Comments on: Honesty vs ratings at MSNBC

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:11:21 +0000

I think judging for myself would not be sucking on the teat of opinion of someone else

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 04:37:27 +0000

I’ve found errors in his work. But in general, I trust him. But you can judge for yourself what those direct quotes from Jennings indicate.

And stay tuned for more Greenwald tomorrow

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:18:52 +0000

You certainly take what Greenwald says as “gospel”.

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:10:39 +0000

I certainly never took anything any reporter said ever as “gospel”. I don’t think the same can be said for a lot of people who buy into pundits. Look, there can be bias in what stories are selected, but if they are presented with minimum bias, I don’t see what difference it makes. I can form my own opinions. I don’t need Olbermann or Rush telling me what to think. This is why I haven’t watched TV news voluntarily in years. Its just become an enormous farce.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:17:53 +0000

Scroll down to where he starts talking about Peter Jennings:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/26/iraq_debate/

This is exactly what I’m talking about. Jennings pretended to be unbiased, but he was just as biased as the rest of them. Maybe he didn’t mean to be, but he was. And millions of people took what he said as gospel without knowledge of his ideological lens.

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:59:43 +0000

Journalism is supposed to be about the pursuit of truth and the spread of information. I don’t see how “truthiness” belongs anywhere in there. I think certain things should be reported and certain things are silly extraneous information. I think it is important for a national news station to report on things affecting the nation. It should report on what our government is doing, what the president says in speeches he gives everyday, what high profile congressman say and what bills congress passes, what decisions the supreme court makes, etc. It should report on natural disasters in our country, on the status of the war and our interests overseas, on the stock market and the economy in general. It should report on trends like global warming, rises in fuel costs, rises in food costs, rises in illegal immigrants. You know, the news. I could keep going, but you can see that most of these issues I list affect almost everyone in this country, if some only in a minor way. If the government is doing something corrupt, we shouldn’t have one station defending it and another complaining about it. The entire press should be going after corrupt politicians because it isn’t a partisan issue. Corruption is corruption. Extraneous information is that Angelina Jolie has twins, that Hulk is the #1 movie in America, that some white girl disappeared somewhere, etc. Its stuff that doesn’t affect us and should be moved to more specialized news sources like entertainment shows or magazines and local news. I used to watch the evening news with Peter Jennings growing up, and I never felt like he was expressing his opinion. I felt like I came away knowing more about what is going on in the world, and not always having to think about things in terms of liberal or conservative. I shouldn’t have to try to filter out fact from a clearly biased report. I don’t really care why certain stories are selected for time on the news, as long as they are presented with minimum bias and they are relevant, I am happy. I think, in general, that the relevance of a story is obvious. If its a 24 hour news station, I think they can fit in all the relevant national news in one day.

Think about it, you are arguing for an additional level of bias. Guys like Olbermann are biased in how they select their stories, and then they present them with bias. So what if you know where he stands? Its still a load of crap. You say we can’t have the ideal situation in journalism of zero bias, so we should go completely the other way and embrace complete bias?

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:33:21 +0000

All journalism is about “manipulating” the public in some way. The goal is to move people away from a state of ignorance about the world around them. By the simple virtue of covering a story, you’re engaging in a form of advocacy by choosing to shine a light on that story in favor of another. Then within that story you’re doing it again by writing about the aspects you find more important than others.

Don’t you want to know why the writer made those choices before you evaluate the information?

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:07:35 +0000

So what? If there is some bias there, they are using their influence as a journalist to attempt to manipulate popular opinion so that a change that THEY want can become reality. Thats politics, not journalism.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:51:07 +0000

See:
Olbermann blasting Hillary Clinton.
Lou Dobbs blasting all of Congress and the President.

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:48:57 +0000

“Now, you might say, “Well, why have you been doing it?” Because the stakes are high! Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country’s than the Democrat [sic] Party does and liberalism.”

How is this any different that what any other political pundit does? Seriously. He uses his opinion and influence on people to try and influence the world around him. I see no distinction between him and any other pundit.