By Arturo Mora, Kansas City Star Midwest Voices columnist 2009
American Hispanics are not exactly shocked that the hard right is using swine flu to once again demonize illegal aliens.
People like Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and Neal Boortz, having failed to stir up sufficient xenophobia during the 2008 campaign, are pointing to the outbreak as proof that they were right all along about the immigration issue.
Close the borders, keep out those illegals, and swine flu will not ravage our nation.
Never mind that the globalization many on the right also champion means disease will spread as easily as economic activity.
Never mind that American tourists and businesspeople returning from Mexican visits are as likely carriers of the virus as any illegals. They're instant epidemiologists and know better.
Never mind that the Mexican government recognized the danger relatively quickly and warned the world, despite the horrendous resulting damage to its own economy. Let's blame Mexico anyway.
You'd think the defection of Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter to the Democrats would remind the right of the dangers of conservative extremism to their party's fortunes.
These people are focused on conservative "purity" and conservative "principles" (Xenophobia bordering on racism? Really? Great principles!).
It doesn't matter to them that Republicans lost the entire Southwest in 2008 (except for home-stater John McCain's Arizona), in large part due to Hispanic voters turned off by immigration histrionics.
Ironically, before the hard right attack on illegal immigrants began American Hispanics were by no means monolithic on the issue. They have helped unite Hispanic voters against what they perceive as thinly disguised racism.
I'm not sure what people like Beck achieve for their party, except to help marginalize it and polarize America.
Immigration is a legitimate issue worthy of debate, as is border security and our relationship with Mexico.
Are extreme conservatives so bereft of logic and arguments that their only refuge is scapegoating?
Delicious
Digg
These people are focused on
These people are focused on conservative "purity" and conservative "principles" (Xenophobia bordering on racism? Really? Great principles!).
Eleni, Best email extractor
Where is the Plagiarism?
The MSNBC article is on the same topic, but in a quick read-through it appears to be different writing. Of course, I didn't compare every single word. Can you point out the passages where you think the writing was copied verbatim?
Plagiarism is a bad thing
Plagiarism is a bad thing for writers. I guess its okay if you are a partisan hack who gets story ideas from other hacks:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30467300/
Organized outrage is a new media strategy.
DemNoMore, get your facts straight before making serious charges
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30467300/
Organized outrage is a new media strategy.
The story you link to was published May 1. My post was on April 29. How does that make your ridiculous charge even possible? I did not claim my story as some kind of "exclusive" or "first ever." Yes, I agreed with others giving the same opinion. My particular text was totally original.
I don't mind anyone disagreeing with my opinions, but IMHO it's out of line to make such serious, ridiculous and inaccurate charges without backing them up.
....what's so funny about peace love and understanding? E.Costello
Nothing original about your
Nothing original about your writing here on this site. You pretty much head off to left wing web sites and copy and paste. Why not just link to those sites and skip the commentary. And the article says "updated May 1", not originally published.
You have no idea what plagiarism is, do you?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30467300/
Organized outrage is a new media strategy.
You might want to look it up before you go on.
Fox News' Carl Cameron sucks up to Bush
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huf-4XVUwkY
Fox News technique: "some people say"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw
Fox News stacks the deck against Democrats
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kttr8srutJY
The Fox News internal memos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi42gRAsmUM
Mislabeling Republicans in negative stories as Democrats
http://aycu19.webshots.com/image/4378/2001551296293851628_rs.jpg
http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/oreilly-foley-d-2.jpg
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/70436/original.jpg
http://cdnll-1.liveleak.com/s/18/media18/2008/Oct/29/LiveLeak-dot-com-244396-McCainDAZ.jpg?h=36b05c69a7ca7c77f49b0c63d97fe95e&e=1241834720&rs=150
Fox News' Carl Cameron sucks up to Bush
Wonderful links, We in Los Angeles, West Coast, enjoy this balanced view. Thank you. I am forwarding this page to all of my friends.
