(volinbham @ May 12 said:
If it's simply a relevance issue, why not dig up some stories about how NSA activies under Hayden have protected this country? :question:
This line reminds me of an old question from J101. Is good news news?
As relates to Hayden, when his name first surfaced as nominee, there was a good deal of reporting on his resume. I thought that what I saw was balanced. Further I was left with the impression that he was a highly qualified man. In as much as there was balance to the reporting and yet I was still left with a positive impression, I would have to say that there was coverage of how Hayden "protected this country".
(volinbham @ May 12 said:
One of the issues with media bias is the perceived role of the press/media. I think the "liberal" bias issue gets confused with "democrat" bias. I believe the press often sees itself as "defender of the voiceless or weak" rather than "reporter of news".
Notice that the story was presented in a way to suggest that the government is "up to" something. It appeared on the front page but the information stating that no names or addresses were collected was nowhere to be found on the front page (it was in a sidebar on page 5). Even the headline suggested that the NSA was delving into individuals.
IMHO, the idea of a liberal bias is a media that consistently sides (even if subtly) the "little guy". Negatives against companies are highlighted. Employees are inherently more sympathetic than companies. Industrialized nations more at fault than 3rd world countries.
This is such a well presented opinion that I don't really care to come after it.
Except to point out that there is, of necessity, a tendency to write to "draw people in" across the board in the media in general. From a strictly journalistic standpoint, I don't believe anyone in the business really wants to stand up and defend that fact. But it is a fact. And it occurs in every outlet, no matter how upstanding their reputation.
I say this in order to point out that the "up to something" lean has become the nature of the beast.
I think it is now, regrettably, up to you as the reader/viewer to see beyond the "flourishes" of the reporting and filter in the substance of it.
Not sure if I offered much clarity to my thinking, but there you go.