[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: media & impartiality



The esteemed Keets writes:

> 
> Did you see any of the BBC's coverage?  I did, as it ran on one of our 
> local 
> stations after midnight, and I thought they did a pretty good job.  It was 
> an interestingly different view from US TV.  It's true that state run TV 
> has 
> a hard time in situations like this.  There were some comments that state 
> run TV (such as Cairo) now has to keep up with real news because of 
> competition from satellite stations.
> 

Some of it on my BBC channel on my satellite dish.  I have a great admiration 
for the British Army and I wanted to see what they were up to and see how 
they were being covered.  The BBC had some great footage - but if you 
listened to certain words, etc. you could tell where they stood at points.

The opening up of satellite and cable news is making it harder for them as it 
has for the Big Three networks here - who do a pretty lousy job overall.


> 
> Certainly CNN didn't come out of this lily white.  They were also in 
> trouble 
> for traveling with an armed guard, which compromises the non-combatant 
> status of reporters.  I don't care for CNN, myself, and preferred to watch 
> a 
> middle-of the road channel like MSNBC or CNBC.
> 

Yep - that armed guard thing makes you a legal combatant.  I would be curious 
to see the ramifications of embedded reporters - who were terrific for the 
most part. 

CNN is an embarrassment to news.  I was a journalism major in college and 
they did most of the things on the "do not do" list that my professors 
hammered into my head.  The breaker was that incredible admission a couple 
weeks ago.  This network has no credibility at all any longer.  I could not 
ever watch them cover anything again without questioning how they got the 
story and the veracity of their sources.

I also cannot stand Christianne Amanpour - she's terrible!  So smug!

MSNBC did OK - saw some good stuff there.


> 
> 
> Hmmm.  And you don't think Fox sneers?  I think they're particularly rude.
> 

Fox has a certain attitude that is a bit refreshing after the tired Dan 
Rather (who also whored himself in agreeing to the conditions he interviewed 
Saddam under) and I can see how it might put off some people.  They may be 
reveling in their complete victory in the news ratings wars a bit too much.

Please understand that I don't consider any of the news networks to be near 
perfect - Fox is more aggressive I think and they ask the questions that no 
one else will touch - which is what I like.  I hate Larry King (the king of 
the softball questions), Baba Wawa, etc. - they are a complete waste of time 
in regards to interviews with controversial subjects as you KNOW they will 
never serve up the fastball pitch.  So why bother watching them as you will 
not learn anything.

My favorite interviewers are Bill O'Reilly (he hits all his guests hard), Bob 
Costas (who does a fine job preparing for his subjects, no matter what they 
are) and Tom Snyder, whose old "Tomorrow" show I really miss (plus it had a 
lot of rock bands on it!).

It was pounded into my head in college to check all sorts of sources.  I am 
also a historian (I work part-time in the field of military history for 
museums, writers, etc.), and we have a dictum called the "Rule of Three," 
that can also be applied to journalism.  It is best to have to have three 
disparate sources that say the same thing about an event before you can rest 
on its credibility.  I watch a lot of news on different sources at times, 
read a lot of news online from all over the world (great thing about the 
Internet) and from all sorts of political persuasions to see what's going on.

> 
> 
> I just don't think they cover things well in general.  Though they do have 
> some very good reporters, their delivery is lacking.
> 

They have an anchor or two that are good - cannot recall the names.  One of 
them (a guy) wears glasses and he has a down-home style that is relaxing.  
But as stated above, Christianne Amanpour just blows!

I also, to be fair, cannot believe that Fox hired Geraldo!

> 
> This is what the BBC accused Fox of.
> 

Fox never compromised themselves to ANY level like CNN did in keeping their 
Baghdad bureau open.  Not even the Big Three have sunk to that level (yet) - 
CBS came close a couple times (The Rather interview with Saddam and another 
major faux pas a year or so ago).  Peter Jennings is a hack and his 
wonderment of where Bush was during 89/11 was totally uncalled for and 
un-professional (Note to Jennings: the Secret Sevice has action plans for 
protecting the president, etc. in times like that day - and they do not get 
to show up in public anywhere until they deem it safe for them to do so.).  I 
lost all faith in his credibility with that episode.

Tom Brokaw is the best of the three even if his slant shows itself at times.  
His books are very good!