GO MIDWEST VOICES!!!!
Mathew with ONE "T"
It's not an ethics violation
if you are a professional. I know you are used to liberal reporters having problems with ethics - I am too. Fortunately, FoxNews doesn't hire those kind of reporters, so all is well. And thanks for the link to the MoveOn.Org website Outfoxed. It was a real objective view!
don't you know?
twas/jenniferm/"moderate"mouth is a kool-aid drinkin' true believer. ;-)
Beck doesn't care about Republican Party
He cares about making money for Beck. Same with Rush. Having a marginalized right-wing Republican party as his built in audience helps him make money.
argumentative technique
Often here, writers take wasted aim on the bias of their opponents more than taking the time to explain their own ideas.
Tom Ryan
The Crossroads
Kansas City
http://crossroadscurrents.blogspot.com/
Tom, couldn't agree more....
Tom Ryan
The Crossroads
Kansas City
http://crossroadscurrents.blogspot.com/
And I acknowledge I may be guilty of that myself at times. I took some time here to counter charges that I was biased, and it became tit for tat.
Arguing endlessly with twas and jenniferm is going to get me nowhere, as much as it whets my appetite for debate. No one gets convinced, and we all have better things to do.
It's not even a very fruitful debate. So guys, whatever, if you wanna think I'm biased and the media is biased, fine, go for it. This will loop endlessly. If you want to make a last comment and declare yourselves the winners, hey all power to you.
I intended my original post mostly as a warning about political extremism, xenophobia, and how it is harming the Republican party.
I think I've made pretty clear my own ideas on immigration, swine flu, extremism, etc. as part of that.
But I cannot stand idly by when people like Beck, etc., say outrageous things that border on racist. Sometimes you just have to stand up to what others are saying when what they are saying is so wrong.
....what's so funny about peace love and
understanding? E.Costello
Which is it?
I have a liberal bias-- 9:28 am
I took some time here to counter charges that I was biased,-- 11:06 am
Which is it? You are talking in circles.
Your original post has to do with TV personalities and their commentary on swine flu and immigration--three commentators quotes that you read on Media Matters. How is media bias not a part of that discussion?
I'm guessing you choose to run away from this comment, too:
And as much as you deny it, I definitely see in you a conservative bias.
Post some examples, I dare you.
jenniferm....Post was not about bias....
I took some time here to counter charges that I was biased,-- 11:06 am
Which is it? You are talking in circles.
Your original post has to do with TV personalities and their commentary on swine flu and immigration--three commentators quotes that you read on Media Matters. How is media bias not a part of that discussion?
I'm guessing you choose to run away from this comment, too:
And as much as you deny it, I definitely see in you a conservative bias.
Post some examples, I dare you.
The original post was about xenophobic comments bordering on racism, and falsely implying that illegal immigrants were to blame for bringing the swine flu into the US. As I said before, I will not discuss bias issues w/ you anymore as it is an endless loop that no one "wins."
The quotes are public knowledge, it's irrelevant which site I used to link to them. No one has proven the quotes are inaccurate, because they are not.
Give me some IDEAS to debate for criminy sakes already. Your "bias" thing is sooooooooo tiresome.
....what's so funny about peace love and understanding? E.Costello
Not sure you get....
...how this Internet blog with comments thing works. Your prerogative, but....like I said:
And as much as you deny it, I definitely see in you a conservative bias.
Post some examples, I dare you.
jenniferm....I forgot we're still in grade school
"I dare you". I wasn't going to bother searching because it's so time consuming. But then I was afraid you might double-dog dare me, or do something awful during recess.
So I took time and found at least 3 posts during which you took positions in opposition to Obama or progressive policies, and with an obvious conservative bent. I'm pretty sure you're going to say that doesn't prove you have a conservative bias. Like I said it's a hopeless loop. You have "won" because you have made me waste more time trying to convince the unconvinceable! But no mas, I'm outta here unless you have a legit (non-bias) issue to discuss.
