Ted Koppel:

[X. Benedict]

I thought many of you would appreciate this. The void left since Ted Koppel retired has never really been filled in my opinion.

 

an interesting read on the how newsrooms became profit centers, and news-gathering has been replaced by punditry.

 

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202857.html?sid=ST2010111203190

Edited November 13, 2010 by X. Benedict

[OCinBuffalo]

It was an interesting piece...sort of.

 

However, I distinctly remember Koppel being biased as hell. He is right to say that objective journalism has never been achieved. That is because the people of his era never really put any effort into it.

 

Also, clearly, we can add Koppel to the long list of people that don't understand the internet. I don't expect him to though, as he is an old dog, and the internet isn't new tricks. Media in general is in a constant state of flux right now. You cannot take benchmarks today, compare them to what was happening 20 years ago, and call that comparison valid.

 

Things will settle down. Sooner or later real, tangible standards will emerge. This system will reach an equilibrium, provided it is allowed to do so without government hinderance. Collectively, we are infants when it comes to our perception of the internet. Therefore, we don't need other infants telling us they know what is best. We also don't need infants telling us what is important, and what isn't. We don't need them leaving out data, or glossing over it, because they don't feel it's important. That is bias, by any rational definition. The internet gives you everything if you want it, and only the high level, if you don't.

 

With regard to "analysis shows" vs. "hard news". We don't have time to read the entire paper anymore. We never cared that much about Koppel et al, we simply didn't have an alternative. Now, people want to quickly hear both sides debate an issue, and then process what they heard, instead of sitting through what amounts to a college lecture. We politely sit through boring ass meetings all day. Why in the hell would we choose the same format for our free time?

 

And this is the crux of this issue: back in the day, the Ted Koppels etc. were it. That meant that they were artificially elevated by a lack of competition. Is it any wonder old Ted is complaining about competition? After 20 years of being in that position, sooner or later you start to believe that it is you, and the not the situation, that created the elevated status. Today, there are a lot more options, a ton more competition, and media people have to be a hell of a lot better at their jobs just to even be noticed. We don't have to accept being talked at by our "betters" like Ted for an hour. If people want full-time news from Bangladesh, they can get it on the internet.

 

I am happy that we have moved on from the bad old days, into an environment where you have to earn a constituency, instead of it being handed to you by default. I am glad that I don't have a small number of people deciding what I need to know. I am glad that the dissemination of information and news has been decentralized, and is no longer the provincial domain of a few elitists. That is the internet working as designed. I am super glad that the one of last of their kind, Dan Rather, was destroyed by the internet. We might as well have a clean break.

[Nanker]

Ah, yes. Ted Koppel musing. I've always wondered what Steve Allen's musings would be regarding David Letterman - who's a sham in comparison.

[Magox]

I look at things from a very simplistic mathematical POV.

 

FOX news was created as a counter alternative to what many people saw a liberally biased media. Although there are twice as many self-identified Conservatives than liberals, the traditional media outlets are overwhelmingly liberal.

 

There was a study done by S. Robert Lichter.

 

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

 

 

In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the media elite were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article Media and Business Elites. The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues. This study, which was more elaborately presented in Lichter and Rothmans subsequent book, The Media Elite, became the most widely quoted media study of the 1980s and remains a landmark today.

 

KEY FINDINGS:

 

81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.

 

In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater ®.

 

In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.

 

In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.

 

In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.

 

Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media elites vote.

 

Lichter and Rothmans survey of journalists discovered that Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum.

 

There is no arguing these numbers. If you don't believe there is a liberal media bias, then you are Conner.

 

When Peter Jennings, one of these supposed non biased anchors that Koppel was somewhat referring to back in 1994 stated in response to the 1994 drubbing of the midterm elections of the Democrats:

 

"Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming," said Jennings. "Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week....Parenting and governing don't have to be dirty words: the nation can't be run by an angry two-year-old."

 

It just shined a light on what most of us already knew, which is that the media for the most part, is in the tank for the liberals. They aren't as opinionated or brash but none the less they provide coverage that favors the ones they support or attempts to disparage and demean those who don't share their views, which of course would be the conservatives.

 

What I am saying is that FOX news is a direct spawn of the liberal media. If the media was more balanced, then FOX wouldn't be what it is today. This is logical.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Magox

[Dan]

 

There is no arguing these numbers. If you don't believe there is a liberal media bias, then you are Conner.

