Wolf Blitzer's Walker Election Coverage

[rocket88]

Only on DP can we devote 10 pages to Wolf Blitzer's tone of voice.

 

[pbrauer]

only on dp can we devote 10 pages to wolf blitzer's tone of voice.

lmmfao......

 

[Boo Radley]

You're doing it again.

I know. Bringin reason to the unreasonable is a terrible thing.

It's an opinion and therefore not a fact. It's also a highly unorthodox opinion.

No, how you measure bais is a fact. And whether something is biased or not is something that can be answered objectively and thus factually. But it is difficult. And not something I've seen anyone do yet.

 

[mpg]

I know. Bringin reason to the unreasonable is a terrible thing.

Don't play dumb.

No, how you measure bais is a fact. And whether something is biased or not is something that can be answered objectively and thus factually. But it is difficult. And not something I've seen anyone do yet.

There are an infinite # of ways to determine bias. Saying that one particular method is the right way to do it, is an opinion. Saying that it's the ONLY right way to do it, is an unorthodox opinion, and since the method that you want to use is so much different from anyone else's, and makes no sense to begin with, it's a bizarre opinion.

 

[missypea]

OMG, look at it, look at it, our exit polls shows it's a 50 - 50 race at this moment. Next. Scott Walker will retain is Governorship.

I would say oh Wolf was a little disappointed in the outcome. He was sure excited during the exit polls, then his bubble burst. Just my observation.

If you allow that one comment immediately followed the other then there may be a difference but that's not what happened. The comments were what, an hour apart? Context is important.

But this entire thing is really so silly. I think if you go looking for something.......as someone did since this is on youtube....you're gonna find it.

 

[Boo Radley]

Don't play dumb.

Don't ask me to respond to something dumb.

There are an infinite # of ways to determine bias. Saying that one particular method is the right way to do it, is an opinion. Saying that it's the ONLY right way to do it, is an unorthodox opinion, and since the method that you want to use is so much different from anyone else's, and makes no sense to begin with, it's a bizarre opinion.

No, not really. All the ways presented have serious flaws. And those ahve been covered. And no, there are things that have a proper approach. 1+1 = 2. Not an opinion. There are approriate methods.

The reasons my method has been used to your knowledge is:

1) it removes the bais of the research, and some clearly want their bias to be presented (earlier I linked to the bais of researcher).

2) it is more difficult. Does play to the easy answers so many want.

 

[rocket88]

Don't play dumb.




There are an infinite # of ways to determine bias. Saying that one particular method is the right way to do it, is an opinion. Saying that it's the ONLY right way to do it, is an unorthodox opinion, and since the method that you want to use is so much different from anyone else's, and makes no sense to begin with, it's a bizarre opinion.

Accusations of bias usually come down to "an opinion different from mine."

This thread is about try. ing to see bias in someon's tone, which is inherently subjective.

 

[Boo Radley]

Accusations of bias usually come down to "an opinion different from mine."

This thread is about try. ing to see bias in someon's tone, which is inherently subjective.

Yes, I think what SOME really have trouble with is that their bias isn't presented as much as they would like. In other words, they really want bais, their bias.

 

[Anagram]

Accusations of bias usually come down to "an opinion different from mine."

This thread is about try. ing to see bias in someon's tone, which is inherently subjective.

More about the content of the words. Before the election Blitzer repeatedly talked about the recall vote as a preview for November's election. After the election he maid no mention of it. That's not really subjective.

However, on Fox I noticed, (though it was different Newscasters rather than just one like Blitzer), they did the opposite. I'm not sure either was intentional, but both had the effects that bias would have.

 

[00timh]

Only on DP can we devote 10 pages to Wolf Blitzer's tone of voice.

Tone of voice is part of it, but also what was said before about this race being a barometer when it was thought to be close and then making no mention of it when it turned out to be a route. And for those liberals who want to pretend that there is no bias here, you know damn well that if Walker had lost that barometer talk would only have intensified. And WB's tone would have been much more cheerful as it was at the start of the coverage.

 

[rocket88]

Tone of voice is part of it, but also what was said before about this race being a barometer when it was thought to be close and then making no mention of it when it turned out to be a route. And for those liberals who want to pretend that there is no bias here, you know damn well that if Walker had lost that barometer talk would only have intensified. And WB's tone would have been much more cheerful as it was at the start of the coverage.

Quite possibly would have been. Instead it was just like Brit Hume telling Karl Rove that Obama won OH on election night in '08. Which is what I would expect from Fox, so...there it is.

What I'd like to see is what people would say if given a straight recount of the facts. We'd probably still have people complaining about liberal bias because they didn't follow up on every bit of speculation. Even when there's no actual facts. People were complaining about the Lib bias when they didn't report a "possible link" between a plot to blow up a bridge and OWS -- though at first there was no known fact that it was the case, just speculation of a "possible" link. A straight, "here's the facts" account would be "A plot to blow up a bridge was thwarted," which is pretty much what CNN reported at first.

 

[mpg]

Accusations of bias usually come down to "an opinion different from mine."

This thread is about try. ing to see bias in someon's tone, which is inherently subjective.

subjective but entirely relevant

and that's only half of what this thread is about

 

[mpg]

Does anyone deny that the tone of the reporter's voice can be a form of bias? What if a reporter consistently reported Republicans' election victories as good news and consistently reported Democrats' election victories as bad news? Does anyone deny that this can be done solely by voice tones? It can be a subtle difference in tone or it can be an obvious difference in tone. Here we have an obvious difference in Wolf's tone. This isn't an isolated example. When I've watched his show, he doesn't hesitate to say whether he supports or opposes a piece of legislation. That would be fine if he calls himself a commentator.