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/4419#comment-23079
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/4428#comment-23074
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/4427#comment-23035
....what's so funny about peace love and understanding? E.Costello
Oh my.
example 1: I advocated personal responsibility
example 2: I didn't support Obama in the primary and noted how I was referred to as a racist because of it.
example 2: I mentioned Joe Lieberman and how he was treated by those in his own party.
Those are examples from today, of which I have posted many comments--cherry picking to suit your own viewpoint again, are you?
I have been on this board for well over a year--I really don't have to justify anything I write to you or anyone else. I actually thought it was a pretty good back and forth between you and I until you started in on the "you are a conservative" rant and circular "I'm not biased, yes I am" stuff.
There are plenty of posts on this board to comment on--not sure why you get bent out of shape when challenged by an opposing view.
I suppose I could use the term "gratiutious insult" (isn't that your fav term) with the whole grade school smack, but I'll let that pass.
Response to Oh my.
Be Conservative because the Conservatives keep us LIBERALS in check... only up until the point at which Civil Rights of Americans, as we as American's have agreed upon are Civil Rights, are taken away because they are simply different from the majority, they are often the ones we must most protect. Unfortunately, that is what we have become about, thanks to the news that we choose to watch on television. We have to keep talking and doing what this country was founded on and that is disagreeing. Our forefather's hammered out our government in secrecy a fact that Americans do not know or accept today. It was closed doors.
If that happened today, What would we think? This very web-page keeps that government in check and keeps it functioning as it should.
I was listening to the Conservative Party and the Labor Party in Parliament arguing on NPR radio on my way to hospital in Santa Monica this morning and it sounded like music.
This link should remind all of us the basic idea of why we should have debate and disagree and have delegates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfDQ21akB0k
Even President Obama must be kept in check, Black or White, it is our duty to hold Him, Our President, to the same standard that we held to every President in the past. It does not equate to "Racist", it equals to, "American"
Mathew with ONE "T"
jenniferm.... peace love happiness
1. I didn't think you'd agree. I didn't cherry pick, those were the most recent I found without wasting an hour of my time searching.
2. No one's asking you to justify anything you write. I respect what you write, even if I disagree, and I appreciate you and all commenters.
3. I'm sorry you got upset I called you a conservative. That is pretty insulting, I admit.
4. I'm not touching the bias thing again, even if you double dog dare me.
5. "not sure why you get bent out of shape when challenged by an opposing view."
I love debate and that's why I reply, not because I'm sensitive to criticism or "all bent out of shape." If I'm challenged by an opposing view, it's a great opportunity to engage in debate and defend my viewpoint. I'm sorry you misinterpret my passion as "bent out of shape."
The irony is, I remember one commenter early one saying the posters here were aloof and it's disgusting they never reply.
But if you reply and engage in debate you're sensitive to criticism! No winnin'!
It's debate jenniferm. If you didn't love it you wouldn't be here so much.
As for the smackdowns, that's a fun part of it too! Peace love happiness!
Have a most splendiferous and wonderful weekend my good friend!
....what's so funny about peace love and understanding? E.Costello
No Arturo - you gave up
because your ideas of principled journalism are non-existent. If I became a CPA and couldn't do a balance sheet, I would fail in my job (and lose it). But in journalism, you can fail to be objective, and people are knocking down your door to hire you. (and people like you celebrate that)
Go figure!
twas still not debating ideas...
still carping about bias....
....what's so funny about peace love and understanding? E.Costello
twas, jenniferm.....willing to debate you on any specific ideas
I'm always willing to discuss specific viewpoints and ideas, I love that kind of debate.
So have it, discuss immigration, swine flu, etc. and I'd be happy to debate.
If you saw some of my early replies, they were about specific issues, before this "bias" loop started.
