Decent reporting: does it exist any more?

Linus · 11-11-2009, 09:38 AM

I originally thought about asking why Fox News is considered such an authority in the US (they have the lion's share of the viewing audience, although that might be more due to location on the cable bill than anything else). I remember growing up on the likes Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite et al. where they did research, presented the research and then, maybe, once in a while, did an opinion piece separate from the news they told. Has this become a dying art?

To be fair, it's not just Fox News but many news channels are biased one way or another. It seems like the idea of truly unbiased and well researched news has been tossed out the window in favour of tabloid-like reporting. It's the 10-second grab and toss if you will and the juicier the news, the more we want it (hello FUD).

And speaking of Fox News, I don't get it (well, I kinda do -- it appears to the natural FUDing nature of people). The more I learn about what they do, the more I ask how the FCC et al. can allow them to exist. Two events recently made me go "Whaaaatttt?" (I laughed when he said that he was considering removing Fox News from Google search engine -- ya. Good luck with that, dude).

The first was an interview with Rupert Murdoch. During his interview he admitted that Glenn Beck was right at saying that Obama "doesn't like white people much" but that doesn't agree in saying that Obama is racist. Uh... huh? I could have sworn he just said that.. didn't he?

And I have to admit an affinity for the likes of Colbert and Stewart (along with Maddow and Olberman -- hrmm.. I may be skewed but I also like the CBC, BBC et al., which aren't necessarily liberal either). But a recent comment by Stewart made me do another double-take.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...rotest-footage

They actually make up news? I mean, is that really allowed to mislead people like that? I thought there were rules about this stuff or is it just the advertising?

Sigh.

Perhaps I'm too old-fashioned to want stories that were well researched and without a forced opinion so that I could form my own thoughts and opinions. It is 1984. I don't need a uniformed-tyrant to control the state; the mass media with it's distortion does a fine job, it seems. And it would appear that Marshall McLuhan was right: the medium is the message.

Legendryder · 11-11-2009, 09:51 AM

I stick with the AP. They seem to keep things pretty unbiased. And, the reporters are normally in the same area all the time, so they can report not only what is going on, but how the people around them feel about it.

Greyson · 11-11-2009, 10:16 AM

Hey Linus, spot on observation and a reasonable question. In answer to your question, "Decent reporting: does it exist anymore?" Mostly No. I say mostly because well researched news and unbiased news/journalism is hard to find. I know you know this already but much of the population gives no thought to the "news" they are being fed or not.

With the event of the internet news or what is labeled news/journalism can be found with the magic search engine. As like all news the key is some critical analysis but what I see happening is people take in the news, images react with some sort of emotional response, form an opinion without much critical and honest analysis. Can you tell I have got a bee in my bonnet? (Using that last phrase, I am showing my age.)

Back to journalism and the internet.... I am concerned that journalism is really in danger of disappearing altogether. People can get their "news" for free on the internet. Why buy a newspaper, magazine, journal? I like getting information/news for free and from all over the world. But how is real journalism, real researched news going to be sustained?

Thanks for the question.

Linus · 11-11-2009, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greyson

Hey Linus, spot on observation and a reasonable question. In answer to your question, "Decent reporting: does it exist anymore?" Mostly No. I say mostly because well researched news and unbiased news/journalism is hard to find. I know you know this already but much of the population gives no thought to the "news" they are being fed or not.

With the event of the internet news or what is labeled news/journalism can be found with the magic search engine. As like all news the key is some critical analysis but what I see happening is people take in the news, images react with some sort of emotional response, form an opinion without much critical and honest analysis. Can you tell I have got a bee in my bonnet? (Using that last phrase, I am showing my age.)

Back to journalism and the internet.... I am concerned that journalism is really in danger of disappearing altogether. People can get their "news" for free on the internet. Why buy a newspaper, magazine, journal? I like getting information/news for free and from all over the world. But how is real journalism, real researched news going to be sustained?

Thanks for the question.

See, that's one of the things that bugged me when I was a professor. The internet is a tool that can be used for effective research. Just because the news is online (although a good, hefty Sunday edition with oodles of comics is something I still miss -- I do remember reading the Toronto Star front to back on Sundays) doesn't excuse it, IMO, from being done well.

