Lets Discuss the Press

[volinbham]

We've hit around this topic many times and I'll just throw out a few potential directions.

1. Bias - I've argued that there is a liberal-bias where the word liberal here means a view of the weak needing more representation than the powerful. As a result, the press is more critical of those in power than those who are not (individuals, organizations, countries). When reporting a story of weak vs. strong, the weak is more likely to be portrayed as sympathetic or their view of the situation is likely to be emphasized.

Bias also comes in the form of the perceived role of the press to "speak truth to power". The press has an implicit assumption that those in power shouldn't be trusted and the press should serve as a check to that power. As a result, the press portrays a sense of mistrust in the government (republican or democrat). I believe this explains why the Bush admin gets such consistently negative press since his administration represents the most aggressive attempt to consolidate power. To finish this thought, the president (any president) will get more scrutiny than Congress since power is concentrated in one person in the presidency vs. spread across 535 in the Congress.

2. The big score - I believe Watergate has exaccerbated the bias listed above and set a model in place that the best journalism is that which exposes a conspiracy. The result is relentless digging to uncover conspiracy where it doesn't exist. Often stories are rushed out only later to be found wrong. The retraction never receives the same attention.

Points 1 and 2 represent an impact that the press has of breeding a sense of distrust in government, business, etc. (any "powerful" entity). They also represent a bias in the sense that the story is consistently (although subtly) told from one perspective. Again this is not Republican vs. Democrat but there is a connection since the Republican side typically claims a more capitalistic view (allow power) while the Democrate side typically claims a more populace view (protect weak).

3. Freedom of the press - this is a must and the cornerstone of a free society.

4. Policing the press - The governmental branches have checks and balances but the press claims to police itself (the only institution with that power&#33 I think the recent articles about the terrorist financing program really point out the tension here. Personally, I don't buy into the NYT logic. They use conflicting claims to justify exposure of the program: 1 - 5 years later, it doesn't need to be secret anymore, 2 - it wasn't really secret and the terrorists probably already knew about it (later they modified this to explain it was still news because Americans didn't know about it but the terrorists did&#33, 3 - the public has a right to know, 4 - while no abuses have been found or even alleged, the potential exists. (see Point 1 above)

I certainly don't think the NYT (or other outlets) should be charged with any crime for reporting this but the bigger issue is: Do we really want editors at news outlets to determine which national security secrets should be revealed? The plot to blow up the Holland Tunnel was evidently uncovered by monitoring chatrooms. According to NYT logic in their second argument above, terrorist already knew chatrooms were being monitored and would be too clever to use them. Wrong. My guess is that many didn't know that the clearinghouse for banking was being monitored but they do now!

 

[OrangeEmpire]

The media keeps on waving their forty year old We-Caught-Nixon flag as an "excuse" to burrow their noses into every little thing that they think they should be allowed to report on.

OK, fine, I'm all for freedom of the press, but shouldn't there also be some constraint shown by the media-at-large?

“The editors in Los Angeles killed the story. They told Witcover that it didn’t ‘come off’ and that it was an ‘opinion’ story. …The solution was simple, they told him. All he had to do was get other people to make the same points and draw the same conclusions and then write the article in their words.” (emphasis in original) Timothy Crouse, Boys on the Bus, 1973, p. 116.

Do the major media outlets in the U.S. have a liberal bias? Few questions evoke stronger opinions, and we cannot think of a more important question to which objective statistical techniques can lend their service. So far, the debate has largely been one of anecdotes (“How can CBS News be balanced when it calls Steve Forbes’ tax plan ‘wacky’?”) and untested theories (“if the news industry is a competitive market, then how can media outlets be systematically biased?”).

Few studies provide an objective measure of the slant of news, and none has provided a way to link such a measure to ideological measures of other political actors. That is, none of the existing measures can say, for example, whether the New York Times is more liberal than Tom Daschle or whether Fox News is more conservative than Bill Frist. We provide such a measure. Namely, we compute an ADA score for various news outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Drudge Report, Fox News’ Special Report, and all three networks’ nightly news shows.

