That bastion of liberalism, the NYT...

[SilverNRed]

They've still got a ways to go before they reach Fox News' "Our headlines don't match reality" editorial standard.

 

And for hell's sake, they're comparing the Washington Times to the NYT.  That's like saying "My sh-- smells better than yours."  It's still sh--.

791869[/snapback]

I'm tired of comparing sh------- reporting to other sh------- reporting and saying everything is OK.

 

It's really not too much to ask for competent reporting from newspapers and TV stations. It's 2006. The internet is here. Information is available like never before and there's really no reason (other than intent) for getting things so wrong.

 

And like I said before, thanks to the internet all these biased journalist dumbasses are going to get caught. So it doesn't make sense to do anything other than try to get the facts straight.

[Chilly]

Yeah, it's expecting WAY too much for reporters to actually do their job and report the facts.  Biased, misleading newspapers and TV shows are OK because everyone is doing it, right? 

 

The "whining" serves a purpose.  It correctly points out that most of the outlets that people have been relying on for decades are complete trash.  Oh, and by most estimates the number of reporters pushing a liberal agenda is much greater than those pushing a conservative one.  Here's an example.  In a two-party system, that counts for something.

 

Actually, that article and other similar articles/studies are making a really big assumption - reporters have the power in the media business. They don't, the owners have the power in the media business to sent the tone and feel for the whole network.

 

Just because a reporter is a liberal or conservative doesn't mean that they are necessarily going to write that way. More or less, a newspaper is going to be published as to how the owner/editing staff wants it published.

 

If more people know that their major media outlets are more interested in selling stories than presenting reality, there's a better chance people will seek out more sources of information.

 

The major media outlets are somewhat interested in selling stories, but really, thats only part of whats going on.

 

The NYT, for example, wants to have a selection of stories that draws in the largest proportion of NYC residents as possible, so that they can get advertising money from companies who are looking to reach the NYC audience.

 

And it's not too much to ask major newspapers to report the facts correctly.  They have the resources and in the age of the internet, the chances of slipping a bunch of crap through to the public and getting away with it are slim.

791847[/snapback]

 

If all of these different media outlets are getting the facts incorrect, at least in regard to politics, then why, exactly, do administrations keep talking to them and providing them information?

 

The latest study that I was reading (don't have a link, sorry) suggests that the media is viewed by most people as opposite of their own beliefs. While even a plurality of Democrats would say that the media is bias, when you examine the issues that the media is reporting, it is overwhelmingly viewed as opposite to however one feels on the issue.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

If all of these different media outlets are getting the facts incorrect, at least in regard to politics, then why, exactly, do administrations keep talking to them and providing them information? 

791908[/snapback]

 

Actually, as I've said before, this administration's policy is not to talk to the media...at least, not as an equal partner in the governing of the country, as the media's usually assumed they are (i.e. the "Fourth Estate").

 

That's a policy I support in principle, though not as practiced.

[Chilly]

Less "analysis" on the front page would be a good start.

 

It was an article written by a reporter which talked about parts of the bill, and what their effects might be on society, as thought by social elites (professors and others). What, exactly, is the problem here? You are mad that they are screwing up "facts" and showing a bias in reporting, yet when they provide arguments, which are labeled as such, you also throw a fit.

 

You succeeded in pointing out that the NYT editorial page is liberal.  Thanks, I guess.

 

And I also showed that they also provide opposing viewpoints and a wide range of viewpoints, something which you conveniently leave out here. Why is that exactly?

 

I'm more concerned that their headlines don't match their articles.

791859[/snapback]

 

Really? That headline said something that the pew's poll also said. That means that it DID match the article. So did the Washington Post's.

 

Its really no surprise that they view the two headlines this way. Lets take a look at their own "headlines":

 

"The Democrats' Cheating Heart"

"Apocalypse Kerry"

"Silence of the Liberals"

 

All of which link to conservative sites. Its not surprising at all that they view two headlines, both of which are correct, as having a bias.

[Chilly]

Actually, as I've said before, this administration's policy is not to talk to the media...at least, not as an equal partner in the governing of the country, as the media's usually assumed they are (i.e. the "Fourth Estate").

 

That's a policy I support in principle, though not as practiced.

791932[/snapback]

 

Yeah, they do that somewhat. However, they still hold press conferences that provide lots of information and stories for the media. If they really thought that the media fxed everything up as bad as some people accuse them of doing, they'd stop except for standard campaigning.