Greyson · 11-11-2009, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linus

See, that's one of the things that bugged me when I was a professor. The internet is a tool that can be used for effective research. Just because the news is online (although a good, hefty Sunday edition with oodles of comics is something I still miss -- I do remember reading the Toronto Star front to back on Sundays) doesn't excuse it, IMO, from being done well.

Linus, I agree. It does not excuse it. You were a professor of Journalism? I am not surprised. Many times I have told my gf, if I knew what I know now, I would have majored in Journalism. I sold newspapers standing on the corner when I was in Junior High. Now I am really showing my age.

Linus, I remember when I first started to see you in cyberland. I think we are very fortunate that you found us and participate with us.

Linus · 11-11-2009, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greyson

Linus, I agree. It does not excuse it. You were a professor of Journalism? I am not surprised. Many times I have told my gf, if I knew what I know now, I would have majored in Journalism. I sold newspapers standing on the corner when I was in Junior High. Now I am really showing my age.

Linus, I remember when I first started to see you in cyberland. I think we are very fortunate that you found us and participate with us.

LOL. No. I was a Professor of Computer and Network Security. When I saw the papers submitted by students it was there that I saw a degradation of research abilities. It was rather shocking and eye-opening but indicative of the nature of education and expectations that have changed over the years.

SuperFemme · 11-11-2009, 11:03 AM

Linus, great thread. I recently watched Rachel Maddow speaking about why Fox is *just* a news organization. Thoughts?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3LUid0IZ2w"]YouTube- Why Fox News isn't news[/ame]

girl_dee · 11-11-2009, 02:24 PM

Great thread and I have thought about this so much.

I am currently so annoyed at the coverage of the case of the 15 year old girl being ganged raped and beaten as others watched.

On CNN they have replayed the interview of one eye witness who describes in detail what he saw ( and watched for 30 minutes) . Hasn't this girl been brutalized enough? Have they acquired her permission to KEEP talking about her attack? I doubt it!

I would love to invent a station that would report on the good things and heroes in this world.. highlight teachers, nurses, firefighters etc..

The case with the boy in the balloon is another one.. its now a big joke. Are people forgetting there are kids here who were used by their parents and now
this poor kid will go through life as the "Balloon Boy"...where is our compassion?

Maybe no one would watch but as long as we focus over and over on the bad stuff we think that is all there is.

MsDemeanor · 11-12-2009, 08:15 PM

When I grow up I want to be rich enough to create a news network that actually reports news.

Faux is the media wing of the republican party, MSNBC is left wing politics in the evenings and entertainment-style news during the day, and CNN is pretty people reading twitter feeds on the air. While I do enjoy Ed, Rachel, and Keith on MSNBC, the daytime "news" feels like anything but.

11-11-2009, 09:38 AM	#1
Linus The Planet's Technical Bubba How Do You Identify?: FTM Preferred Pronoun?: He/Him/Geek Relationship Status: Married to my forever! Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Redondo Beach, CA Posts: 5,440 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 2,929 Thanked 10,743 Times in 3,176 Posts Rep Power: 21474856	Decent reporting: does it exist any more? I originally thought about asking why Fox News is considered such an authority in the US (they have the lion's share of the viewing audience, although that might be more due to location on the cable bill than anything else). I remember growing up on the likes Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite et al. where they did research, presented the research and then, maybe, once in a while, did an opinion piece separate from the news they told. Has this become a dying art? To be fair, it's not just Fox News but many news channels are biased one way or another. It seems like the idea of truly unbiased and well researched news has been tossed out the window in favour of tabloid-like reporting. It's the 10-second grab and toss if you will and the juicier the news, the more we want it (hello FUD). And speaking of Fox News, I don't get it (well, I kinda do -- it appears to the natural FUDing nature of people). The more I learn about what they do, the more I ask how the FCC et al. can allow them to exist. Two events recently made me go "Whaaaatttt?" (I laughed when he said that he was considering removing Fox News from Google search engine -- ya. Good luck with that, dude). The first was an interview with Rupert Murdoch. During his interview he admitted that Glenn Beck was right at saying that Obama "doesn't like white people much" but that doesn't agree in saying that Obama is racist. Uh... huh? I could have sworn he just said that.. didn't he? And I have to admit an affinity for the likes of Colbert and Stewart (along with Maddow and Olberman -- hrmm.. I may be skewed but I also like the CBC, BBC et al., which aren't necessarily liberal either). But a recent comment by Stewart made me do another double-take. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...rotest-footage They actually make up news? I mean, is that really allowed to mislead people like that? I thought there were rules about this stuff or is it just the advertising? Sigh. Perhaps I'm too old-fashioned to want stories that were well researched and without a forced opinion so that I could form my own thoughts and opinions. It is 1984. I don't need a uniformed-tyrant to control the state; the mass media with it's distortion does a fine job, it seems. And it would appear that Marshall McLuhan was right: the medium is the message.

