Who is a journalist OR Americans ARE getting stupider...

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally Posted by seeker007nmss

There is no such thing as a "Neutral" journalist. It is human nature to bring their own viewpoint onto a story, even if it is only a slight nudge.

That is absolutely not true.

There are Neutral journalists for sure. When I enter my work mode my opinions etc completely leave. I can honestly say that in my reporting I take a neutral stance and report on all sides of the story where possible and necessary.

There are a great deal of ethical journalists still left in the world - sadly the hacks and bad journalists are the ones who get a lot of the attention.

But yeah - I do not bring my viewpoints into my stories because that's not my job - my job is not to opine on what I report but to simply report it and that is what I and my peers here do.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Lux

Americans are getting stupider.

Well, if they'd stop watching Faux News...And to think, you people gave us that bastard Murdoch.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by David

Exactly, Ken.

Which is why I seek out Garrick Utley whenever I can.

I haven't seen that guy in ages. Where is he now?

[seeker007nmss]

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

That is absolutely not true.

There are Neutral journalists for sure. When I enter my work mode my opinions etc completely leave. I can honestly say that in my reporting I take a neutral stance and report on all sides of the story where possible and necessary.

There are a great deal of ethical journalists still left in the world - sadly the hacks and bad journalists are the ones who get a lot of the attention.

But yeah - I do not bring my viewpoints into my stories because that's not my job - my job is not to opine on what I report but to simply report it and that is what I and my peers here do.

I tend to disagree. I think it is impossible to eliminate the subconscious when doing a story. You may think it is absolutely balanced, but tiny descisions (Maybe not readily noticible) are included. Word choice, amount of copy to each side, editorial descisions....etc. You yourself wrote "report on all sides of the story where possible and necessary." That in itself is a descision. What is possible, and what is considered necessary? I am not saying these descisions are made for a particular agenda, or viewpoint, but that the descisions are influenced by the subconscious. I am not judging the journalist, I just think it is human nature. If you were just robots you could do it.

Alot of this has to do with the time and space given to stories that obviously deserve more of each. Hard to cover stories with all the nuainces and complete coverage in 5 minutes or in one column. I just wish they would give more time to real issues rather than who JLO had this week, what mess a sports personality is in, or what an actor thinks on an issue. But the majority of the public, any world public, doesn't want to put the effort in to learn anything anymore, or care to look beyond soundbites..

your turn.

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally Posted by seeker007nmss

I tend to disagree. I think it is impossible to eliminate the subconscious when doing a story. You may think it is absolutely balanced, but tiny descisions (Maybe not readily noticible) are included. Word choice, amount of copy to each side, editorial descisions....etc. You yourself wrote "report on all sides of the story where possible and necessary." That in itself is a descision. What is possible, and what is considered necessary? I am not saying these descisions are made for a particular agenda, or viewpoint, but that the descisions are influenced by the subconscious. I am not judging the journalist, I just think it is human nature. If you were just robots you could do it.

Well that's not entirely accurate. I (or any other reporter) don't make the decisions - news directors or editors do and often many people with many different view points go into deciding what goes in and what doesn't - and it's not based on our views - it's based on a standard set of ethics used by public radio.

And it's one the strongest and best ethics statements out there.

What I meany by when possible and necessary is this:

If possible: We try everything possible to reach the appropriate people on stories - if for a story of man 1 vs. man 2, man2 isn't returning calls, or has refused to comment - then there isn't a whole lot we can do except report the side we have and say that while we tried the other side isn't talking...

When necessary - there are some stories that contain no conflict and don't require several viewpoints.

I stand by my journalistic standards and those of the people I work with - we are neutral because the job calls us to be neutral - what I think does not matter and I know that and frankly love that by my reporting the average person wouldn't know what side of the spectrum I sit on -

Alot of this has to do with the time and space given to stories that obviously deserve more of each. Hard to cover stories with all the nuainces and complete coverage in 5 minutes or in one column. I just wish they would give more time to real issues rather than who JLO had this week, what mess a sports personality is in, or what an actor thinks on an issue. But the majority of the public, any world public, doesn't want to put the effort in to learn anything anymore, or care to look beyond soundbites..

your turn.

And to that I agree. Luckily NPR rarely reports on big celeb issues - if they do it's a very short blurb at the top and bottom of hour newscasts.

In terms of in-depth coverage that allows people to learn more - TV is not that place anymore - television "journalism" has become a complete joke. I have little respect left for it.

There is still some good journalism on tv if you know where to look - but overall I think nowadays the best content can be found on the radio and newspaper and even on the web...

[seeker007nmss]

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

And to that I agree. Luckily NPR rarely reports on big celeb issues - if they do it's a very short blurb at the top and bottom of hour newscasts.

I listen/watch to alot of NPR, APR, PBS, etc... I was just wondering - from your standpoint - if it is balanced, why is NPR generally regarded as more "left". I am not saying it is, but that is the persception. (And yes I know my spelling is atrocious...).

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally Posted by seeker007nmss

I listen/watch to alot of NPR, APR, PBS, etc... I was just wondering - from your standpoint - if it is balanced, why is NPR generally regarded as more "left". I am not saying it is, but that is the persception. (And yes I know my spelling is atrocious...).

That is an excellent question and one that NPR is well aware of and has many theories on.

First off - people on the right say it's too "left" and people on the far left feel that NPR is too "right" so who's right?