 

Bush still could cut a bunch of stuff out of his press conferences to reduce them to nothing but campaigning. But I do agree that they do it to an extent.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

If they really thought that the media fxed everything up as bad as some people accuse them of doing, they'd stop except for standard campaigning.

791945[/snapback]

 

I'm sure the administration would like nothing more than to completely ignore the media. I'm also sure they realize that if they did, the media would make up even more sh-- than they already do.

 

And they do make up sh--. Routinely. Though it's not because of a "liberal bias" (the media does have a liberal bias...but it's an unconscious one, because jobs in the media attract liberals, so there's no real counterpoint acting as a check within the industry.) It's because there's a fundamental sales aspect to their jobs, which ultimately leads them to sensationalize everything. Thus, they end up reporting half a story (the sensational half - the Superdome in NO, for example, rather than the massive effort to move relief over a shattered infrastructure), or no story at all (the most recent news in the Abramoff scandal - that Abramoff sent hundreds of emails to the White House, but the WH didn't respond to any of them), or just making stories up so they have something to sensationalize (e.g. "Unarmored vehicles in Iraq don't have armor. How dare they not equip unarmored vehicles with armor! And non-combat troops aren't equipped for combat!")

 

That's the administration's salient point in dealing with the media: the media represents their own interests, and not the interests of the American public. (Ever notice how many "scandals" break close to book publishing dates for reporters? Woodward has a new one coming out soon; expect to hear the "Rumsfeld should resign" crowd to get louder...and before an election, too. I'm sure that's just a coincidence, and has nothing to do with sales and marketing. ) And they're right. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

[/dev/null]

the media represents their own interests, and not the interests of the American public. 

791965[/snapback]

 

Word

[Chilly]

I'm sure the administration would like nothing more than to completely ignore the media.  I'm also sure they realize that if they did, the media would make up even more sh-- than they already do.

 

And they do make up sh--.  Routinely.  Though it's not because of a "liberal bias" (the media does have a liberal bias...but it's an unconscious one, because jobs in the media attract liberals, so there's no real counterpoint acting as a check within the industry.) 

 

Depends on the type of media you're looking at. The traditional press media has more liberals then conservatives working for it, while radio is just the opposite. TV has both.

 

It's because there's a fundamental sales aspect to their jobs, which ultimately leads them to sensationalize everything.  Thus, they end up reporting half a story (the sensational half - the Superdome in NO, for example, rather than the massive effort to move relief over a shattered infrastructure), or no story at all (the most recent news in the Abramoff scandal - that Abramoff sent hundreds of emails to the White House, but the WH didn't respond to any of them), or just making stories up so they have something to sensationalize (e.g. "Unarmored vehicles in Iraq don't have armor.  How dare they not equip unarmored vehicles with armor!  And non-combat troops aren't equipped for combat!")

 

Yeah, they're going to sensationalize a lot. Hell, in a tragedy like Katrina, I'd argue that its human nature to at least partially sensationalize what happened.

 

There is also, though, an element of reporting that is not all sensationalized. Typically you see this in non-visual news sources rather then "video clip" news sources.

 

On the Katrina example, the NY Times on August 30th, 2005, the day after Katrina hit, also ran a story as part of its Katrina coverage called "National Guard units joined federal, state and private organizations in a broad effort to provide relief."

 

As for the armor example, I didn't actually see it like that. My remembrance of the event was that it was a concern of some of the soldiers, that were addressed by Rumsfeld and co during and after a question and answer setting.

 

In fact, after doing a bit of searching, I found the NYT article that I read about the situation.

 

Here's the NYT article about Abramoff. I dunno, seems pretty fair to me. The feeling that I got from the article was that the White House largely ignored Abramoff except for a couple times, which weren't exactly intimate.

 

That's the administration's salient point in dealing with the media: the media represents their own interests, and not the interests of the American public.  (Ever notice how many "scandals" break close to book publishing dates for reporters?  Woodward has a new one coming out soon; expect to hear the "Rumsfeld should resign" crowd to get louder...and before an election, too.  I'm sure that's just a coincidence, and has nothing to do with sales and marketing.  )  And they're right.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

791965[/snapback]

 

Yeah, the media does represent their own interests. But hell, so does the administration. To expect that *anyone* in the US represents the interests of the American public over their own would be delusional.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Depends on the type of media you're looking at.  The traditional press media has more liberals then conservatives working for it, while radio is just the opposite.  TV has both.