....what's so funny about peace love and understanding? E.Costello
About immigration
So have it, discuss immigration, swine flu, etc. and I'd be happy to debate.
If you saw some of my early replies, they were about specific issues, before this "bias" loop started.
....what's so funny about peace love and understanding? E.Costello
Are you goinig to the May Day Rally today? Washington Square Park at 4:00.
apop, nope not going....EOM
....what's so funny about peace love and understanding? E.Costello
Tom
I've been here longer than you. I've learned that "taking time to explain their own", when dealing with liberals only gets you name-calling. I explained my own with Arturo this morning, but he's too busy celebrating to listen.
Link please
People like Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and Neal Boortz, having failed to stir up sufficient xenophobia during the 2008 campaign, are pointing to the outbreak as proof that they were right all along about the immigration issue.
Can you link to those comments that you find so "offense"?
jenniferm, the link is already in the post.....
Can you link to those comments that you find so "offense"?
Click on any of their names, it will take you to a Media Matters website that includes each of their quotes. I know Media Matters is not a beloved website of conservatives, but it's respected as reliable.
Regardless, Google any of the their names and "swine flu" and you will also see the same quotes all over the place. They are well-documented quotes.
....what's so funny about peace love and understanding? E.Costello
Actually
Media Matters does have an agenda, do you agree? "Respected as reliable"--to whom?
So I wonder why you would use that site as your point of reference for writing? And if I do Google those names and "swine flu" would I find news organizations or left wing sites?
I'm not a conservative--if that is what you are implying. But it pretty clear you dislike them very much, at least that what I keep reading here.
jenniferm, the quotes are accurate...
So I wonder why you would use that site as your point of reference for writing? And if I do Google those names and "swine flu" would I find news organizations or left wing sites?
I'm not a conservative--if that is what you are implying. But it pretty clear you dislike them very much, at least that what I keep reading here.
If you want to know my modus operandi, truth be told, I saw these quotes live on TV, in a news report. That of course is not acceptable proof, so I googled where I could find a link to them. This seemed like a good link to them, total coincidence. Conspiracy theorists will think otherwise. ;-)
""Respected as reliable"--to whom?"
They are quoted frequently in news reports and I've never seen anyone question their accuracy. Yes they have an agenda. "Agenda = inaccurate" is not a logical progression, if that's what you're getting at.
Regardless, they were not "a point of reference" for writing this. If they were, it would not bother me, as long as what I said was accurate and reflected my own opinion.
"I'm not a conservative--if that is what you are implying...."
I never said you specifically were a "conservative", carefully read exactly what I wrote. I was however, making a fair assumption conservatives would object to this link because I am aware of the politics for and against that website.
"But it pretty clear you dislike them very much, at least that what I keep reading here."
Nah, I'm a lover not a hater! I generally disagree with conservative political viewpoints, though once in a while I may agree with them (did you read my blogs on the torture issue?).
As I've said before, I absolutely do not hide my bias. As I've explained before, when the Star chose us they asked us to describe our political viewpoints, and a balance was chosen.
It's a myth that ANY reporter or columnist is unbiased. Bill Moyer has a bias just as much as anyone on Fox News does. Good for all of them, it's a free market of ideas, and let the readers and viewers decide.
There are more than sufficient numbers of conservative bloggers and journalists calling progressives to task, as well they should. I see 'em as I call 'em and strive to be accurate. You may or may not agree with that, but that's where I stand!
....what's so funny about peace love and understanding? E.Costello
Actually
I don't think a "balance" was chosen in the MV contributors--a "balance" doesn't exist in the Editorial Board, either.
Are we talking about the profession of journalism here when you say, "It's a myth that ANY reporter or columnist is unbiased"? Because I don't think that is the way it used to be taught in J-school. Maybe my expectations are higher than yours when it comes to the news media. No, its not okay to be biased. And no, I don't think "professional" news organizations should have an agenda. Maybe that is what they have become and what the public has come to regard them as, but I hold out hope that there are a few out there who take the profession seriously.
agenda = Cherry picking (which is what Media Matters does) doesn't make them accurate. Nor is newsbusters, for that matter.
jenniferm, I think you're biased about journalism....