11-11-2009, 09:51 AM	#2
Legendryder Member How Do You Identify?: Butch Relationship Status: Single Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Queen City, MO Posts: 420 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 14 Thanked 969 Times in 261 Posts Rep Power: 7270130	I stick with the AP. They seem to keep things pretty unbiased. And, the reporters are normally in the same area all the time, so they can report not only what is going on, but how the people around them feel about it.

11-11-2009, 10:16 AM	#3
Greyson Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: Transmasculine/Non-Binary Preferred Pronoun?: Hy (Pronounced He) Relationship Status: Married Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: SF Bay Area Posts: 6,589 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 21,132 Thanked 8,163 Times in 2,006 Posts Rep Power: 21474857	Hey Linus, spot on observation and a reasonable question. In answer to your question, "Decent reporting: does it exist anymore?" Mostly No. I say mostly because well researched news and unbiased news/journalism is hard to find. I know you know this already but much of the population gives no thought to the "news" they are being fed or not. With the event of the internet news or what is labeled news/journalism can be found with the magic search engine. As like all news the key is some critical analysis but what I see happening is people take in the news, images react with some sort of emotional response, form an opinion without much critical and honest analysis. Can you tell I have got a bee in my bonnet? (Using that last phrase, I am showing my age.) Back to journalism and the internet.... I am concerned that journalism is really in danger of disappearing altogether. People can get their "news" for free on the internet. Why buy a newspaper, magazine, journal? I like getting information/news for free and from all over the world. But how is real journalism, real researched news going to be sustained? Thanks for the question.

11-11-2009, 11:03 AM	#7
SuperFemme Timed Out How Do You Identify?: Permanently Banned 10/24/2010 Preferred Pronoun?: She. Relationship Status: Married (one of 18,000) Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Atascadero, CA Posts: 4,933 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 2,309 Thanked 7,109 Times in 2,327 Posts Rep Power: 0	Linus, great thread. I recently watched Rachel Maddow speaking about why Fox is just a news organization. Thoughts? [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3LUid0IZ2w"]YouTube- Why Fox News isn't news[/ame]

11-11-2009, 02:24 PM	#8
girl_dee Practically Lives Here How Do You Identify?: Femme Preferred Pronoun?: dee Relationship Status: Hitched up Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Livin’ the Dream Posts: 24,079 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,560 Thanked 54,958 Times in 13,923 Posts Rep Power: 21474873	Great thread and I have thought about this so much. I am currently so annoyed at the coverage of the case of the 15 year old girl being ganged raped and beaten as others watched. On CNN they have replayed the interview of one eye witness who describes in detail what he saw ( and watched for 30 minutes) . Hasn't this girl been brutalized enough? Have they acquired her permission to KEEP talking about her attack? I doubt it! I would love to invent a station that would report on the good things and heroes in this world.. highlight teachers, nurses, firefighters etc.. The case with the boy in the balloon is another one.. its now a big joke. Are people forgetting there are kids here who were used by their parents and now this poor kid will go through life as the "Balloon Boy"...where is our compassion? Maybe no one would watch but as long as we focus over and over on the bad stuff we think that is all there is.

11-12-2009, 08:15 PM	#9
MsDemeanor Member How Do You Identify?: queer stone femme Relationship Status: Happily married to MisterMeanor, the man of my dreams Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: SF Bay Area Posts: 703 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 165 Thanked 1,851 Times in 511 Posts Rep Power: 2698179	When I grow up I want to be rich enough to create a news network that actually reports news. Faux is the media wing of the republican party, MSNBC is left wing politics in the evenings and entertainment-style news during the day, and CNN is pretty people reading twitter feeds on the air. While I do enjoy Ed, Rachel, and Keith on MSNBC, the daytime "news" feels like anything but.