 

TV has more liberals than conservatives, I think. It's less uneven since FoxSnooze started, but it's still uneven.

 

But my point still stands: liberal outlets will reinforce their unintentional liberal bias by preferentially hiring liberals. Conservative outlets will do the same with conservatives (you'll never see an honest liberal counterpoint on Fox. Never.) When everyone has the same inherent bias, it's extraordinarily easy to say "There's no bias...everyone I know thinks just the same as me." Which is how you get editorial bull sh-- like the NYT or FoxSnooze.

 

Yeah, they're going to sensationalize a lot.  Hell, in a tragedy like Katrina, I'd argue that its human nature to at least partially sensationalize what happened.

 

So the media has the same failings as "human nature"...but you trust the media more than you would most people? News flash: most people couldn't get their facts of yesterday's breakfast correct, never mind the intricacies of the administration's North Korea and Iran WMD policies.

 

There is also, though, an element of reporting that is not all sensationalized.  Typically you see this in non-visual news sources rather then "video clip" news sources.

 

No, typically they sensationalize. Tomorrow's the Monday after a relatively slow news weekend; I guarantee that tomorrow's NYT will have some sensationalized (defined as: a soft news intended less to inform than to inflame) story on the front page (probably centered on the page, but below the fold. Even odds the front page picture accompanies the story). I'd put money on it if the wife would let me.

 

As for the armor example, I didn't actually see it like that.  My remembrance of the event was that it was a concern of some of the soldiers, that were addressed by Rumsfeld and co during and after a question and answer setting.

 

In fact, after doing a bit of searching, I found the NYT article that I read about the situation.

 

But that's exactly what I'm talking about!!! The soldiers in question were from transport companies, driving unarmored vehicles not meant for combat. It's not a deficiency in equipment when unarmored vehicles don't have armor. The story - which was the precise one I was thinking about when I mentioned the "issue" - is written to mislead the reader into thinking something that's patently incorrect by omitting necessary information: namely, that unarmored vehicles are, in fact, unarmored by definition. So suddenly, the normal course of events becomes a "scandal".

 

Yeah, the media does represent their own interests.  But hell, so does the administration.  To expect that *anyone* in the US represents the interests of the American public over their own would be delusional.

792103[/snapback]

 

And whose fault would that be? Any elected official is supposed to represent the interests of the electorate. The media doesn't even have that much of a call to responsibility. Which is something the administration has so much as told the media: "You weren't elected, you don't represent the American people, we do."

 

And from everything I've heard from everyone who works in this administration (I'm a government contractor, so it's more than a few people), the administration actually does act with the best interests of the electorate in mind. It's just that: 1) their definition of "the electorate" seems to exclude anyone outside their religious base, and 2) they're morons, so their idea of the public's best interest is totally whacked anyway.

[Chilly]

TV has more liberals than conservatives, I think.  It's less uneven since FoxSnooze started, but it's still uneven.

 

But my point still stands: liberal outlets will reinforce their unintentional liberal bias by preferentially hiring liberals.  Conservative outlets will do the same with conservatives (you'll never see an honest liberal counterpoint on Fox.  Never.)  When everyone has the same inherent bias, it's extraordinarily easy to say "There's no bias...everyone I know thinks just the same as me."  Which is how you get editorial bull sh-- like the NYT or FoxSnooze. 

 

I don't (and didn't) disagree with you here, just pointed out that different elements of the media attempt to draw in different audiences.

 

So the media has the same failings as "human nature"...but you trust the media more than you would most people?  News flash: most people couldn't get their facts of yesterday's breakfast correct, never mind the intricacies of the administration's North Korea and Iran WMD policies.

 

You're right there, reporters haven't typically had a ton of political/military/other training. But yes, I do trust the media more then I would most people. Do I take their opinions as fact? Hell no. Do I trust them a helluva lot more then I would say Wacka or blzrul to relay information and what is happening? Yeah, I do. Would you not say the same?

 

Would I put their opinions above other people who haven't followed things as closely? Probably. Do I trust them completely? Hell no.