Actually, those numbers don't point to any bias at all. Just because someone voted for a democrat; that doesn't mean they slanted news articles towards that candidate. Contrary to popular belief, some people can remain objective in their job despite their personal feelings and beliefs. It's called being a professional. That's what wrong with the news media, in general, today. All too often, "news casters" are required or permitted to inject their personal beliefs into a story rather than just report what has happened; therefore, blurring the line of professionalism.

 

To demonstrate a liberal media bias, you need to point to news articles or reports that purposefully slant the narrative in favor of a liberal candidate - not tell me who the article writer voted for. It's kinda like the scientist that spends his/her life studying the evolution of life histories while being devotedly Christian. According to your logic, because this scientist goes to church every Sunday and teaches Sunday school (following his personal beliefs), his research would have to have a conservative, creationist bias (in his professional career). However, that is not always the case.

[IDBillzFan]

It was an interesting read, and probably would have been really interesting if the implied premise of his article -- that O'Reilly and Olbermann are actually journalists, let alone people who report the news as it happens -- was true. I know Olbermann fancies himself a journalist, and I'm sure when he was reporting on sports scores at Cornell that he may have been one at some point, but all he and O'Reilly do is opine about news that was already reported.

Edited November 13, 2010 by LABillzFan

[Magox]

Actually, those numbers don't point to any bias at all. Just because someone voted for a democrat; that doesn't mean they slanted news articles towards that candidate. Contrary to popular belief, some people can remain objective in their job despite their personal feelings and beliefs. It's called being a professional. That's what wrong with the news media, in general, today. All too often, "news casters" are required or permitted to inject their personal beliefs into a story rather than just report what has happened; therefore, blurring the line of professionalism.

 

To demonstrate a liberal media bias, you need to point to news articles or reports that purposefully slant the narrative in favor of a liberal candidate - not tell me who the article writer voted for. It's kinda like the scientist that spends his/her life studying the evolution of life histories while being devotedly Christian. According to your logic, because this scientist goes to church every Sunday and teaches Sunday school (following his personal beliefs), his research would have to have a conservative, creationist bias (in his professional career). However, that is not always the case.

If you don't believe the political leanings of these journalists and news casters don't play a role in how some of them convey their stories, then I don't know what to tell you Conner.

 

I could give you many examples of liberal bias from the networks, but I will just leave you with this:

 

 

 

a new study by the Media Research Center finds. MRC analysts reviewed the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from September 1 through October 25. Key findings:

 

■ Only conservative/Tea Party candidates cast as extreme. Congressional Democrats and President Obama are facing voters wrath because of their extreme agenda over the past two years: government-run health care; massive unsupportable spending; a proposed cap-and-trade tax on energy, higher income taxes, etc. But MRC analysts found 35 evening news stories which conveyed the Democratic spin point that conservative and Tea Party candidates are extreme, fringe, or out of the mainstream, vs. ZERO stories conveying the charge that left-wing Democrats are out of the mainstream.

 

■ Three times more conservative labels than liberal tags. Out of 62 ideological labels assigned by reporters, three-fourths (48, or 77%) were aimed at conservatives, vs. just 14 (23%) for liberals. Only Republicans faced extreme labels both Joe Miller and Christine ODonnell were tagged as ultra-conservatives with no Democrat ever branded an ultra-liberal.

 

CBS called Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey conservative, but Democrat Joe Sestak was not labeled as liberal. All of the networks called Christine ODonnell a conservative, but none said her opponent, Chris Coons, was liberal. Most comically, CBS would not call loud-mouthed Florida Rep. Alan Grayson a liberal, but tagged his opponent Daniel Webster as conservative.

 

■ Adopting Democrats campaign agenda. The networks elevated contests meant to show Republicans in a poor light. While its not on anyones list of closest races, the networks devoted the most coverage to Delawares Senate race (15 evening news stories), emphasizing ODonnells perceived gaffes. Next: the California Governors race (11 stories), emphasizing allegations against GOP nominee Meg Whitman. Rounding out the networks Top 5 were Senate races in Alaska, Nevada, and West Virginia, each the focus of four stories.

 

The Democrats strategy to salvage the 2010 campaign was to distract voters from their record over the past two years and paint their opponents as wacky extremists. Win or lose, the Democrats got a lot of help from their friends in the supposedly objective news media

 

These numbers do point to a liberal bias. GO ahead, make another excuse.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Magox

[Dan]

If you don't believe the political leanings of these journalists and news casters don't play a role in how some of them convey their stories, then I don't know what to tell you Conner.

