Uncivil Rights
A BLOG rife with wit, sarcasm, and the endless joy which comes from taunting the socialistic and unpatriotic liberal left. Logical thoughts and musings ONLY need reply...unless you're really, really funny. You have the Uncivil Right to be an IDIOT.
"Give me LIBERTY, or give me DEATH!"
Sunday, November 23, 2008
The Lamestream Media and Why It's Failing
Deborah Howell, the Ombudsman of the Washington Post, has admitted the bias of the Post's coverage of Obama here. She follows that editorial up, due to the loss of subscribers, with how the Post can remedy the "perceived" bias here.
Her "remedies"???
"More conservatives in newsrooms and rigorous editing would be two."
Tom Rosentiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said:
"There should be more intellectual diversity among journalists. More conservatives in newsrooms will bring about better journalism."
Bob Steele, 'an ethics scholar at Poynter Institute (which trains journalists)' "recommends "prosecutorial editing" as one way to "minimize the ideological bias and beliefs that all journalists have."
Hey Bob, where are these journalists your instituion is training? And, Tom and Bob, why aren' these things happening NOW!? It ocmes down to the agenda of the owners and editors of these newspapers. There is a reason why reporters are liberal. People hire likeminded people. The idea that a newspaper is fair, balanced and objective is GONE. The Hew York TImes can call David Brooks a conservative, but that doesn't mean that he is, and true conservatives see this.
I believe the REAL problem, besides the agenda-driven articles, is the lack of true objective journalism. I am not just picking on the Post, but all liberal media outlets.
For example, this article was on the front page of the online edition of the New York Times today, Fed Official Is Said to Be Choice for Treasury.
Let's take a close look at OBJECTIVITY: "...quavering financial markets are looking for reassurance about the direction of economic policy." I didn't know financial markets had human attributes... And the source(s) for this??? "...people briefed about the decision said..."
How about this deduction: "Word of Mr. Geithner’s selection helped drive stocks sharply higher on Friday afternoon as investors concluded that Mr. Obama was taking steps to fill a leadership vacuum at a time when the economy and financial markets are showing new signs of strain." It's interesting to note the mention of this man's name drives stocks up, yet the election of Obama seemed to have nothing to do with the stack market crash. Reporters have come up with "other" reasons why the stocks plummetted, but no where is Obama mentioned either here or here, to cite just a few. If you noticed the chart from the second article, the stocks started descending when Obama and Clinton were in the lead for the dem nomination, just as the media were picking thier condidate for the white house.
But this isn't the only place that concludes Geithner's name is responsible for the stock increase. From this MSNBC story: "*** UPDATE *** Msnbc.com's Al Olson reports that immediately after NBC News' report on Tim Geithner likely to be named Treasury Secretary, stocks rebounded sharply." Funny how we DIDN'T see a story that said: "Immediately after Barack Obama was elected president, the stock market dropped 400 points..."
Bias?
But the NYT story continues on its bias path talking about Mr. Geithner: "But his association with the current administration’s policies is balanced by his close connections to the centrist Democratic policies of President Bill Clinton and Mr. Clinton’s best-known Treasury secretary, Robert E. Rubin." Let's see, current financial policies must be far right, and the democrat policies are centrist? That is the way I am understanding the conclusions of Jackie Calmes, the author of this "objective" piece.
This is just one example of the majority of articles throughout the NYT, Washington Post, Boston Globe, and other liberal newspapers. Am I being fair? Am I right? Ms. Howell, do you care? Do you truly want objective, nonbiased reporting? I think it would certainly bring back readers. However, I believe the liberal agenda is a greater force than profit, and newspapers will fail due to the lack of objective reporting.
Her "remedies"???
"More conservatives in newsrooms and rigorous editing would be two."
Tom Rosentiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said:
"There should be more intellectual diversity among journalists. More conservatives in newsrooms will bring about better journalism."
Bob Steele, 'an ethics scholar at Poynter Institute (which trains journalists)' "recommends "prosecutorial editing" as one way to "minimize the ideological bias and beliefs that all journalists have."
Hey Bob, where are these journalists your instituion is training? And, Tom and Bob, why aren' these things happening NOW!? It ocmes down to the agenda of the owners and editors of these newspapers. There is a reason why reporters are liberal. People hire likeminded people. The idea that a newspaper is fair, balanced and objective is GONE. The Hew York TImes can call David Brooks a conservative, but that doesn't mean that he is, and true conservatives see this.
I believe the REAL problem, besides the agenda-driven articles, is the lack of true objective journalism. I am not just picking on the Post, but all liberal media outlets.
For example, this article was on the front page of the online edition of the New York Times today, Fed Official Is Said to Be Choice for Treasury.
Let's take a close look at OBJECTIVITY: "...quavering financial markets are looking for reassurance about the direction of economic policy." I didn't know financial markets had human attributes... And the source(s) for this??? "...people briefed about the decision said..."
How about this deduction: "Word of Mr. Geithner’s selection helped drive stocks sharply higher on Friday afternoon as investors concluded that Mr. Obama was taking steps to fill a leadership vacuum at a time when the economy and financial markets are showing new signs of strain." It's interesting to note the mention of this man's name drives stocks up, yet the election of Obama seemed to have nothing to do with the stack market crash. Reporters have come up with "other" reasons why the stocks plummetted, but no where is Obama mentioned either here or here, to cite just a few. If you noticed the chart from the second article, the stocks started descending when Obama and Clinton were in the lead for the dem nomination, just as the media were picking thier condidate for the white house.
But this isn't the only place that concludes Geithner's name is responsible for the stock increase. From this MSNBC story: "*** UPDATE *** Msnbc.com's Al Olson reports that immediately after NBC News' report on Tim Geithner likely to be named Treasury Secretary, stocks rebounded sharply." Funny how we DIDN'T see a story that said: "Immediately after Barack Obama was elected president, the stock market dropped 400 points..."
Bias?
But the NYT story continues on its bias path talking about Mr. Geithner: "But his association with the current administration’s policies is balanced by his close connections to the centrist Democratic policies of President Bill Clinton and Mr. Clinton’s best-known Treasury secretary, Robert E. Rubin." Let's see, current financial policies must be far right, and the democrat policies are centrist? That is the way I am understanding the conclusions of Jackie Calmes, the author of this "objective" piece.
This is just one example of the majority of articles throughout the NYT, Washington Post, Boston Globe, and other liberal newspapers. Am I being fair? Am I right? Ms. Howell, do you care? Do you truly want objective, nonbiased reporting? I think it would certainly bring back readers. However, I believe the liberal agenda is a greater force than profit, and newspapers will fail due to the lack of objective reporting.
Labels: media bias
totalkaosdave, 8:01 AM
|