Seventy million Americans rely on broadcast television for their news. They form opinions based on what they hear and see and to a lesser extent, read. Since citizens cannot cast informed votes or make knowledgeable decisions on matters of public policy if the information on which they depend is distorted, it is vital to American democracy that television news and other media be fair and unbiased.

 

[LetMeStay]

i think it's safe to say the NYT and the Bush administation dont like each other.

 

[milohimself]

I just hate the whole concept of entertainment news. 99.99% of Local news programs across the country are simply scare tactic stories used to draw up ratings for the networks, and are essentially rendered useless. I view cable news as equally worthless, as a business trying to score the argument between the left and the right. They're fighting, they're fighting! Let's rile these idiots up so people will watch! Terrible.

My solution is to lead all the executives of said cable news networks out to be shot, and let local network execs take up roles doing propaganda.

C-Span is the last man standing.

 

[OWB]

I think it's a pretty simple fix. If the Bush Administration and the Republicans want good things to be reported, then do something good worth mentioning.

Do you think they desevred great press for things like Hurricane Katrina management?

The news is news. The ratings go up when something tragic happens. That's just the way it is. Sure, there is some good sprinkled in once in a while, but the bad news is definitely the money maker.

The Bush Administration is good for the news.

 

[orange+white=heaven]

I'd say it is a mistake to think the Bush administration is getting knocked around by the press.

This White House does a better job of manipulating the news cycle and election time agendas than any since the advent of 24 hour news.

As a compliment it is a bit backhanded I know, yet it is as close as one will see me get for quite some time.... :shades:

 

[milohimself]

I would like to see Washington be more like our brothers across the pond in the UK. Where Blair can get openly questioned by the media on anything. With parliament, too while we're at it.

 

[OWB]

I would like to see Washington be more like our brothers across the pond in the UK. Where Blair can get openly questioned by the media on anything. With parliament, too while we're at it.

Yep, it's more fun to watch too.

 

[dan4vols]

on another perspective of this issue catch the last 15 minutes of the movie 'Absense of Malice'. Wilford Brimley plays the US district attourney who makes the statement (directed to a newspaper reporter played by Sally Field, and a deputy DA)''2 things are gonna be true in a few minutes that aint exactly true now....1 is Im gonna know what the hells goin on here with this leak....and the other is Im gonna have someones _ss in my briefcase.'' :biggrin2:

 

[volinbham]

I think it's a pretty simple fix. If the Bush Administration and the Republicans want good things to be reported, then do something good worth mentioning.

Do you think they desevred great press for things like Hurricane Katrina management?

The news is news. The ratings go up when something tragic happens. That's just the way it is. Sure, there is some good sprinkled in once in a while, but the bad news is definitely the money maker.

I'm not arguing good news/bad news here but from whose perspective the story is told. Bush and Co. definitely didn't deserve good press for Katrina and they did deserve bad press.

What I'm saying is that the press will put the focus on how govt. screwed up and virtually give the citizens a free pass. Some citizens were pure victims, others made bad choices or bear some responsibility but that side of the story is rarely told. Looting was frequently reported from a viewpoint that society made them do it or survival viewpoint as opposed to reporting some of it was just plain criminal activity.

 

[OWB]

I'm not arguing good news/bad news here but from whose perspective the story is told. Bush and Co. definitely didn't deserve good press for Katrina and they did deserve bad press.

What I'm saying is that the press will put the focus on how govt. screwed up and virtually give the citizens a free pass. Some citizens were pure victims, others made bad choices or bear some responsibility but that side of the story is rarely told. Looting was frequently reported from a viewpoint that society made them do it or survival viewpoint as opposed to reporting some of it was just plain criminal activity.

