Excellence in Journalism

Post Reply New Topic

visagrunt - again yes.

Inuyasha:

you seem to feel that ones opinions - subconsciously - will corrupt the news.

Subconscious cannot be appealed. If I say I have no subconscious bias when I write about the linguistic history of P'o-dhunk, how can you not be free to say yes I do I just am not conscious of my subconscious?

It is possible in science and in the media and in law to maximize fact and minimize value loading. The Foxy Lady was NOT "announcing her stance" and then speaking with maximum objectivity. This is one of the reasons editors exist.

Inuyasha: I guess you're in a defensive mood today, because I actually wasn't trying to make a snipe at you, but rather lamenting how so many people listen to these entertainers masquerading as political experts. I only referred to Republicans because you mentioned a few Right wing commentators. Name off a few of the Left, I probably hate them just as much

The part where that claim is a blatant lie.

Actually, I'm pointing out that many of the people that watch the Right wing pundits actually do their research and have actually found that that said pundits are being scarily accurate as to what they are saying.

You think I like the fact my research has lined up what Glenn Beck has said? Well I don't, I actually find it extremely scary that it does. The people that pay attention to Beck aren't crazy or stupid if Beck is being honest and the facts check out, it actually reflects badly on the people that dismiss Glenn Beck just cause his name is Glenn Beck.

A very good question.

However, look at how you've structured it. You presuppose that disclosure of one's personal biases creates a positive relationship with the reader/listener/viewer whereas you presuppose that not presenting one's personal biases (which you characterize as "hiding") automatically creates a negative one. I would have been happier if you had asked the question in an open-textured fashion without injecting your own biases into it.

From my perspective, there is a legitimate expectation that professionals will do their utmost to perform their work free, to the extent possible, from bias. No one expects us to be free from personal opinion, but we are expected to subordinate our personal opinions to our professional obligations. If I walk into a patient's room and say, "I don't approve of your smoking, but I am going to treat your CPOD anyway," then I am putting my opinion out there for all to see. But I am also creating one particular environment.

But I can bring smoking into the equation is a more even handed way, by talking about the impacts of smoking on respiratory health, acknowledging the challenges of quitting, and providing help and advice to the patient to make better choices.

Sometimes the method is almost more important than the message.

Glenn Beck is basically Stephen Colbert; except rather then making fun of everything as a fake pundit and acknowledging he is a comedian; he is a fake pundit that simply spouts tons of vitriolic rhetoric and efforts to make people believe it

Oh you mean vitriolic rhetoric like the phony "shoot them in the head" song and dance the left tried to use to smear Glenn Beck? I've already proven that was deliberately taken way out of context.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-ma ... eople-head

You know the scary part about Glenn Beck's rhetoric compared to Colbert's is that Glenn Beck is a lot more accurate than Colbert, and btw you know he has been slandered so many times it is a wonder anyone believes trash outlets like the huffington post anymore.

Also I found a comment in an article that kind of somes up the situation:

It's called hate, Deborah. They hate Glenn Beck for no rational reason other than he is a conservative.

I always wonder what happens to all that liberal tolerance when I see the vitriol that comes from some of these people.
http://open.salon.com/blog/deborah_youn ... g_assembly

I just watched the clip and my brain still hurts. I do not have a view of judicial recusal, I do not know enough about how it works. I also do not have a huge issue with bias. I am not sure if I prefer the bias of the BBC or that of FoxNews. However, what I do have an issue with is the pretense of interview.

What I watched was an unstructured debate forced into an interview setting and it is little wonder that it did not work. If the lady from FoxNews wants to answer every criticism then she is not really asking questions.... Merely attempting a rebuttal. A good interviewer asks the questions that get to the truth... I did not see many questions being asked.

Lol, is that to say that only a right-winger would admit to being biased? That's quite dark.

Journalese topic

This is what Megyn Kelly is blubbering. My brain hurts as well.

A very interesting topic that might have been better presented to understand the issue of recusal.

Of course, this would not have happened in Canada. And our journalists are professional, so highly respected they are oten sought after by US news organizations, and I hope none end up on Fox.

Is Megyn a tarted-up respelling for cute of Megan [logically Big Margaret by the rules of Gaelic nicknaming] or Megeen [Anglicized from standard Gaelic orthography for Little Margaret]?

She looks more Megan-sized to me.

It is quite dark and yeah it tends to be the case that only right-wingers appear to recognize they have a bias. Further intolerance actually tends to come from the left.

I can't stand Chris Matthews and Rachael Maddow, so I simply don't watch them and change the channel.

Liberals go on a rant about Conservatives needing to be taken off the air the FCC needs to shut them up etc.

Yeah I'm sure their is some conservative out there doing the same, but it actually is common behavior for leftists while it is not common behavior for conservatives.

To tell the truth, watching the Youtube video, I'm sickened with Clarence Thomas. He f***ed us good on that move, he sure as hell knew better, and I could easily see this whole thing being set up from the start. Truthfully I don't want to say 'us' anymore, I think Dennis Prager has it dead aim - there's the dangerous party (Democrat) and there's the stupid party (Republican), both are bad but stupid is still the least of the two evils. This is why I'm trying to distance myself from politics anymore - yes there are two sides to vote for but you can count on someone on 'your side' embarrassing you and making you regret it if you stick your neck out at any length for them.