 

I could give you many examples of liberal bias from the networks, but I will just leave you with this:

 

These numbers do point to a liberal bias. GO ahead, make another excuse.

Considering the Tea Party is a new movement with a much smaller contingent, I think calling it a fringe movement is quite accurate especially prior to the election. Also, if you had control of the media and really wanted to squash the Tea Party, wouldn't it be more effective to just not report on it at all? By reporting on it every night, they're actually giving it notoriety and allowing people to know much more about the movement. So I'd suggest that the liberal media is doing exactly the opposite of what people are claiming they're trying to do and are biased <i>towards </i>the Tea Party. Why don't they give more press time to other "fringe" political parties? Because they like the Tea Party more, that's why.

 

Given that "liberal" is seen as more of a negative label than "conservative"; couldn't you argue that the liberal media is actually helping the conservative candidates by clearly and routinely telling me which one is the conservative candidate. If any thing, I see that as a conservative bias by helping one candidate with a favorable title and helping me more easily identify them.

 

Many of those races were the higher profile ones for a variety of reasons. But, doesn't the media in general always report on the "freak show" events more than the actual issues. That's why Paris Hilton and her like get so much press time. I'd say they're just giving the dumbed down masses what the ratings indicate they watch more than any sort of political bias. The chick in DE said she practiced witchcraft, you gotta admit that's going to get headlines and subsequently a lot of press time for the duration of the event.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Dan

[Magox]

Considering the Tea Party is a new movement with a much smaller contingent, I think calling it a fringe movement is quite accurate especially prior to the election. Also, if you had control of the media and really wanted to squash the Tea Party, wouldn't it be more effective to just not report on it at all? By reporting on it every night, they're actually giving it notoriety and allowing people to know much more about the movement. So I'd suggest that the liberal media is doing exactly the opposite of what people are claiming they're trying to do and are biased <i>towards </i>the Tea Party. Why don't they give more press time to other "fringe" political parties? Because they like the Tea Party more, that's why.

 

Given that "liberal" is seen as more of a negative label than "conservative"; couldn't you argue that the liberal media is actually helping the conservative candidates by clearly and routinely telling me which one is the conservative candidate. If any thing, I see that as a conservative bias by helping one candidate with a favorable title and helping me more easily identify them.

 

Many of those races were the higher profile ones for a variety of reasons. But, doesn't the media in general always report on the "freak show" events more than the actual issues. That's why Paris Hilton and her like get so much press time. I'd say they're just giving the dumbed down masses what the ratings indicate they watch more than any sort of political bias. The chick in DE said she practiced witchcraft, you gotta admit that's going to get headlines and subsequently a lot of press time for the duration of the event.

Yeah right. They had to give them coverage simply because it has been the largest political grassroots movements that we have seen in a very long time. The coverage they did give them was cast with a negative light. The intent was to minimize this movement and create a caricature of a bigoted, racist and extreme movement. As I posted in another thread, I knew it wouldn't work simply because the tea party generally speaking represents middle America.

 

When you refuse to label Coons or Sestak as a liberal, then I think that says it all.

 

Sorry, I'm not buying it bud

Edited November 13, 2010 by Magox

[Dan]

Yeah right. They had to give them coverage simply because it has been the largest political grassroots movements that we have seen in a very long time. The coverage they did give them was cast with a negative light. Sorry, not buying it bud

I suppose... we all believe what we want to believe.

 

No worries...

[Wacka]

Take a look at newspaper or internet articles from the lame stream media. If it's about something bad a republican did, they are identified with the "R" in the first paragraph. If it's a democrat, it is either in the last paragraph or not mentioned at all.

 

An example today was about the Prince Georges County (MD) County Executive and his wife. The FBI were investigating them and have them on tape . He was telling his wife to flush a 100K check and put $80K in cash in her bra and underwearas the FBI was knocking on the door. Nowhere in the article does it say he is a democrat.

[DC Tom]

Actually, those numbers don't point to any bias at all. Just because someone voted for a democrat; that doesn't mean they slanted news articles towards that candidate. Contrary to popular belief, some people can remain objective in their job despite their personal feelings and beliefs. It's called being a professional. That's what wrong with the news media, in general, today. All too often, "news casters" are required or permitted to inject their personal beliefs into a story rather than just report what has happened; therefore, blurring the line of professionalism.

 

To demonstrate a liberal media bias, you need to point to news articles or reports that purposefully slant the narrative in favor of a liberal candidate - not tell me who the article writer voted for. It's kinda like the scientist that spends his/her life studying the evolution of life histories while being devotedly Christian. According to your logic, because this scientist goes to church every Sunday and teaches Sunday school (following his personal beliefs), his research would have to have a conservative, creationist bias (in his professional career). However, that is not always the case.