Yes, some of it was criminal activity. Stealing things such as jewelry and DVD players won't help you survive in circumstances like that. But like you said, some of it was criminal activity. I'm sure that others looted because they really had to. They shouldn't have been in that position in the first place. However, that's a totally different topic as to why some didn't leave.

With such circumstances as Katrina, the Government did screw up. With that screw up, it brought things such as looting and other crimes. It's my opinion that it didn't have to be like that. Or at the very least, it shouldn't have happened to that extent.

Overall, I understand what you're trying to say though.

 

[volinbham]

Overall, I understand what you're trying to say though.

whew!

 

[therealUT]

Yes, some of it was criminal activity. Stealing things such as jewelry and DVD players won't help you survive in circumstances like that. But like you said, some of it was criminal activity. I'm sure that others looted because they really had to. They shouldn't have been in that position in the first place. However, that's a totally different topic as to why some didn't leave.

With such circumstances as Katrina, the Government did screw up. With that screw up, it brought things such as looting and other crimes. It's my opinion that it didn't have to be like that. Or at the very least, it shouldn't have happened to that extent.

Overall, I understand what you're trying to say though.

Why is the government responsible for Katrina again? If you are poor you are free of individual responsibility? Isn't where you live a choice, therefore, living in New Orleans had an accepted risk associated with it? And finally, if it is the government's responsibility to prevent catastrophe's such as Katrina, wouldn't responsibility start at the local level?

 

[OWB]

Why is the government responsible for Katrina again? If you are poor you are free of individual responsibility? Isn't where you live a choice, therefore, living in New Orleans had an accepted risk associated with it? And finally, if it is the government's responsibility to prevent catastrophe's such as Katrina, wouldn't responsibility start at the local level?

Yeah you're right, FEMA came in and did wonderful job with everything.

If you ask me, it's pretty stupid to build a city below sea level on the ocean between a river and a lake in the first place.

 

[therealUT]

Yeah you're right, FEMA came in and did wonderful job with everything.

If you ask me, it's pretty stupid to build a city below sea level on the ocean between a river and a lake in the first place.

I could not agree more with you on that part. However, cities will flourish wherever people choose to live. I have no sympathy for those people who lived their whole lives receiving welfare checks from the government, while living in subsidized housing, and then refused to get on buses that the city commandeered (prior to Katrina making landfall) because they did not feel like it was necessary at the time.

 

[OWB]

I think it's even worse that they want to put all that money into it to build it back. Sometimes, people should try and learn from their mistakes.

 

[utvolpj]

Yes, some of it was criminal activity. Stealing things such as jewelry and DVD players won't help you survive in circumstances like that. But like you said, some of it was criminal activity. I'm sure that others looted because they really had to. They shouldn't have been in that position in the first place. However, that's a totally different topic as to why some didn't leave.

With such circumstances as Katrina, the Government did screw up. With that screw up, it brought things such as looting and other crimes. It's my opinion that it didn't have to be like that. Or at the very least, it shouldn't have happened to that extent.

Overall, I understand what you're trying to say though.

Stealing bread and stealing a 42" plasma are two different issues. It should never have come to that but there is such a thing as personal responsibility.

While blame should be placed on govt, which part of the govt do you blame? The local and state govt for not asking for help or the fed govt for not realizing the local guys (and girls) were idiots? The proof that the blame was never focused correctly is evident in the fact that Nagin got re-elected.

Also, I don't agree with rebuilding it back to where it was. Treat it like any port city and it would be done by now. Their houses were built on the water below sea level. Seems like a 4th grade science project to me. It reminds me of a story I was told in church growing up that started "If you build your house on sand..."

 

[allvol123]

Why is the government responsible for Katrina again? If you are poor you are free of individual responsibility? Isn't where you live a choice, therefore, living in New Orleans had an accepted risk associated with it? And finally, if it is the government's responsibility to prevent catastrophe's such as Katrina, wouldn't responsibility start at the local level?