 

[Boo Radley]

Does anyone deny that the tone of the reporter's voice can be a form of bias? What if a reporter consistently reported Republicans' election victories as good news and consistently reported Democrats' election victories as bad news? Does anyone deny that this can be done solely by voice tones? It can be a subtle difference in tone or it can be an obvious difference in tone. Here we have an obvious difference in Wolf's tone. This isn't an isolated example. When I've watched his show, he doesn't hesitate to say whether he supports or opposes a piece of legislation. That would be fine if he calls himself a commentator.

That would be an accuracy issue (bad and good). And it is possible, though unlikely, that for any extended time the news could be much more negative for one than the other (which is why measuring good and bad doesn;t work).

Some will always hear a tone where there isn't one, or misread the reasons for the tone. Again, such subjective evidence is poor evidence.

BTW, as he has a show (not news) he is a commentator. That is what he does.

 

[mpg]

That would be an accuracy issue (bad and good). And it is possible, though unlikely, that for any extended time the news could be much more negative for one than the other (which is why measuring good and bad doesn;t work).

Some will always hear a tone where there isn't one, or misread the reasons for the tone. Again, such subjective evidence is poor evidence.

BTW, as he has a show (not news) he is a commentator. That is what he does.

Obviously, some forms of bias are impossible to prove.

To be honest, I don't know if CNN calls Wolf a reporter or a commentator. If they call him a commentator, this thread is worthless.

 

[mpg]

This answers that.

CNN Programs - Anchors/Reporters - Wolf Blitzer

 

[Boo Radley]

This answers that.

CNN Programs - Anchors/Reporters - Wolf Blitzer

I'm not sure that it does. It is not the title that makes this one or the other, but the program he is on. Like with a newspaper, a report can cross lines to write an editoral. And reporter, anchor, can cross over into commentary, taking the lead of a show. I could be wrong, but I think the show aspect moves it from reporting.

 

[Anagram]

I'm not sure that it does. It is not the title that makes this one or the other, but the program he is on. Like with a newspaper, a report can cross lines to write an editoral. And reporter, anchor, can cross over into commentary, taking the lead of a show. I could be wrong, but I think the show aspect moves it from reporting.

If that's true than they need to specify it better. I have always been under the impression that Blitzer is supposed to be a reporter rather than a commentator. We have enough problems in this country with people taking commentary from people like Beck and Olbermann as news without spin, there's no need for the lines to be blurred further.

 

[Boo Radley]

If that's true than they need to specify it better. I have always been under the impression that Blitzer is supposed to be a reporter rather than a commentator. We have enough problems in this country with people taking commentary from people like Beck and Olbermann as news without spin, there's no need for the lines to be blurred further.

I would agree, but many think the Fox morning show is news as well when it is clearly a show, commentary. The trouble with news today is that there is too little actual news. Instead, we have shows. And shows require audiences, and controvesy sells more than anything else.

 

[Anagram]

I would agree, but many think the Fox morning show is news as well when it is clearly a show, commentary. The trouble with news today is that there is too little actual news. Instead, we have shows. And shows require audiences, and controvesy sells more than anything else.

I think that's a bigger problem than whether Blitzer is a little biased or not. Even if he is, in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. A far bigger problem in my opinion is people taking what is supposed to be commentary such as O'Riley, Maddow, Hannity, Olbermann, Beck, Schultz, Fox and Friends cast, O'Donnell, etc... as news.

And to be honest, I think the Cable News Networks blur the lines between them on purpose. If people new that someone was biased they might be less enthusiastic to watch than if they believe that someone "unbiased" agreed with them on everything.

 

[Boo Radley]

I think that's a bigger problem than whether Blitzer is a little biased or not. Even if he is, in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. A far bigger problem in my opinion is people taking what is supposed to be commentary such as O'Riley, Maddow, Hannity, Olbermann, Beck, Schultz, Fox and Friends cast, O'Donnell, etc... as news.

And to be honest, I think the Cable News Networks blur the lines between them on purpose. If people new that someone was biased they might be less enthusiastic to watch than if they believe that someone "unbiased" agreed with them on everything.

And I would agree entirely.

 

[mpg]

I'm not sure that it does. It is not the title that makes this one or the other, but the program he is on. Like with a newspaper, a report can cross lines to write an editoral. And reporter, anchor, can cross over into commentary, taking the lead of a show. I could be wrong, but I think the show aspect moves it from reporting.

There needs to be a bright line between news and commentary. Wolf functions as a commentator. Calling him an anchor/reporter is dishonest.

 

[Boo Radley]

There needs to be a bright line between news and commentary. Wolf functions as a commentator. Calling him an anchor/reporter is dishonest.

Not necessarily. As I noted, the same person has many times in the past functioned in both roles. I do agree it should be clearly marked as to which one he is doing. I question anyone who has a "show."

 

[mpg]

Not necessarily. As I noted, the same person has many times in the past functioned in both roles. I do agree it should be clearly marked as to which one he is doing. I question anyone who has a "show."

Then CNN should say that instead of calling him an anchor/reporter. The same goes for anyone else you're referring to.

 

[Billy the Kid]

Just looked up some CNN old coverage on YouTube. Found this reporter who said he was reporting live from Saudi Arabia and was in the studio at CNN Headquarters. "Charles Jaco was the CNN reporter famous for covering the 1990 Persian Gulf War."



Look up - CNN's Fake Persian Gulf War Newscast. It's a hoot.