I also noted two years ago that I had taken up the public editor duties believing “there is no conspiracy” and that The Times’s output was too vast and complex to be dictated by any Wizard of Oz-like individual or cabal. I still believe that, but also see that the hive on Eighth Avenue is powerfully shaped by a culture of like minds — a phenomenon, I believe, that is more easily recognized from without than from within.
When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.
As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.
Jill Abramson, the editor of the paper, disagrees with this assessment. ”In our newsroom we are always conscious that the way we view an issue in New York is not necessarily the way it is viewed in the rest of the country or world. I disagree with Mr. Brisbane’s sweeping conclusions,” she told Politico.
Our advice to the press: Don’t seek professional safety through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views. Which politician is telling the truth? Who is taking hostages, at what risks and to what ends?The best line in that article we just posted.
Memeorandum Colors 2012: Visualizing Bias on Political Blogs
Faint pink sounds about right for Mediaite. But that said, Gateway Pundit needs to be way redder than it is. This is a useful idea, either way.
Okay, you’re confusing “state-owned” with “state-controlled” - okay, you made the mistake of using those two terms synonymously. There is nothing in this report that indicates a bias for or against particular policies or particular states…this is strictly a criticism of the poorly operated American media conglomerate News Corp. News Corp may not be “state-owned” (privatization is a benchmark of Capitalist society, and Russia is as well…) but it is state-backed, state-sponsored, state-consumed, state-supportive, state-collusive, and SO ON. So don’t try to bring down RT for simply being ‘state-run’, which merely implies that it is included in the Russia’s federal budget and does not mean that its policies and practices are dictated by the Kremlin..
One can watch both and make up their mind to continue to ignore Fox News, which is the correct thing to do because Fox is infamous for slanting things highly in favor of neoconservative US policies and neoliberal economic policies. Your criticism of this report is baseless, and it is you who is revealing your own bias, as a regurgitator of mundane news, supporting regurgitators of mundane Anglo-American opinions. Nothing can be learned from your criticism. It is useless.
» SFB says: Did you watch the same report we did? They brought up an issue from year ago in such a way that a non-observant viewer might misinterpret in such a way to make it seem like CNN did the same thing as Fox News, one which could’ve been an honest mistake. The Fox News thing was brought up with so little detail that I have no way of proving the claims myself. Similar allegations of bias have faced Al Jazeera in the past, due to its ties to the Qatari government. Ultimately, those criticisms are fair. Look at it this way: Just as Fox News gets its funding by Rupert Murdoch, Russia Today gets its funding from the Russian government. Even if that may not mean state control, it certainly doesn’t make it immune to state influence. They’ve never hid their mission, even! Columbia Journalism Review once put this as such: “Russia Today was conceived as a soft-power tool to improve Russia’s image abroad, to counter the anti-Russian bias the Kremlin saw in the Western media. Since its founding in 2005, however, the broadcast outlet has become better known as an extension of former President Vladimir Putin’s confrontational foreign policy.” All we’re saying is to be mindful of what the media is feeding you — no matter its source. — Ernie @ SFB
EDIT: While the ultimate thrust of this post stands, it’s worth noting that another media source checked out the Fox News clip and figured out they used Greek footage by accident. Excuse us while we eat crow.
(Source: venusx)
Maybe we’re cynics here, and perhaps we should give David Aldridge some credit, but … NBA.com is not owned by the players, so this article reads like a blistering case of conflict of interest to us, despite this line at the very end: “The views on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of the NBA, its clubs or Turner Broadcasting.”
seldo says: It is one of the weirdest things about America that “communist” is automatically considered an insult rather than a description of a political position. Communism != evil.
» SFB says: No disagreement here; the problem is that the word was clearly meant to evoke bias from the reader due to the way it was used. — Ernie @ SFB
The New York Times’ personal watchdog: Does the New York Times need a watchdog following its every move and criticizing perceived biases? Most likely. The NYTimes Examiner, edited by Chris Spannos and bearing a large FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) logo on its front page, wants to play that role for the Gray Lady. And what better way to start off than with a high-profile Julian Assange interview? Sure, its off-the-shelf WordPress style doesn’t exactly shine like the NYT’s ultra-polished design, but that’s not really what it’s about, y’know.
The Tampa Tribune explicitly advertises itself as a conservative paper: Well, that’s one way to compete with the St. Petersburg Times. As Saint Petersblog puts it: “The direct mailer from The Tampa Tribune just about eliminates any pretense of straight reporting, advertising the newspaper’s ‘fiscal conservatism.’” It’s not often that the local paper straight-up points out their political lean, a method usually seen more with cable news than local news. (h/t Charles Apple)
» Numbers and thoughts on bias: Glass cited a study on NPR by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) which found their guests, from a partisan standpoint, were 60% Republican and 40% Democratic. He also defended NPR’s hosts, saying that Michele Norris asking a CEO if we can afford to eliminate taxes for certain companies isn’t bias, because she’d ask the same question of someone in favor of spending increases. But as the first example infers a pro-tax bent, a conservative might decry it as bias when it really isn’t. It’s an interesting take from an interesting man, and we urge you to give the full article a look.
One of the perks of being an early employee...
Over the last 90 days, the Digg...
#FMMDI (at 30 Rockefeller Plaza)
Thanks. I guess my thoughts are as follows:
1. I think...
Two Months Ago I set out to interview the principal cast...
This guy’s name is Gen. Keith...
OK guys, next time we talk about Sarah Palin’s dislike of journalists or how she’s gonna clean up the field of journalism, or how all Katie Couric is biased against her or something, let’s keep in mind this chestnut from 1988, where Palin, as sportscaster, shows her chops as a journalist. For some reason, we still prefer Katie Couric after all of this. (thanks nbclocal) source
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