 

Its like Tom Edsall's new book, Building Red America. He's been reporting politics long enough to where he can see patterns and offer ideas explaining them, but he doesn't really know what he's talking about for some of it (like his assertion that the American electorate is currently polarized - its not, the candidates are). It's like most people, good ideas on one hand and stupidity on the other.

 

No, typically they sensationalize.  Tomorrow's the Monday after a relatively slow news weekend; I guarantee that tomorrow's NYT will have some sensationalized (defined as: a soft news intended less to inform than to inflame) story on the front page (probably centered on the page, but below the fold.  Even odds the front page picture accompanies the story).  I'd put money on it if the wife would let me. 

 

Thats a large part due to resources. You've got the news networks and the news programs working with a 30minute to an hour window before they repeat stuff. Not nearly as much space/time to report the news as a newspaper does.

 

Every news outlet will be sensationalist, I didn't say they weren't, its for economic reasons. My point with the Times article is that newspapers generally have more space and time, with which they use that time to write articles which have more facts.

 

In the front page section I typically find myself reading all of the articles right around the middle, after most sensationalist stuff and before the editorial page (though I do like to read some Friedman, lol). They provide the meat of the coverage.

 

But that's exactly what I'm talking about!!!    The soldiers in question were from transport companies, driving unarmored vehicles not meant for combat.  It's not a deficiency in equipment when unarmored vehicles don't have armor.  The story - which was the precise one I was thinking about when I mentioned the "issue" - is written to mislead the reader into thinking something that's patently incorrect by omitting necessary information: namely, that unarmored vehicles are, in fact, unarmored by definition.  So suddenly, the normal course of events becomes a "scandal".

 

I dunno, I didn't take it that way nor did I read it that way.

 

To me it was written at the beginning to get people to read it, which I did when I hopped into it. After I read it, I was presented with the information that while some soldiers had these concerns, most of them had perfectly valid explanations. While there might be some shortages that they gave examples of (and hell, with an organization that big, would you really expect there not to be), by in large it isn't a huge problem.

 

IIRC thats what ended up happening. The Pentagon was a bit short of their goals; not massively, mind you, but they were, and these soldiers were the ones directly affected by it.

 

If I was to get upset at anything the media did over this issue it would be to take this story and quote it in other articles to "spice" those articles up. I remember reading the "Hillbilly armor" quote all over.

 

And whose fault would that be?  Any elected official is supposed to represent the interests of the electorate.  The media doesn't even have that much of a call to responsibility.  Which is something the administration has so much as told the media: "You weren't elected, you don't represent the American people, we do."

 

Elections do give some sense of legitimacy in making that claim. The media's widely regarded position as the fourth estate also is why they make the claim, at least before they figured out that "hey, we actually CAN make a shitload of money off of this news stuff, more then we realized before, if we throw in a bunch of bull sh--" and the business aspect became more important then the journalism aspect. (I agree with you that the whole 4th estate thing is crap nowadays.)

 

And from everything I've heard from everyone who works in this administration (I'm a government contractor, so it's more than a few people), the administration actually does act with the best interests of the electorate in mind.  It's just that: 1) their definition of "the electorate" seems to exclude anyone outside their religious base, and 2) they're morons, so their idea of the public's best interest is totally whacked anyway.

792325[/snapback]

 

And thus you describe my problem with what you said. "the electorate" that you work for, currently, is whoever in your party shows up to the poll to get you the slight majority, and it is no longer considered the moderate vote that does.

 

Its not going to get any better either. Candidates have learned that the best way to win is get just close enough to the center to be able to get some independent voters, but staying mostly toward their base. Its typically useless to try to attract people who identify themselves as Independents, but when pressed will say that they lean one way or another. Data shows that they'll vote for that party ~90% of the time. One of the reasons why we get stuck between a turd and a giant deuche. So they mostly lean toward their base, once in a while throw a bone to more true independents, and then hope they win.

 

Overall though, you know, I'd agree with you on most things. There are a few elites in the media that I think do a decent job at reporting actual news, and its why I don't agree with you about everything. NY Times and WSJ being the first two that jump into my mind, with the Washington Post there probably also. Yeah, they do the same bull sh-- that the rest of the media does in order to be able to market/create a product, but they are a few of the only places that actually do reporting as well.

[Benjamin Franklin]

Good front page article exposing some of the dark side of Murtha. Just saying.

 

Murtha