 

Key point: there can be bias without some grand conspiracy to shove biased propaganda down the public's throat. "Bias" does not require intent to slant (quite the opposite, in fact - lack of bias is a concious act), it can be just as easily caused by a lack of awareness of slant...

 

...for example, when 80% of a group self-identifies with a given philosophy/idea/position, thereby leading most everyone in that group to believe that "My view is right, because almost everyone I know in my group shares it, and everyone else in my group is therefore just misguided," and extrapolates that outside the group. That's just basic psychology...and, not coincidentally, describes the media's Democratic bias.

 

Take a look at newspaper or internet articles from the lame stream media. If it's about something bad a republican did, they are identified with the "R" in the first paragraph. If it's a democrat, it is either in the last paragraph or not mentioned at all.

 

An example today was about the Prince Georges County (MD) County Executive and his wife. The FBI were investigating them and have them on tape . He was telling his wife to flush a 100K check and put $80K in cash in her bra and underwearas the FBI was knocking on the door. Nowhere in the article does it say he is a democrat.

 

Perfect example. Anyone not part of the group must be identified (with an "R", in this case). Anyone part of the group need not be identified, as it's understood. You see the same thing when the media reports on "the Reverend Jesse Jackson", but "the Conservative Reverend Pat Robertson".

 

But it's not some media conspiracy...it's simply a function of the group psychology where 80% self-identify as "D" and not "R".

[X. Benedict]

Key point: there can be bias without some grand conspiracy to shove biased propaganda down the public's throat. "Bias" does not require intent to slant (quite the opposite, in fact - lack of bias is a concious act), it can be just as easily caused by a lack of awareness of slant...

 

...for example, when 80% of a group self-identifies with a given philosophy/idea/position, thereby leading most everyone in that group to believe that "My view is right, because almost everyone I know in my group shares it, and everyone else in my group is therefore just misguided," and extrapolates that outside the group. That's just basic psychology...and, not coincidentally, describes the media's Democratic bias.

 

 

 

Perfect example. Anyone not part of the group must be identified (with an "R", in this case). Anyone part of the group need not be identified, as it's understood. You see the same thing when the media reports on "the Reverend Jesse Jackson", but "the Conservative Reverend Pat Robertson".

 

But it's not some media conspiracy...it's simply a function of the group psychology where 80% self-identify as "D" and not "R".

 

I really think Tom makes a great point. I would make a similar distinction between the difference between a bias, and overt partisanship.

 

Cable as I see it, has put a premium on punditry at the expense of news-gathering.

 

I can see some merits in OC's argument of a new decentralization through the internet, but I would bet that even internet grazing today leads to most of the same news-gathering sources, and then that raises questions of verifiability.

 

The internet may make more data accessible - but the internet is a behemoth, with no clear mission to gather news; and with decentralization comes multiple problems with sourcing.

 

Seeing news-gathering through a liberal/conservative dichotomy doesn't really hit at the idea that their are fewer professional journalists engaged in news-gathering itself. (as resources are limited).

 

I have to wonder if unpaid citizen journalists throughout the world populating the internet news streams of the future an idea that I think OC hints at, or presupposes happening one day) doesn't really change that probably paying Glen Beck and Rachel Maddow their millions may mean not having a bureaus gathering news in Beijing, Jakarta, and Rwanda (or wherever).

Edited November 15, 2010 by X. Benedict

[GG]

I really think Tom makes a great point. I would make a similar distinction between the difference between a bias, and overt partisanship.

 

Cable as I see it, has put a premium on punditry at the expense of news-gathering.

 

I can see some merits in OC's argument of a new decentralization through the internet, but I would bet that even internet grazing today leads to most of the same news-gathering sources, and then that raises questions of verifiability.

 

The internet may make more data accessible - but the internet is a behemoth, with no clear mission to gather news; and with decentralization comes multiple problems with sourcing.

 

Seeing news-gathering through a liberal/conservative dichotomy doesn't really hit at the idea that their are fewer professional journalists engaged in news-gathering itself. (as resources are limited).

 

I have to wonder if unpaid citizen journalists throughout the world populating the internet news streams of the future an idea that I think OC hints at, or presupposes happening one day) doesn't really change that probably paying Glen Beck and Rachel Maddow their millions may mean not having a bureaus gathering news in Beijing, Jakarta, and Rwanda (or wherever).