> 
> Not only Clear Channel and radio, apparently.  Ted Turner checked in today 
> about the diversity comments.  He attacked Fox for impartiality, too, which 
> 
> (as you say) may be because Fox is kicking his ass in the ratings.  But, he 
> 
> also mentions that about five big companies now determine what you see and 
> hear in the US media.  That is certainly an opportunity for 1) requests for 
> 
> payoffs 2) offers of payoffs.  Anyone want to get you movie/opinion/music 
> video aired?  Pay here...
> 

Every now and then Ted says something intelligent.  I am still amazed at his 
"gift" to the Useless Nations and how he stands up for that small town 
debating society.  But he is correct here - the more buying up of media 
outlets the more chance for long-term harm.  

Turner is honked at Fox because they took his idea of 24 hour news (which was 
VERY gutsy even if his inspiration was Ted Coppel's "Nightline" show - which 
I used to watch a lot!!!) and did him a lot better!  Unless Fox blows 
something big time, CNN is toast when compared to them for ratings.

Please understand something about journalism historically.  All outlets have 
their biases and the levels vary a great deal.  Some cover them up and go for 
real reporting with verified sources very well - others do not and let their 
biases show through.  As an example of the former, the Guardian newspaper in 
England, a liberal outlet, at least stayed with journalistic integrity with 
their two years of reporting on the connections between Iraq and terrorist 
groups, including Al Qaeda.  The New York Times would not touch what they 
were reporting, even after the Feb. 10, 2003 issue of New Yorker Magazine 
wrote an even larger story of how the conenction went abck ten years!  So 
much for the integrity of the NY Times!.

As I stated I am a historian and I work a lot with 100 plus year old 
newspapers all the time.  Believe me, today's papers are nothing in terms of 
bias when compared to those of the 19th Century!!!!!!  Try reading about the 
Andrew Jackson campaign for president when he ran for his second term.  The 
anti-Jackson papers were vehement in their vile comments about him (and his 
wife) on a level I have not seen since!  This is still considered the most 
mud-slinging campaign in American political history.

Both newspapers and historians can be taken to the woodshed for their 
spankings if they are caught making things up or leaning too far towards 
their biases.  I was taught that you follow the clues and then write what you 
learn at the end of the line.  There are, sadly, those journalists and 
historians that create the agenda to start, and then seek out only that which 
supports their pre-conceived agenda.

An Emory University history professor was recently demolished by his peers 
for the historical fraud he commited in his book, to the point where he 
resigned before the university considered letting him go.  What did he do?  
He made up things, including from sources that were destroyed in an 
earthquake in 1906; cited only portions of sources that he could use to 
extend his argument and withheld the parts that did not; altered facts from 
sources to fit his argument; completely ignored sources that would have 
smashed his agenda; then, in the college professor version of "my dog ate my 
homework," he claimed that his office flooded and destroyed his notes (which 
were not computerized????) when the academic heat was being turned up on him!

His publisher finally caved in, withdrawing both their support of his book 
(not to mention an updated version was cancelled) and the book itself from 
circulation.  The book had also been awarded the Bancroft Prize in History, a 
(no longer I think) prestigious award from Columbia University - and they 
have since rescinded their award (it has since come to light that most of the 
historians on the board that awards the prize do not read the books under 
consideration - but hey, this is how the ultra-Left in the university system 
works these days!).

Historians are now being scrutinized like never before and events like the 
above will keep the light on them.  The recent CNN admission will also keep a 
brighter light on network news - as it should be for both venues.

On the broadcast end, rock radio  today is about as boring as it gets and I 
rarely listen to it.  Every now and then a classic rock station plays 
something outside of their typically narrow play list that is nice to hear - 
but it is few and far between.

I enjoy talk radio as it is educational, fun, and enevelope-pushing - you 
never know what you will hear.  One of my favorite shows is actually a movies 
talk show out of Phildelphia every Saturday night at 10 PM EDT (WPHT, AM 
1210).  Lots of fun and the host is amazing in his knowledge of film and film 
history.

But unless the strings get loosened it will get even worse for radio, and 
newspapers.  TV may not be the case as the Pandora's Box of wild and wacky 
channels is open so far that it might not be possible to buy everything up.

> 
> Best go to satellite radio for this.
> 

Do you really think that will be the way you would have to go?  Part of the 
loosening of the FFC radio regs (one of the FEW good things that Arky Bill 
Clinton did) was to allow for more local choices to pop up in towns large and 
small.  it does not cost that much to get into the radio business on this 
scale and who knows where it might end up going in terms of programming.

Satellite radio does offer a good possible alternative - but with only two 
firms offering systems how much freedom will there really be there?

Too soon to tell I think - but maybe that "all Who all the time" station is 
not that far off!

Greg Biggs