Amen to your thinking RealUT.The idea that any of these people blame the government for their miseries from Katrina just shows how warped the thinking in this country has become and it is perpetuated by the media. What I need from my governement at the national level is basically to furnish us the best military in the world, keep up the country's infrastructure and protect our borders. I have oversimplified it somewhat, but if more people would learn to take care of themselves and not rely on the governement this country would be in much better shape. The media's coverage of Katrina disgusted me.

 

[therealUT]

Amen to your thinking RealUT.The idea that any of these people blame the government for their miseries from Katrina just shows how warped the thinking in this country has become and it is perpetuated by the media. What I need from my governement at the national level is basically to furnish us the best military in the world, keep up the country's infrastructure and protect our borders. I have oversimplified it somewhat, but if more people would learn to take care of themselves and not rely on the governement this country would be in much better shape. The media's coverage of Katrina disgusted me.

Not only that, but the Federal Government spends how much money a year on NASA. That money has been put to good use, especially with weather satellites. Then the government also sets up Doppler Radar stations. With this equipment, the people of New Orleans were given plenty of notice that a disaster was heading their way.

 

[allvol123]

Man we could talk about this forever. I mean Katrina is a great example of how stupid this culture has become. These people could not comprehend the power of nature or that the government could not save them from nature. There is a precentage of the culture in this country that basically views the government as a "godlike" entity. As long as the government keeps them fed, housed, and their welfare checks coming they are so happy with this "god". They are baffled with this government cannot stop a hurricane or rescue them from it.

 

[therealUT]

I find it disheartening that in today’s kinder, gentler society nobody is held accountable for their own actions and decisions anymore.

The hot words for our generation are self-esteem, positive reinforcement, and victim. Gone are the days where a person made a decision, assumed with the risks associated with that decision, and faced the consequences, on his/her own. In today’s world everyone is somehow “entitled” to more money, more stuff, acceptance, etc. God forbid anybody actually work for these things.

The latest instance of this mass “victimization” is the ongoing crisis in New Orleans. Here is a city in which 80% of its inhabited area is naturally uninhabitable, for it is below sea level. The city sinks three feet each century, and is secured by an outdated levee system.

Most people are not even offered flood insurance in New Orleans, because after conducting numerous cost-benefit analyses of potential flooding, the insurance companies decided it wasn’t worth the risk. I would be willing to bet these experts who work for the insurance companies did not (and never in their wildest dreams would) reside in New Orleans. This aside, the city still attracted millions of people to build their lives there. Fair enough — it’s only money.

July 24, 2005, on the eve of this year’s hurricane season, Mayor Ray Nagin issued a Public Service Announcement throughout the area, which continued to run as P.S.A.s annoyingly do, for the next month. In this P.S.A. he, working with Total Community Action (an advocate against poverty and a voice for the poverty stricken in the area) announced that in the event of a major hurricane, those without transportation will most likely be on their own. He and the T.C.A. urged those without transportation to have an evacuation plan made and worked out with neighbors, community leaders, etc. On a personal note, I would have moved upon hearing that. But hey, that’s just me and my crazy thoughts.

A month after that prophetic warning, Hurricane Katrina reared its head, aimed straight for New Orleans. On Aug. 29, Nagin issued another statement to the people of New Orleans, to evacuate now! At this time, Katrina was a category 5, and storm surge was expected to be well above 28 feet. And what about those 134,000 people that Nagin had mentioned would be “on their own”? Well the city arranged for the buses to go through the city picking up those that wanted to evacuate and take them to “10 last-resort shelters, including the Superdome.” These people were instructed to bring enough food and water with them to last three to five days. Almost nobody boarded those buses.

