Go to A Distant Drum of the Coming Revolution
- Add a comment
- Go to The Evil Americans - comments on the comments
Beachbelle
I heartily agree. I already try to follow your guidance. Your wise advice would be well-heeded by the likes of Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Chris Matthews, and Walter Cronkite..... Liberal dinosaurs who will hopefully soon be extinct.
posted by
GoldenMean
on March 6, 2005 at 11:16 PM
| link to this | reply
GoldenMean
Covering the news in a balanced and responsible way and providing a broad base of opinion pieces from knowledgeable commentators will go far further in changing society than actually trying to change society with a solid diet of propoganda.
posted by
beachbelle
on March 2, 2005 at 7:46 AM
| link to this | reply
Beachbelle
It sounds like you worked in a very rare newsroom: one that was objective and dedicated to REPORTING NEWS rather than CHANGING SOCIETY. Journalists tend to pretend to do the former while actually they are trying to do the latter. I wish more editors would follow your excellent example.
A case of media bias is happening right now that I can highlight. You are familiar with my blog
The Armed Citizen, in which I have reported dozens of news stories concerning guns. You could say I am the "chief editor" of this blog, though I have stated in comments there that I do not represent myself as a professional journalist or reporter. I look for existing news stories that feature what I consider the positive use of guns to defeat, kill or apprehend criminals and protect innocent life. These news stories are somewhat hard to find in your average newspaper or newscast. They are relegated to the back page or a 10-second blurb at the end of a newscast. But these are stories that have all the "spectacular" elements: danger, suspense, good vs. evil, high stakes, body counts, and the good guy winning over the bad guy. They are like Hollywood movies, except they are for real. Why are these stories largely ignored by the generally anti-gun media? The answer is obvious.
Now, look at my latest post in the Armed Citizen, which features the criminal use of an "assault rifle", an AK-47. I got this story off of the FRONT PAGE of a liberal newspaper. Likewise, this story is still running on major TV cable news channels. The reports do not even mention that one of the victims was a private citizen who used his handgun to help thwart the attack. Instead, the mantra is AK-47, AK-47, AK-47, assault rifle, assault rifle, assault rifle.
There is the prevalent media editorial bias, and it is not just on the opinion page.
posted by
GoldenMean
on March 2, 2005 at 6:20 AM
| link to this | reply
The real criteria for success
Good discussion! A ways down, I offered a criteria for success in Iraq. Here's a better one, that also applies in Afghanistan and any other nation targeted in the war on terror. Success will be when the Islamofacists are vanquished and each country is free to elect its own government of moderate Muslims committed to bringing their countires and their peoples into the modern world as fully functioning and participatory nations.
posted by
WriterofLight
on March 1, 2005 at 7:05 PM
| link to this | reply
Writeroflight
It would be irresponsible not to cover bad news in favor of good news stories. A good news story can be held over til another day. Of course people want to know about the good works being done by their loved ones but if the news is bad it is imperative that they be informed. If you are going to report on the number of terrorists (not sure how you are defining that) you must also report on the no. of Iraqis killed. You are proposing a very biased form of coverage which is to ignore the realities and assume that all readers take a particular view.
Truly responsible coverage would not even cast the Iraqis as an enemy. Unbiased would step back and report on two sides. Sadly there is very little coverage which tells it like it is
posted by
beachbelle
on March 1, 2005 at 3:28 PM
| link to this | reply
correction .. and it was important to meet tight deadlines
posted by
beachbelle
on March 1, 2005 at 3:17 PM
| link to this | reply
GoldenMean
The biggest priority for a professional editor is determining which stories need to be covered.
In many cases editors are relying on correspondents in far-flung places many of whom work in difficult situations and so we must invest a great deal of trust in those people and what they file.
Most days leave out far more than you fit in. Not only that you must justify your decisions at one or more daily conferences. It was far more pressing to justify your decisions before your peers and superiors than pushing some political line and meeting extremely tight deadlines. You have the impression that we are all powerful.
I would agree that many editors do camouflage biases. I certainly tried not to let my biases creep in.
I was privileged to work in a newsroom where we NEVER received directives on lines to take. We aimed for balance and accuracy. Occasionally people tried so hard that they were overly politically correct. I realize that many in journalism have a lot of owner interference.
Opinions were presented as such on the opinion pages. They were diverse . Many of the opinion pieces that I edited expressed views that I fundamentally disagreed with.
Beachbelle
posted by
beachbelle
on March 1, 2005 at 3:12 PM
| link to this | reply
WriterofLight,
There is one big problem with you and your kind! Believing you have a superior intellect and the "right" to determine the destiny of others. It probabally starts early in your development! The light goes on in your brain and you think it is original. So America is in Iraq building a great democracy and we have to wait, only time will tell? Ok! You go ahead! But I want to see George Bush and his followers Impeached, after being convicted for their crimes against humanity!
posted by
Glennb
on March 1, 2005 at 9:06 AM
| link to this | reply
WriterofL, I normally don't comment in such length, but...
Your reply was, “…if the news media tells only what "makes good/interesting news," what qualifies news as good or interesting?” Simple. Since I am in the veterinary medical field, I’ll use this exemplified hypothetical headline, “Another Pitbull attack on a child…News at 11.” Do you notice how many dog bites and attacks by Poodles, Chihuahuas, and many other dog breeds NEVER make the news? Of course not. Why? Cause it doesn’t make interesting and eyebrow lifting news. I can guarantee you that there are more Chihuahua, Chows, and little cute and fuzzy American Eskimo and many, many more dog bites from other breeds that clearly out number ones from Pits or Rottweilers.