Are we talking about the profession of journalism here when you say, "It's a myth that ANY reporter or columnist is unbiased"? Because I don't think that is the way it used to be taught in J-school. Maybe my expectations are higher than yours when it comes to the news media. No, its not okay to be biased. And no, I don't think "professional" news organizations should have an agenda. Maybe that is what they have become and what the public has come to regard them as, but I hold out hope that there are a few out there who take the profession seriously.
agenda = Cherry picking (which is what Media Matters does) doesn't make them accurate. Nor is newsbusters, for that matter.
Every individual and every organization has a definite bias, that is human nature and also the right of both individuals and organizations. And, in fact, it's desirable. Without it, we'd all be vanilla.
The Chicago Tribune has a conservative bias, FoxNews has a conservative bias, Bill Moyer has a liberal bias, perhaps the Star has a liberal bias. I have a liberal bias. And as much as you deny it, I definitely see in you a conservative bias. So what.
Two points I want to make about conservatives (including you) and their constant carping about bias.
One is that this "distaste" for bias is either just so much disingeousness, more of that infamous conservative trumped up outrage, and even hypocritical.
Two, it indicates a great (and probably willful) misunderstanding and ignorance of how bias does and does not affect journalism.
To the first point. As I said up top, every reporter, editor, publisher has a bias. Some are way on the left (The New York Times?), some are way on the right (Chicago Tribune, FoxNews), some try to be in the middle but may be slightly more right or left (CNN, KC Star, Dallas Morning news).
This is the marketplace of ideas. Get over it, compete in it, revel in it, I say. Stop whining about it. To say everyone has to follow some "golden age of non-bias" that never existed, why would we do that? That's anti-democratic to me, smells of 1984. Why do you want that. Are you afraid of your ideas losing out.
I went to journalism school, and what I remember most if Prof. Reid telling me exactly that, that everyone has bias. Everyone is writing from their own personal point of view. Without that, you are an automaton.
It's how you handle that bias that decides your level of professionalism and your worth as a journalits. Which speaks to my second point.
Read this great article published in Politico--a right-leaning web magazine--that answered the charges that journalists were biased against McCain during the campaign:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14982.html
Their main point is that, yes, journalists as a whole--and this is no big secret--tend towards being liberal. Good journalists are aware of that and stick to the facts, are careful in how they present their stories and their sources, etc. Some even bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of bias.
So, yes, I stick to my point that it's a myth that any news professional or organization is unbiased in their viewpoint. That would be against human nature and make us robots.
....what's so funny about peace love and understanding? E.Costello
No I strongly disagree
I went to J-school and was not taught bias or anything of the sort--so spare me your "whining" and "get over it" lecture.
Furthermore, a "professional journalist" does not and should not engage in putting their viewpoints in their work. (Yes, I understand that commentary journalism is different) That is my opinion--you differ. That is not acceptable to me.
And really you mention "conservatives (including you) and their constant carping about bias and then "journalists as a whole--and this is no big secret--tend towards being liberal. I wonder why the "carping", then?
And as much as you deny it, I definitely see in you a conservative bias.
Post some examples, I dare you.
And Jenniferm -
He wouldn't be celebrating bias if his side was the one in the minority. People like Arturo can't picture a world where their political ideas are hidden or criticized by the mainstream media. So he is celebrating at the expense of conservatives.
Arturo - I won't speak for Jenniferm, but
my issue (and I think her's) is the liberal bias that shows up in "news coverage". How a particular person or event is characterized, or in many cases, not covered at all.
