Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 27, 2005 Posted September 27, 2005 I don't think that's why FOX is so popular. FOX is popular because it caters to conservatives who feel left out with just about every other channel. But then I think conservatives (and probably liberals too) would like a news source that wasn't constantly making an ass of itself by trying to spice things up during broadcasts. I'd love to see someone try to launch a cable TV news channel that avoided all of the stupid crap that FOX and CNN cover. Missing girl in Aruba? Pass. Crazed reporter ranting about New Orleans? Pass. Spend time fact-checking the other guys. It wouldn't dominate the ratings but there has to be a niche market for that. 456966[/snapback] I didn't say that's why Fox is popular. I said that their reporting is bull sh--, and given their popularity, the others have to mimic their reporting to compete.
Ghost of BiB Posted September 27, 2005 Posted September 27, 2005 I didn't say that's why Fox is popular. I said that their reporting is bull sh--, and given their popularity, the others have to mimic their reporting to compete. 456986[/snapback] I'm enjoying the copy of "Bias" you gave me. A lot I don't agree with with, sounds vindictive and name dropping (except where it should) but Goldberg makes some great points as to the overall mentality of things. I myself always assumed they did it on purpose. I never considered the angle that they do things that way because it's how they ALL think. And because they never expose themselves to another opinion (without looking down their nose at it) they believe they are neutral and balanced.
Chef Jim Posted September 27, 2005 Posted September 27, 2005 The death toll projections came from people outside the media, who just passed them along--there was no way for them to start counting. 456795[/snapback] Here's the problem with the media these days. They don't know how or care to corroborate their stories. They have begin to report rumor as fact. Very dangerous stuff.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 27, 2005 Posted September 27, 2005 I'm enjoying the copy of "Bias" you gave me. A lot I don't agree with with, sounds vindictive and name dropping (except where it should) but Goldberg makes some great points as to the overall mentality of things. I myself always assumed they did it on purpose. I never considered the angle that they do things that way because it's how they ALL think. And because they never expose themselves to another opinion (without looking down their nose at it) they believe they are neutral and balanced. 457009[/snapback] His editorials he refers to are in the appendices. They're arguably more informative than the book itself, for the reasons you say: he just sounds too vindictive most of the time. Personally, I thought Ari Fleischer made a better case in his memoirs than Goldberg does; Ari wrote with less anger and more objectivity than Goldberg does, which is rather surprising considering that conflict with the media was practically Ari's job description.
Ghost of BiB Posted September 27, 2005 Posted September 27, 2005 Here's the problem with the media these days. They don't know how or care to corroborate their stories. They have begin to report rumor as fact. Very dangerous stuff. 457016[/snapback] Good point, the speed of the people can not keep up with the speed of the technology, which drives the "instant". I know better to even try on the reality of things, it's too late. If it's older than one day, it's a backwater story on page 16, if it gets talked about at all. Go get 'em, Ron. They need to hear it because a lot of people know it's the truth, just doesn't fit the agenda and you got sacrificed, well because, you're expendable. You're not going to be on welfare, so outside of a weeks worth of pride (because America will have another Aruba Girl and forget) it really doesn't matter, and instead of working 16 hour days you'll have some time for golf. Doesn't matter who is right or wrong, it's how it is presented. You knew you were screwed, Mr. Brown, the moment they put Nagin on the center stage. Didn't see the governor out there much, did you? Talk to me again about how balanced our media is, whether they are responsible or not. You might fool some people, you ain't fooling me. I don't count, but I can point and say B***sh--.
Taro T Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 Here's the problem with the media these days. They don't know how or care to corroborate their stories. They have begin to report rumor as fact. Very dangerous stuff. 457016[/snapback] That reminds me of the time I went to a Clean Air Act conference back in the early 90's. Two things during that conference struck me as horrible examples of what was wrong with the media back then, and I imagine it has only gotten worse since. The 1st was at lunch on the 2nd day, at my table was a mid to high level guy from EPA and a lady reporter who had recently switched to covering a DC beat from Cleveland. She was whining to the EPA guy about how much harder it is to report in DC vs Cleveland; because when she was in Cleveland, if something happened she could call the mayor and he would give her the story. Now that she was in DC, people wouldn't answer all her questions, heck, they'd sometimes even mislead her. I was just sitting there listening to her dumbfounded. It just didn't seem fair that she might have to do some investigating to be an investigative reporter. Oh, well. The other event was a news conference with the head of EPA and his Mexican counterpart. There was a nice little 1 page press release that went with the press conference and about a 5-10 minute speech. There were about 25 reporters in the room, and when they were allowed to ask questions, 8 people asked the EXACT SAME QUESTION just worded a little differently and it had nothing to do with what the news conference was supposed to be about. The EPA administrator avoided the question all 8 times, and then the "reporters" packed up their stuff and left. I guess that experience was the root of my "anti-media bias". Dave.