 

Or we're simply in the middle of the evolution of the newsgathering business where the business model has yet to sort itself out. It's not like most of today's journalistic icons didn't start out as muckraking rags when they were mere pamphlets on the outhouse walls.

[OCinBuffalo]

Key point: there can be bias without some grand conspiracy to shove biased propaganda down the public's throat. "Bias" does not require intent to slant (quite the opposite, in fact - lack of bias is a concious act), it can be just as easily caused by a lack of awareness of slant...

 

...for example, when 80% of a group self-identifies with a given philosophy/idea/position, thereby leading most everyone in that group to believe that "My view is right, because almost everyone I know in my group shares it, and everyone else in my group is therefore just misguided," and extrapolates that outside the group. That's just basic psychology...and, not coincidentally, describes the media's Democratic bias.

 

 

 

Perfect example. Anyone not part of the group must be identified (with an "R", in this case). Anyone part of the group need not be identified, as it's understood. You see the same thing when the media reports on "the Reverend Jesse Jackson", but "the Conservative Reverend Pat Robertson".

 

But it's not some media conspiracy...it's simply a function of the group psychology where 80% self-identify as "D" and not "R".

Given this, the only rational solution: fire 30% of Democratic journalists and hire Republican journalists in their place. Seems drastic, but so is your model. If this purely a passive activity, rather than an active one, then doesn't that mean people can't help it. And, doesn't that mean: they have to go?

 

Also, are we to assume that "membership in the group" dictates identifying those not in the group 100% of the time? Etc. Etc. Should we expect consistent behavior? Etc. How much deviation?

Edited November 16, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

I look at things from a very simplistic mathematical POV.

 

FOX news was created as a counter alternative to what many people saw a liberally biased media. Although there are twice as many self-identified Conservatives than liberals, the traditional media outlets are overwhelmingly liberal.

 

There was a study done by S. Robert Lichter.

 

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no arguing these numbers. If you don't believe there is a liberal media bias, then you are Conner.

 

When Peter Jennings, one of these supposed non biased anchors that Koppel was somewhat referring to back in 1994 stated in response to the 1994 drubbing of the midterm elections of the Democrats:

 

 

 

It just shined a light on what most of us already knew, which is that the media for the most part, is in the tank for the liberals. They aren't as opinionated or brash but none the less they provide coverage that favors the ones they support or attempts to disparage and demean those who don't share their views, which of course would be the conservatives.

 

What I am saying is that FOX news is a direct spawn of the liberal media. If the media was more balanced, then FOX wouldn't be what it is today. This is logical.

From Sarah Palin's greatness to appologist for Fox news.....lol Hey, you are hard core Conservative with the bias of such. Just admit it already

 

And BTW, Fox 'news' took the bias angle and ran with it...they are way worse than anything else out there

[RkFast]

From Sarah Palin's greatness to appologist for Fox news.....lol Hey, you are hard core Conservative with the bias of such. Just admit it already

 

And BTW, Fox 'news' took the bias angle and ran with it...they are way worse than anything else out there

 

Classic "but when WE DO IT, its different" mentality.

 

Way to be part of the problem.

[Magox]

From Sarah Palin's greatness to appologist for Fox news.....lol Hey, you are hard core Conservative with the bias of such. Just admit it already

 

And BTW, Fox 'news' took the bias angle and ran with it...they are way worse than anything else out there

I am a fiscal conservative and you're a mindless-mouth breather. So what?

Edited November 16, 2010 by Magox

[DC Tom]

And BTW, Fox 'news' took the bias angle and ran with it...they are way worse than anything else out there

 

You're actually both right. FoxSnooze was specifically created as a conservative news source by Murdoch, specifically to counter the liberal bias in the rest of the media. If the rest of the media was more even-handed, Murdoch never creates FoxSnooze as a counter-balance...but in creating it, bias was a specific goal.

 

Having said that...I trust (which is completely different from taking them seriously - they're still a complete joke) Fox more than I do most other US news sources, because at least they're honest and open about their bias. At least with Fox, I know which way the story's going to slant even before the air it. With CNN, I have to do a lot more digging to find the inaccuracy.

[Dan]

Key point: there can be bias without some grand conspiracy to shove biased propaganda down the public's throat. "Bias" does not require intent to slant (quite the opposite, in fact - lack of bias is a concious act), it can be just as easily caused by a lack of awareness of slant...

I completely agree. For that reason, you don't randomly collect data just by picking data at random, you use random number generators and the like. Good point.