You later said in your reply, “Third, you raise the old conundrum about timetables for war.” No, I never said that. What I said was, “{There is} No real goal that would label an ending success for anyone. Do you see one? If so, what is your definition of the appropriate or satisfactory time to pull all the troops out and send them home?”
Lastly, you stated, “And contrary to your doom and gloom wailing, we have successes already…” I’m certainly not wailing (I prefer to wail mostly about bad drivers, the I.P., and plastic characters and such) nor am I of doom and gloom. I simply disapprove of this war and it’s pathetic reasons for it’s purpose. Well, at least I can say we’re fighting this “war” in the wrong country. Americans are being portrayed as the pompous, spoiled, asses that we are and waving our wand of power in places that don‘t want us there. Who speaks for us? It certainly isn’t “We, the people…” It’s our power hungry, spoiled rotten, silver-spoon fed, 1% wealthy shits in power that make up the population of our country. And, we’re pulling our greatest ally sister country along for the ride as soldiers are DYING DAILY. What part of “Get the fuck out of our country or we‘ll continue to KILL ALL OF YOU every chance we get” don’t we understand? Hey, I’m sorry people are living in horrible conditions over there, but JFC! Have ya taken a gander around the U.S. lately? What about them?? Priorities, man. Priorities. Ever hear the saying, “You can’t heal others until you can heal yourself?”
posted by
SpitFire70
on February 28, 2005 at 11:06 PM
| link to this | reply
I missed out
I should check in more often, the comments in your last post really took off after I started them. Beachbelle, I am glad you are still with us, another blogger mentioned you in a list of dearly departed bloggers. You did not waste your insights, you led me to understand the justifications that media editors may use to camouflage their biases, whichever way they may lean. Your arguments seemed to lead us to conclude that media editors have no political or philosophical bias, and I think that they all do, and that it is a very important part of their editing, whether they admit it or not.
Here is that website I mentioned, maintained by the Department of Defense:
Iraqi Reconstruction
posted by
GoldenMean
on February 28, 2005 at 8:59 PM
| link to this | reply
SpitFire, you raise a couple of intriguing questions. First, if the news media tells only what "makes good/interesting news," what qualifies news as good or interesting? My answer to that brings us back to my belief that a lot of people in the news media go out of their way to report only the bad news because it helps their efforts to undermine the military and turn public opinion against the war and the President, and therefore it is good to them.
Second, concerning the cost of the war, you ask, "For what? FOR WHAT???" (Sorry, that counts as one question.) There's plenty to answer that, so I will revive a blog I started last summer before my old computer died, called "Why We Fight." Watch for it over on the World page (where faithful reader damon has been inveighing against the war for a while.)
Third, you raise the old conundrum about timetables for war. Sorry, there is no such thing as a timetable for a war. There are two major flaws in that thinking. For one thing, there are too many variables involved for a competent commander to say that this, that, thus and so will be achieved by a certain date or else. Goals can be set, but things don't happen as planned. For another, broadcasting to the terrorists that we will leave Iraq on such and so a date will result in the terrorists waiting until we leave and then striking in earnest to overthrow the country.
I do indeed see a criteria for "ending success": the elimination of the terrorists and full accounting for the WMDs that, from all appearances, were taken out of the country. And contrary to your doom and gloom wailing, we have successes already - Sadaam's ouster and capture, the deaths of his sons, the elections and the reconstruction effort that I was describing.
glenn, nice to see you did your homework. 
chris, welcome to the blog! The question is, do you understand?
scoop, looking forward to your post.
posted by
WriterofLight
on February 28, 2005 at 6:32 PM
| link to this | reply
My comment may be to long so I will write a post on this
posted by
scoop
on February 28, 2005 at 7:06 AM
| link to this | reply
Do you actually understand what you're saying?
posted by
chris2303
on February 28, 2005 at 4:15 AM
| link to this | reply
WriterofLight,
You are one of the many problems with the process! Everything is someone else's problem! Don't ever hold your precious feet to the fire because you would probably scream like sissy. Why would anyone chase these links of lies? You have get a life and stop it!
posted by
Glennb
on February 28, 2005 at 4:05 AM
| link to this | reply
I will certainly check out those other sites you linked to,
but I must again say that the media tells only what "makes good/interesting news" whether good, bad, or indifferent. I don't agree that the media is democratically bias. They are bias only as to what makes people watch their channel....kind of like us here on Blogit. Headlines are key; interest and entertainment mixed in with thought-provoking reads and comedic talent go a long way. Regardless, I still don't agree with all the money being spent in Iraq (not to mention why our troops are THERE in the first place and the fact that Bin Laden is STILL at large!) How many American and British soldiers' lives do we have to sacrifice and have seriously injured? For what? For WHAT??? Listen, I am not commenting to start an inter-Blogit war, nor am I interested in insulting you or anyone else's opinions. These are just mine and I happen to have a few friends in the military who are in Iraq as I type this. They don't seem to carry the same opinion or attitude such as "We are truly liberating these people and making peace on our mission. Oh, what good we are doing in this war!"
There is NO END IN SIGHT here! No real goal that would label an ending success for anyone. Do you see one? If so, what is your definition of the appropriate or satisfactory time to pull all the troops out and send them home? If you answer anything, please, I beg you, answser that.
posted by
SpitFire70
on February 27, 2005 at 10:44 PM
| link to this | reply