I am reminded of a joke in which heavy flooding is forecast and many people prepare to evacuate the town. The local minister is out in his yard watching his neighbors back their bags and pile into their car. They ask the minister if he would like a ride and he replies, “No, the Lord will save me.” Well, the floodwaters come and a boat pulls up to the second story window, the skipper tells the good reverend to hop in, they have room. “Oh no, the Lord will save me.” The water continues to rise and the minister finds himself stranded on the roof. A helicopter appears overhead, and the pilot throws a rope down to him. “No, no,” he says, “My Lord will save me.” Unfortunately, the water consumes the entire house and the minister finds himself in the presence of God, so he tells the Almighty, “God, my whole life I have done nothing but serve you. I obeyed your commandments, I lived modestly, and I was more than generous to all my Brothers and Sisters. Why then, God, did you not save me?” And God, in all his dignity, replies, “I sent you a car, a boat, and a helicopter, what more did you want?”

The people that scream into the camera that they are starving, that Bush isn’t doing enough, that this is a matter of racism, and that ultimately they are the victims, were given ample opportunities to save themselves, and more importantly, and tragically, to save their children.

Whether or not they took the threat seriously, or whether they just felt too much attachment to the material things in life, namely their homes, it is not the government’s problem. Most certainly, not the federal government, who in their response to the looting had a soldier shot in the leg by a thug, yes I said it, whom the media has excused because the man was “hungry,” after only two days without food. In that case, soldiers and Red Cross workers should be dying by the thousands while offering relief to famine around the globe.

In the words of Aaron Brussard, Parish County President, commenting on Aug. 29 relating to the people who will opt not to evacuate, “I’m expecting that some die-hards will die hard.” I wonder if he expected them also to place the blame anywhere but upon themselves.

Here is an interesting and insightful article that was published in early September of last year.

 

[volinbham]

To bring it back to the press discussion - I would contend that the bias is to report on how those in power screwed up in Katrina while telling the story of the struggles of the weak. The stories rarely mentioned any positive acts of the govt. (there were some) nor the negative acts of the weak (there were some).

I don't view it as an intentional act (as in let's get W) but more of a world view that permeates the reporting.

Again, I'll let Tom Brokaw make my point for me:

“I don’t think it’s a liberal agenda. It happens that journalism will always be spending more time on issues that seem to be liberal to some people: the problem of the downtrodden, the problem of civil rights and human rights, the problem of those people who don’t have a place at the table with the powerful.”
– NBC anchor Tom Brokaw on MSNBC’s Donahue when asked about the claim of liberal media bias, July 25.

 

[OWB]

Man we could talk about this forever. I mean Katrina is a great example of how stupid this culture has become. These people could not comprehend the power of nature or that the government could not save them from nature. There is a precentage of the culture in this country that basically views the government as a "godlike" entity. As long as the government keeps them fed, housed, and their welfare checks coming they are so happy with this "god". They are baffled with this government cannot stop a hurricane or rescue them from it.

First of all, I'm not talking about the Government protecting them from Hurricanes, I'm talking about their response to the aftermath. Nice try though.

Second of all, if you don't want the people to depend on the Government, then we shouldn't have programs such as FEMA or the Red Cross to help out with such things. We don't really need Tylenol to make our headaches go away, but it's there and we take it.

I will agree that there are too many people who abuse the systems we have in place, but should that mean they're not worth rescuing or helping out when something like Hurricane Katrina hits? They're human beings afterall. Maybe you would rather them suffer and die, I don't know.

 

[allvol123]

To bring it back to the press discussion - I would contend that the bias is to report on how those in power screwed up in Katrina while telling the story of the struggles of the weak. The stories rarely mentioned any positive acts of the govt. (there were some) nor the negative acts of the weak (there were some).

I don't view it as an intentional act (as in let's get W) but more of a world view that permeates the reporting.

Again, I'll let Tom Brokaw make my point for me:

using Tom Brokaw saying that the press is not biased to the left is like having Castro tell you there are no dictators in the world.

 

[therealUT]

using Tom Brokaw saying that the press is not biased to the left is like having Castro tell you there are no dictators in the world.

In his defense, it could have been Rather...