And to your points of who is biased and which way, I don't consider Fox News (get it, "news") as biased at all. They are straight down the middle in their "news" coverage. Yes, they have conservative commentator shows, but when it comes to their "news" shows, they are unbiased. Now most liberals think they are biased to the right because they compare them with other "news" shows that are slanted left, so they see Fox News as different - which they interpret as biased. So they are only "biased" if you consider the other "news" shows as unbiased (which we know they are not).
Also, you named two services as right-biased, but you didn't mention that the number of left-biased far-and-away outnumber the right-biased, which tells me that average readers/viewers have a left-biased point of reference.
All of which is a problem, when most members of the media really wanted Obama to win, and it affected their reporting and analysis. That is not what the media is supposed to do in this country, but I don't see it changing as long as the journalism schools keep pumping out little liberal-clones year after year.
And since you went to journalism school, are you proud that you can't be objective?
FoxNews has no bias? Are you KIDDING me? Hilarious.
And to your points of who is biased and which way, I don't consider Fox News (get it, "news") as biased at all. They are straight down the middle in their "news" coverage. Yes, they have conservative commentator shows, but when it comes to their "news" shows, they are unbiased. Now most liberals think they are biased to the right because they compare them with other "news" shows that are slanted left, so they see Fox News as different - which they interpret as biased. So they are only "biased" if you consider the other "news" shows as unbiased (which we know they are not).
Also, you named two services as right-biased, but you didn't mention that the number of left-biased far-and-away outnumber the right-biased, which tells me that average readers/viewers have a left-biased point of reference.
All of which is a problem, when most members of the media really wanted Obama to win, and it affected their reporting and analysis. That is not what the media is supposed to do in this country, but I don't see it changing as long as the journalism schools keep pumping out little liberal-clones year after year.
And since you went to journalism school, are you proud that you can't be objective?
OMG, see when you say FoxNews is straight down the middle, any other arguments just lose all credibility with me. C'mon, give me a break. They have an obvious bias! Celebrate it. To me, that's just huge blinders to say they have no bias.
This argument is hopeless now that I see where you're coming from. I stick by my points.
Journalists have viewpoints, every human being has viewpoints, it colors everything we do. When it comes to opinion pieces, it's obvious there's nothing wrong with it. When it comes to news coverage, it's still a part of you, but your level of professionalism will decide how you handle that bias.
Of course facts need to be accurate. Cherry-picking? Everyone does it, stop acting so innocent. FoxNews does it big time, give me a break.
In the end the readers decide who they want to read based on---yes---their own biases.
Again, I do not celebrate vanilla. I celebrate the free marketplace of ideas. I do not celebrate the automatons you want us all to be.
....what's so funny about peace love and understanding? E.Costello
Arturo, please name one instance
in the "news" coverage. I don't want to hear O'Reilly-this or Hannity-that. I'm talking about Shepard Smith, Brit Hume, Bret Bair, etc.
Tell me one time, just once, when their "news" show indicated bias.
I don't disagree with you that most people have some sort of personal bias. It's how you contain that bias when you are supposed to be objective that is the measure. And NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and others are out front-and-center with left-bias, when they are supposed to be just giving us the news objectively. Those news services have failed where FoxNews has succeeded, in providing objective reporters in news and analysis.
And if they didn't teach you in journalism school that there was a duty to be objective, that kinda tells me why we have this media problem today.
FOX News 2004 election coverage
Tell me one time, just once, when their "news" show indicated bias.
I don't disagree with you that most people have some sort of personal bias. It's how you contain that bias when you are supposed to be objective that is the measure. And NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and others are out front-and-center with left-bias, when they are supposed to be just giving us the news objectively. Those news services have failed where FoxNews has succeeded, in providing objective reporters in news and analysis.
And if they didn't teach you in journalism school that there was a duty to be objective, that kinda tells me why we have this media problem today.