I think NPR is about the closest thing you will find to balanced and accurate news. I mean they go out of their way to provide all sides of stories and a lot of times it just pisses people off to hear the other side of a story reported - it seems that a lot of people only want to hear what reinforces their own beliefs etc...and that's just not the way the world opperates, there are many different view points.

I don't have a good answer as to why NPR is considered "left" leaning - as is PBS - I know these organizations scare the **** out of the Bush Admin and right now they're doing a lot to try and majorly cut our funding

I'm totally not answering your question But I guess - I have no real answer for ya

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by David

It's not his views that need attacking (everybody already agrees or disagrees & no reasoned debate is going to sway either ignorant army)

So, if I understand that sentence, you're saying that regardless of whether someone agrees or disagrees with O'Reilly, he or she is ignorant?

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

That is absolutely not true.

There are Neutral journalists for sure. When I enter my work mode my opinions etc completely leave. I can honestly say that in my reporting I take a neutral stance and report on all sides of the story where possible and necessary.

There are a great deal of ethical journalists still left in the world - sadly the hacks and bad journalists are the ones who get a lot of the attention.

But yeah - I do not bring my viewpoints into my stories because that's not my job - my job is not to opine on what I report but to simply report it and that is what I and my peers here do.

I have to agree with Jim, Deanna. I don't view journalists as neutral observers of society. I think it is impossible for any human being to be neutral. However, there is a difference between neutral and ethical, and I think journalists can and should be ethical.

I mean, think about how many news stories aren't reported to the public. The fact that a story makes the news demonstrates some bias.

[DrummerDeanna]

Amusingly enough - right now on NPR - well on Talk of the Nation - they're talking about the perceived liberal bias of NPR

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

That is an excellent question and one that NPR is well aware of and has many theories on.

First off - people on the right say it's too "left" and people on the far left feel that NPR is too "right" so who's right?

I think NPR is about the closest thing you will find to balanced and accurate news. I mean they go out of their way to provide all sides of stories and a lot of times it just pisses people off to hear the other side of a story reported - it seems that a lot of people only want to hear what reinforces their own beliefs etc...and that's just not the way the world opperates, there are many different view points.

I don't have a good answer as to why NPR is considered "left" leaning - as is PBS - I know these organizations scare the **** out of the Bush Admin and right now they're doing a lot to try and majorly cut our funding

I'm totally not answering your question But I guess - I have no real answer for ya

It is impossible to completely remove the observer from what is being observed. This is a principle of physics via Einstein but the name of it escapes me at the moment. Your opinions will affect the outcome. That said, you can control the degree to which this will happen and can be 99.9% neutral, never perfect, while the Hannity's and Limbaugh's don't even try to present a balanced story. I left out O'Reilly because I really think he does try but he's more like 40% neutral as opposed to Hannity's 0%. In fact, there is tape of Hannity saying, "God I hate these people, you have no idea" off camera during an interview with lefties.

Before the war I saw a political cartoon of Bush pointing to an easel with the message below on it. The caption of the cartoon is also below. At the time, it was amusing. Looking back, it isn't because 80% of people were not paying attention.

[seeker007nmss]

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

That is an excellent question and one that NPR is well aware of and has many theories on.

First off - people on the right say it's too "left" and people on the far left feel that NPR is too "right" so who's right?

I think NPR is about the closest thing you will find to balanced and accurate news. I mean they go out of their way to provide all sides of stories and a lot of times it just pisses people off to hear the other side of a story reported - it seems that a lot of people only want to hear what reinforces their own beliefs etc...and that's just not the way the world opperates, there are many different view points.

I don't have a good answer as to why NPR is considered "left" leaning - as is PBS - I know these organizations scare the **** out of the Bush Admin and right now they're doing a lot to try and majorly cut our funding

I'm totally not answering your question But I guess - I have no real answer for ya

I also listen to BBC overnight (That's what comes on here after NPR goes off for the night). I find they are fairly balanced, and do stories that NEVER show up here in the states.

Bush Admin is afraid of everything they don't understand or fit into their views. I am not gay (Nor do I play one on TV) but I heard the silliest response from the right on same-sex marriage on TV. "What will they want to do next? Marry a cow or a dog?" That is so ignorant and uniformed on so many different levels. So I will stay with my NPR, PBS, and BBC. You can't beat Frontline, Nova, and other programming.

[seeker007nmss]

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

Amusingly enough - right now on NPR - well on Talk of the Nation - they're talking about the perceived liberal bias of NPR

See... You can't say the Ledgies aren't an informed bunch.

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally Posted by seeker007nmss

I also listen to BBC overnight (That's what comes on here after NPR goes off for the night). I find they are fairly balanced, and do stories that NEVER show up here in the states.

Bush Admin is afraid of everything they don't understand or fit into their views. I am not gay (Nor do I play one on TV) but I heard the silliest response from the right on same-sex marriage on TV. "What will they want to do next? Marry a cow or a dog?" That is so ignorant and uniformed on so many different levels. So I will stay with my NPR, PBS, and BBC. You can't beat Frontline, Nova, and other programming.

I LOVE BBC overnight I was so excited to come to a station that carries it.

Anyway - TOTN is REALLY good right now lol - talking about balance with NPR Ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin Es Muy interesante!!

on edit: I would never accuse the Ledgies of being an uninformed bunch

[David]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

So, if I understand that sentence, you're saying that regardless of whether someone agrees or disagrees with O'Reilly, he or she is ignorant?

You didn't understand what I said.