Stu Ghatze
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 531
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Stu Ghatze said:in some of the past polls that have been conducted whether they be journalists, editors, or in almost any capacity of the media, ..when asked how best to describe their own political leanings.
So...how in the hell can they EVER be trusted if by their own mouths they have admitted describing themselves as "liberal" in their personal ideology beliefs?
Oh...I get it, we are to trust them when they say all they do is report the news, & god knows THEY are all above reproach.
aps said:Stu, so are you saying that anyone and everyone who leans more towards being a liberal cannot report news objectively?
Some jobs attract a certain kind of person. Statistics show that the majority of professors are liberal leaning. This is not to be mean, but they say that the more education someone has makes them more open-minded and thus more liberal.
So it's possible that journalism is attractive to more liberal-leaning people.
Deegan said:Still, it can become a norm, and thus some are compelled to act and think a certain way, or risk being isolated. This happens all the time in campuses across the country, and it's not healthy, but some feel it's the only way think. Young conservatives are considered the enemy, and some professors are to blame for this attitude, and environment.
aps said:Stu, so are you saying that anyone and everyone who leans more towards being a liberal cannot report news objectively?
Some jobs attract a certain kind of person. Statistics show that the majority of professors are liberal leaning. This is not to be mean, but they say that the more education someone has makes them more open-minded and thus more liberal.
So it's possible that journalism is attractive to more liberal-leaning people.
Stu Ghatze said:To answer your question I would answer it this way: Yes, I'am sure "some" can be honest, & objective.
BUT....here IS the dillemma: Liberals as you say have their core belifs etc, okay, BUT have you noticed their nuance when it comes to focus groups, abortion, topics of race, ethnicity, socialism vs capitalism, class differences, multi-culturalism,& individual rights;..they seem to have a flair for making a mountain out of a mole hill, & appear to give sympathy, promote controversy where their should be NONE in an effort to sway public opinion to their own personal ideology base to THEIR OWN personal policy preferences.
It can be with tougue, & cheek...perhaps even a touch of sarcasm, a wink of an eye, & even by what they say, & how they say it when writing their articles.
It is NEVER "just news" of events that happen. I do not begrudge those that do editorialize, as THAT is part of journalism but for me as well as others, it is painfully obvious that MANY of them are agenda driven!
Dan Rather was a perfect example of this, & it cannot even be debated any longer, nor can most writers for "Time" magazine, & other magazines!
The same with "The new York times"...if a democrat does something wrong, it is NOT presented in the SAME fashion, & anybody can almost hear the way it is printed, & editorialized.
The Clintons recieve MANY passes, as did Sandy Berger. THe stories were reported alright...but not in the same fashion, & efforts were ALWAYS made to PRESUME their innocence, ..unlike the treatment of most republicans/conservatives etc.
Quite frankly the modern media's grades are about as bad as Bush's numbers; & most people simply do not trust the major news sources as they did decades ago.
IMO, ..& it can be argued, I beleve it is the amount of "piling on" by the media that helps determine the battles between the democrats & the republicans, ..& it IS ideologically driven; & it is BECAUSE the media is so overwhelmingly liberal in their core beliefs is exactly as to WHY this is happening.
The media CREATES the controversy where there should be NO controversy,.. IF they were merely just reporting the news as it happens.
I would like to add one more observation: Most kNOWN repubs/conservatives etc within the universities who study journalism etc., are NOT treated in the same fashion as young liberal students are, ..AND many of them are NOT hired by leading newspapers & magazines etc because of THAT very fact, & those that do;.. generally assist, & do not get many roles in advancing their careers within those establishments. Some do, but most do not!
aps said:Deegan, no one is compelled to act and think a certain way. Any person can take in information and then decide for themselves whether they agree or disagree with that information.
Professors are to blame for conservatives being considered the enemy? That is an outrageous thing to say.
scottyz said:What's the point of debating over this when the threat starter hasn't even provided a source for his claim? Assuming it's true it still sidesteps the question of whether or not they apply a liberal slant to their reporting.
Stu Ghatze said:Scottyz, Listen please, I have lived in this world for over 54 years, & Yes...there IS a liberal slant to almost ALL the news, be it network news, ABC, NBC, CBS etc,. ..as well as MANY magazines as well.
I saw Good Night and Good Luck last night. It talks a lot about this issue. Should Edward R Murrow editatorialise the news about Senate Joe McCarthy and his commie race baiting? Is that bias? Is news important vs. entertainment? What about the sponsors?
Very good movie.
Great Post! This is the essence of what is happening on both ends and I was just about to make a statement about it. I am as some here know a broadcasting major and my instructor has always stressed the importance of knowing the difference between straight reporting and commentary, when you have a commentator such as Bill Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Molly Ivans, Alan Colmbs, et. al. they have every right to stress their viewpoint only because it is a commentary on any given event. Straight reporting however should include all necessary facts and points of view, this is for the most part lacking in much of the current news coverage and I find that usually the ignored material usually is in the form of an opposing position, it does happen for all ideologies BTW.:3oops:Binary_Digit said:There are a few reasons why this kind of bias matters:
- Reporter asserts his opinion, viewers interpret it as a fact, not opinion.
- Reporter emphasizes some facts while "playing down" other facts.
- Guests who represent the opposing view are interrupted while making good points, distracted by irrelavent red herrings, and generally denied a fair medium for debate.
I can't imagine having reporters without opinions, but when they do this stuff it's dishonest and downright irresponsible. More educated viewers can see right through this hackery, but unfortunately most people don't.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?