Chef Jim Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 That reminds me of the time I went to a Clean Air Act conference back in the early 90's. Two things during that conference struck me as horrible examples of what was wrong with the media back then, and I imagine it has only gotten worse since. The 1st was at lunch on the 2nd day, at my table was a mid to high level guy from EPA and a lady reporter who had recently switched to covering a DC beat from Cleveland. She was whining to the EPA guy about how much harder it is to report in DC vs Cleveland; because when she was in Cleveland, if something happened she could call the mayor and he would give her the story. Now that she was in DC, people wouldn't answer all her questions, heck, they'd sometimes even mislead her. I was just sitting there listening to her dumbfounded. It just didn't seem fair that she might have to do some investigating to be an investigative reporter. Oh, well. The other event was a news conference with the head of EPA and his Mexican counterpart. There was a nice little 1 page press release that went with the press conference and about a 5-10 minute speech. There were about 25 reporters in the room, and when they were allowed to ask questions, 8 people asked the EXACT SAME QUESTION just worded a little differently and it had nothing to do with what the news conference was supposed to be about. The EPA administrator avoided the question all 8 times, and then the "reporters" packed up their stuff and left. I guess that experience was the root of my "anti-media bias". Dave. 457161[/snapback] Here's the problem with "news reporters" and politicians. It's people who love to hear themselves talk and say nothing asking questions of people who love to hear thenselves talk and say nothing. I love when a reporter takes 5 minutes to ask what time it is and the politician takes 25 minutes to explain why he doesn't wear a watch.
SilverNRed Posted September 28, 2005 Author Posted September 28, 2005 Headline from LA Times: Katrina Takes a Toll on Truth, News Accuracy You know things are bad when the LA Times is dissing the press. So how bad was it? Hyperbolic reporting spread through much of the media. Fox News, a day before the major evacuation of the Superdome began, issued an "alert" as talk show host Alan Colmes reiterated reports of "robberies, rapes, carjackings, riots and murder. Violent gangs are roaming the streets at night, hidden by the cover of darkness." The Los Angeles Times adopted a breathless tone the next day in its lead news story, reporting that National Guard troops "took positions on rooftops, scanning for snipers and armed mobs as seething crowds of refugees milled below, desperate to flee. Gunfire crackled in the distance." The New York Times repeated some of the reports of violence and unrest, but the newspaper usually was more careful to note that the information could not be verified. The tabloid Ottawa Sun reported unverified accounts of "a man seeking help gunned down by a National Guard soldier" and "a young man run down and then shot by a New Orleans police officer." London's Evening Standard invoked the future-world fantasy film "Mad Max" to describe the scene and threw in a "Lord of the Flies" allusion for good measure. But, really, why did this happen? Because Americans are racist! Times-Picayune Editor Jim Amoss cited telephone breakdowns as a primary cause of reporting errors, but said the fact that most evacuees were poor African Americans also played a part. "If the dome and Convention Center had harbored large numbers of middle class white people," Amoss said, "it would not have been a fertile ground for this kind of rumor-mongering." My favorite part (other than the press just reporting "whatever") is how important the Mayor was in spreading the bad info that got around the world. Nagin and Police Chief Eddie Compass appeared on "Oprah" a few days after trouble at the Superdome had peaked. Compass told of "the little babies getting raped" at the Superdome. And Nagin made his claim about hooligans raping and killing. Truly a great leader.
Adam Posted September 29, 2005 Posted September 29, 2005 Remember all the stories coming out of New Orleans in the days following Hurricane Katrina about all the violence and mayhem. Turns out they were bullcrap. Is this a bad time to mention that Dan Rather thought Katrina was "one of television news' finest moments"? 456247[/snapback] Not surprising....they run out of things that are real, and need to fill space, so they make things up
Chilly Posted September 29, 2005 Posted September 29, 2005 Yeah, it was probably really difficult for them to get inside the dome and film all those bodies. Oh wait, there were ALREADY IN THERE. There are no excuses for this kind of crap. None. Edward R. Murrow wouldn't put up with it. 456315[/snapback] Last I checked not every member of the media was in that dome.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 29, 2005 Posted September 29, 2005 Last I checked not every member of the media was in that dome. 458443[/snapback] Yeah, like that helps their case. "We don't have anyone there, so we're just going to copy someone else's report and hope they're not full of sh--." Good reporting that.
Chilly Posted September 29, 2005 Posted September 29, 2005 Yeah, like that helps their case. "We don't have anyone there, so we're just going to copy someone else's report and hope they're not full of sh--." Good reporting that. 458447[/snapback] Heh, I kinda have to eat my own words on this subject. I was reading the rest of the post, and something Chef Jim (I believe who it was) said really struck me as being true: The media can't keep up with technology. Its true, and there seem to be two camps: People like me who don't blame the media because they can't keep up, and people that do blame the media because they should keep up but they can't. Either way, I do agree, it is sh-- reporting, whether you give the media free pass or not.
Recommended Posts