Carl Cameron was assigned to cover the Kerry campaign, while his wife was working for the Bush campaign. That alone is an ethics violation, not only bias. But the instance I wil never forget is one day that summer, as the campaign was heating up, Carl was on FOX giving his 'from the campaign trail' report on the Kerry campaign and LAUGHED at something Kerry said to an audience. Something that wasn't supposed to be a joke. Carl laughed, the two anchors laughed and one said "Oh it's hard to believe anyone running for president would be that dumb" and they all laughed again.
Then there are the numerous times that republicans in trouble have been labeled as Democrats by FOX in the little box at the bottom of the screen. On their news shows. Foley, accused of inappropriate sexual behavior with kids, labeled as a Democrat. Vitter, when the prostitute told that he liked to wear a diaper, labeled as a Democrat.
For even more examples of FOX's bias, watch OUTFOXED. It is a textbook for creating a biased news network.
There are also numerous reporters who once worked for FOX and have reported constant pressure from FOX executives to produce Armstrong Williams type stories.
And let's not forget how well FOX cheered for Bush throughout his presidency, but especially during the shock and awe invasion.
Recently, FOX has lableled swine flu "Mexican flu".
For you to deny FOX has any bias and call them "middle of the road" is about the most outlandish untruth I have read ever on this website. That is just appallingly ignorant.
Apop - Oh you mean the Carl Cameron
who broke the supposed Sarah Palin/McCain staffers controversy? So let me get this straight - Carl Cameron, who has been with Fox for years, his wife can't work for a political candidate? Let's see, I can think of several mixed party couples that don't seem to have a problem, The Govenator/Maria Shriver, Mary Maitlan/James Carville.
So are you saying a journalist can't do his job (be objective) when his wife/husband is in politics?
You didn't name any of the former FoxNews reporters who've complained, but there are probably more reporters/analysts moving TO FoxNews because of the same thing at their prior network - but you didn't mention that.
Apop, you fall into the category that I mentioned earlier - you are so used to left leaning news that you see center as "right".
Try a new perspective
Yes that is an ethics violation
So are you saying a journalist can't do his job (be objective) when his wife/husband is in politics?
You didn't name any of the former FoxNews reporters who've complained, but there are probably more reporters/analysts moving TO FoxNews because of the same thing at their prior network - but you didn't mention that.
Apop, you fall into the category that I mentioned earlier - you are so used to left leaning news that you see center as "right".
Try a new perspective
There was a CNN reporter whose husband worked for Kerry and she was forbidden from working on any stories involving the presidential election. It's not about not being able to do the job. It's about professional ethics. Ask any reporter.
The couples you mentioned are not journalists, they are politicians. And in case you wondered why Maria Shriver gave up her journalism career when her husband was elected governor, it was because of ethics. She wrote an editorial about her decision but I would imagine that wasn't reported on FOX, so of course you weren't aware of it.
If you want the names of those FOX reporters, watch OUTFOXED. I am not going to watch it again and take notes just to educate you. And no I am not aware of any reputable reporters choosing to move to FOX because of bias at their former network. I would imagine they are reporters unable to abandon their own personal conservative agenda.
You fall into the category I refer to as "blinded by the right". And thankfully, your peer group is shrinking.
twas....sorry I'm not at your beck and call....
I'm not going to jump through hoops looking up stuff just to prove to you something that you'll never believe anyway. Because I have the tons of times that would take, sure, I'll do just what you ordered!
I believe the other networks are way more objective than FoxNews. That is my perception. Your perception is different. Nuff said.
Of course they taught us to be objective in covering news, you're missing my entire argument about what bias encompasses. It's something internal, and you do your best to not let it affect your work.
Is it a perfect process? Obviously not, we are human. I still think, besides big time blinders about FoxNews, you're still expecting too much vanilla, and it's all a lot of whining.
You want to blame the media for the nation's political leanings these days. Sounds like sour grapes to me.
....what's so funny about peace love and understanding? E.Costello
Arturo - then journalism is like weathermen
You don't have to be right to keep your job (as long as the majority is fed).
