Comments on: Fair, Balanced and … Censored?

By: ferroequinologist

ferroequinologist — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 18:36:57 +0000

The old Liberal mantra – ‘you are entitled to free speech as long as you agree with me’
What baloney!

By: Buckeye

Buckeye — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:56:00 +0000

The Dimsits are intent on doing away with free speech altogether.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 00:43:20 +0000

The beauty of Ross’s definition is that is doesn’t rely on a journalist buying into the worldview of any side. The journalist can both describe reality as he or she sees it and describe what others believe, which is a reality in itself. And they can check the accuracy of the later by testing it with those whose views they are trying to characterize. I don’t see what’s wrong with journalists asking people if what being written about their beliefs accurately reflects those beliefs. It’s a kind of fact checking. It doesn’t endorse someone’s worldview to accurately acknowledge what it is. I’ve done conflict resolution and that’s part of the process.

By: Hap Hazard

Hap Hazard — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 22:46:08 +0000

Thank you for the adult, fair and balanced investigative report. Maybe it would be a good idea for some to study the definition of objective or unbiased offered by Ross, but the problem for many accustomed to echo chamber politics is that they see bias whenever a story, like this one for example, doesn’t both (1)advocate a point of view to the exclusion of others, and (2) the point of view argued disagrees with what they talk to each other about in the echo chamber.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:41:01 +0000

With the increasing ideological segmentation of the viewing market, the chance to reach potential converts that might select Fox as main source of viewing offers opportunities. They may not win masses of converts but in a closely divided country it might not take many to swing the election. And since they are debates, despite whatever commentary and opinion is inserted into programming, the debates themselves, which will give Democrats the chance to speak directly to the media audience, will likely be dominant. At other times, the presidential campaign is filtered through whatever news standards, or lack of, a media outlet might exhibit.

This “media narrative” should be open to challenge. Where I differ from the ideological left is the process of doing that. It is true that the language we use often has assumptions implicit within it. I think that is inevitable. I welcome people who want to challenge those things directly by arguing why they are wrong or at least should be open to question. I don’t support simply replacing one set with another on the basis of exerted power or intimidation. That said I don’t see much of my preferred method either.

As for Greenberg’s failure to come up with a definition of objective, let me share on that was offered by Lee Ross of the Stanford Center on International Conflict and Negotiation in a Newshour discussion of bias in the media relating to the middle east.

“I think the minimal definition of unbiased or objective coverage should be coverage in which each side thinks that its own case has been fairly presented. They may think that the criticisms of that case are unfair, but they should feel that their basic position was articulated in a way that they recognize and are willing to own as, indeed, being their own views.”

By: MarkD

MarkD — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:46:32 +0000

When you can’t win the debate, silence the opposition. This seems to be policy. Hillary, Global Warming, what else don’t they want you to even hear the other side of?

By: william jonas

william jonas — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:00:11 +0000

The tone of Greenwalds denial has the same ring as the Palestinian mantra that Israel is not a legitimate state.
The MSM is the full time propaganda and public relations arm of the Democratic Party.
If we had actual fairness in reporting the press would exert a little effort to question Barack Obama rather than cheerleading his candidacy.

By: RE

RE — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 13:00:26 +0000

This is the same mindset that attempted to discredit internet news outlets as ‘guys sitting around in pajamas’ and therefore not worthy of serious consideration. This is just another salvo in the continuing war to control the message. ‘Hate speech’ laws, UN control of the Internet, ‘Fairness’ doctrines… they are all part of the same arsenal in the war against the First Amendment. Control freaks are dangerous – And relentless.