Did his TV show get cancelled? I'll bet it was a plot by the liberal media.

[Balta1701]

Funny, I think Rush Limbaugh looks better on radio too.

I don't.

 

[Damen]

"While many feel the situation in Iraq is an unwinnable one, the President still stands firm in his belief that the United States will prevail. However, his view may be in the minority when compared to the rest of the country." There was a different way to say it without trying to slam the President. We get it, you don't like Bush, think he is dumb, think he is the devil, Hitler, whatever.

 

Actually, that's decent, although it doesn't encompass all of what the reporter was trying to say. Up until the Baker Commission report came out, the Bush Administration had consistently peddled an image of Iraq that couldn't have been further from the truth. It wasn't until the past week, that there seemed to be any semblance of a public acknowledgement of reality.

 

Its not that Bush just thinks its "winnable", whatever that means at this point, when others don't. I don't see why a reporter shouldn't be able to acknowledge that reality without being biased, although it should have been done without the kool-aid reference.

[Rex Kickass]

I don't.

 

 

I didn't say nothing about YouTube, or the internet.

[EvilMonkey]

I like your version better. Of course we both know that Rush would attack that and show a pretty map that shows most of the country agrees with Bush and call this media bias.

Sure, but Rush is an opinion show with some news, not a news show. You expect it from Rush. You expect it from that ESPN reject Obermann or whatever his name is, you expect it from Air America and Hannity, you don't, or at least shouldn't, expect it from an average CNN reporter.

[Damen]

Speaking of 'opinions' disguised as news, from those communist manifesto-spouting liberals at CNN, apparently if you have any sense of fashion, you're trying to evoke images of Iranian fundamentalist Islam (or the allies of the Iraqi parties we're upholding to 'win')

 

GREENFIELD (voice-over): The senator was in New Hampshire over the weekend, sporting what's getting to be the classic Obama look. Call it business casual, a jacket, a collared shirt, but no tie.

 

It is a look the senator seems to favor. And why not? It is dressy enough to suggest seriousness of purpose, but without the stuffiness of a tie, much less a suit. There is a comfort level here that reflects one of Obama's strongest political assets, a sense that he is comfortable in his own skin, that he knows who he is.

 

If you want a striking contrast, check out Senator John Kerry as he campaigned back in 2004. He often appeared without a tie, but clad in a blazer, the kind of casual look you see at country clubs and lawn parties in the Hamptons and other toned (ph) locations.

 

When President Bush wanted in casual mode, he skipped the jacket entirely. Third-generation Skull and Bones at Yale? Don't be silly. Nobody here but us Texas ranchers.

 

You can think of Bush's apparel as a kind of homage to Ronald Reagan. He may have spent much of his life in Hollywood, but the brush-cutting ranch hand was the image his followers loved, just as the Kennedy sea ferry look provided a striking contrast with, say, Richard Nixon, who apparently couldn't even set out on a beach walk without that "I wish I had spent more time at the office" look.

 

But, in the case of Obama, he may be walking around with a sartorial time bomb. Ask yourself, is there any other major public figure who dresses the way he does? Why, yes. It is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, unlike most of his predecessors, seems to have skipped through enough copies of "GQ" to find the jacket-and-no-tie look agreeable.

 

And maybe that's not the comparison a possible presidential contender really wants to evoke.

 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

 

GREENFIELD: Now, it is one thing to have a last name that sounds like Osama and a middle name, Hussein, that is probably less than helpful. But an outfit that reminds people of a charter member of the axis of evil, why, this could leave his presidential hopes hanging by a thread. Or is that threads? -- Wolf.

 

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/061...sitroom.02.html

 

Thank god the liberals at liberal CNN could draw such intriguing and important comparisons. Fortunately, there is another liberal on liberal CNN that may ask Obama what we're all thinking, by dressing business casual, can you prove you're not the enemy?

 

What would we do without the balance Fox provides?

[whitesoxfan101]

http://newsbusters.org/node/9539

 

Its lines like these by REPORTERS that make one question the agendas in news. Yes, I know, I post things like this before. Sometimes I agree it is just laziness on the reporters part, but this? Come on, her bias is showing about as loud as that pink thing she is wearing.

 

99 times out of 100 I'd agree with thoughts like these, but in the case of President Bush.....saying that he is an idiot in any form is really not opinion anymore, it's almost inarguable fact.