Yea, I didn't figure you'd come back with anything on Fox News for me. It's just parroting the left.
And my statement about perspective applies to you. Center becomes right, when all you see and hear is left.
They are indeed accurate
Are we talking about the profession of journalism here when you say, "It's a myth that ANY reporter or columnist is unbiased"? Because I don't think that is the way it used to be taught in J-school. Maybe my expectations are higher than yours when it comes to the news media. No, its not okay to be biased. And no, I don't think "professional" news organizations should have an agenda. Maybe that is what they have become and what the public has come to regard them as, but I hold out hope that there are a few out there who take the profession seriously.
agenda = Cherry picking (which is what Media Matters does) doesn't make them accurate. Nor is newsbusters, for that matter.
because they accurately quote their sources. So when a wingnut says something stupid, Media Matters will post it. And there are right wing blogs that do the same for Democrats.
Accuracy and non bias are NOT the same thing. Or do you not realize that?
Media Matters always links back to original sources
So I wonder why you would use that site as your point of reference for writing? And if I do Google those names and "swine flu" would I find news organizations or left wing sites?
I'm not a conservative--if that is what you are implying. But it pretty clear you dislike them very much, at least that what I keep reading here.
If you want to know my modus operandi, truth be told, I saw these quotes live on TV, in a news report. That of course is not acceptable proof, so I googled where I could find a link to them. This seemed like a good link to them, total coincidence. Conspiracy theorists will think otherwise. ;-)
""Respected as reliable"--to whom?"
They are quoted frequently in news reports and I've never seen anyone question their accuracy. Yes they have an agenda. "Agenda = inaccurate" is not a logical progression, if that's what you're getting at.
Regardless, they were not "a point of reference" for writing this. If they were, it would not bother me, as long as what I said was accurate and reflected my own opinion.
"I'm not a conservative--if that is what you are implying...."
I never said you specifically were a "conservative", carefully read exactly what I wrote. I was however, making a fair assumption conservatives would object to this link because I am aware of the politics for and against that website.
"But it pretty clear you dislike them very much, at least that what I keep reading here."
Nah, I'm a lover not a hater! I generally disagree with conservative political viewpoints, though once in a while I may agree with them (did you read my blogs on the torture issue?).
As I've said before, I absolutely do not hide my bias. As I've explained before, when the Star chose us they asked us to describe our political viewpoints, and a balance was chosen.
It's a myth that ANY reporter or columnist is unbiased. Bill Moyer has a bias just as much as anyone on Fox News does. Good for all of them, it's a free market of ideas, and let the readers and viewers decide.
There are more than sufficient numbers of conservative bloggers and journalists calling progressives to task, as well they should. I see 'em as I call 'em and strive to be accurate. You may or may not agree with that, but that's where I stand!
....what's so funny about peace love and understanding? E.Costello
They are definitely a reliable source. They don't make stuff up.
apop, thanks.....
....got my back!
....what's so funny about peace love and understanding? E.Costello
Yea Arturo, but Apop won't acknowledge
stepping in his own poop.
Haven't stepped in any
But when I do you will be the first to know. LOL
that's the 4th time today...
I've read the word "poop" or "poophead" on this site today!
It is a funny word!
....what's so funny about peace love and understanding? E.Costello
btw, thanks to ALL you guys.....
I am now officially completely addicted to replying back and forth to your posts.
Thanks a lot, because I have gords of time to do this...NOT!
Honestly though, even if it gets hot in here, I am lovin' it! Great web site and GREAT PEOPLE to spar with....even jenniferm....I'm joking, I'm joking, I love you jenniferm!
....what's so funny about peace love and understanding? E.Costello
I agree with btw, thanks to ALL you guys...
This blog is the best I have ever found. Refreshing. I am reading everyone's responses. Good thoughts, Good thinking never hurt anyone.
Mathew with ONE "T"