34°Quick links: Boys ranch moves assets • GU basketball • WSU basketball • Kendall Yards plan • Swine flu
Cloudy. No chance of meatballs. So I have to speak with high school kids wiith an alleged interest in journalism. What advice should I give?
What else is on your mind today?
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2009, The Spokesman-Review
Chip Jones on October 22 at 11:31 a.m.
Advice: read a lot and in many subjects, do good work, write paragraphs with topic sentences.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 22 at 11:54 a.m.
When presented with a “report” documenting a “social problem” by a do-gooder group seeking grants, subsidies, regulations, and other forms of free lunches, do the math.
Flag as inappropriate
Cindy H on October 22 at 12:18 p.m.
Please, Gary, please. Do NOT attempt to rap your speech.
Do NOT say “Yo, dudes,” or “Whatever.”
Do NOT use the phrase “dead tree print” or the word “newspaper.”
Tell the kids your a blogger at Spokesman.com. Say blog and dot com, a lot.
When asked for your autograph, do NOT write Jess Walters.
And. Spit out your gum.
You're welcome.
Flag as inappropriate
Cindy H on October 22 at 12:20 p.m.
Oh. Sorry. Apparently, you wanted advice to give to the kids. Guess, I thought you needed it more :-)
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 22 at 2:40 p.m.
I kicked it old school. That just how I roll.
Flag as inappropriate
Chip Jones on October 22 at 2:50 p.m.
Two peas in a pod – you and Michael Steele.
Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 22 at 7:15 p.m.
This past weekend we saw Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and others made all the rounds on the morning talk shows … to declare war on Fox News. The president, on Monday past, held a very quiet (stealth) two hour meeting with Move.On, NBC, CBS, the largest newspapers, etc to “warn” them not to follow stories that are being broken at Fox.
So aren't there other issues that are more important to the American people they could be spending their time on? Say, Afghanistan (top General says we have one year to win this war and he needs 40,000 troops), the economy (hovering around 10% unemployment, even though the real figures including those who have given up looking and those who are underemployed, is 16 - 20% unemployment), health care, etc, etc.?
So what gives with this administration? Is Obama keeping his promises to “unify” the people? Is he keeping the promise to make government transparent? Is he keeping the promise to win the war against the jihadists in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
And why are the other news organizations continuing - under the threat of retaliation - caving in to the wishes of Obama?
I am curious what other people - including the media people on this blog - think about this administration declaring war on one news organization.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on October 22 at 9:07 p.m.
Couldn't be worse than the LAST administration declaring war on Dan Rather and CBS.
Flag as inappropriate
lewis on October 22 at 10:33 p.m.
What is this I hear about the city council telling Mayor Verner that we need more police accountability and independent investigation powers and Verner said she didn’t see that as a issue right now since they are in negotiating with guild about their contract.
Why do we have to pussy foot around the guild they have too damn much power. But Verner holds the checkbook. I think we need some strong negotiators on our side of the table and nail em down or don’t sign the contract. It is now or never. Make em sweat for a little while wont hurt them at all.
Our own new appointed ombudsman was reported as saying he didn’t think he needed independent investigative powers at this time. WHAT! He is an ex cop has he already became a member of the good ol boy club or what? I haven’t heard about anything he has done yet even though we had a drunk cop try to rearrange a ford pickup and didn’t even bother to stop to see if the lady inside was hurt. Hit and run I think it is called or in cops language damn I did it again.
Flag as inappropriate
nslopeofw on October 22 at 10:54 p.m.
I'm pretty sure Dan “i'd Rather make up the truth” Rather got caught with some blatant lies. He is the one who went to press before verifying his facts.
All the Bush crowd did was point that out. Had he checked his sources, before he (frothing at the mouth) attacked Bush, he could have kept his extremely left leaning job. But, in his fever to burn Bush, he was a bit hasty. Oppps, no more job.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on October 22 at 11:11 p.m.
Actually, Nslopeofw; the Bush crowd didn't point it out when the GW cult of personality went on the attack. There were always questions about GW's time in Air National Guard since GW first ran for the Presidency in 2000. What got these guys upset, was when Rather finally brought it into the public eye during the 2004 primary season. GW just got incensed that he could get questioned in this way by members of the news media where he hadn't been questioned like that before.
GW's ego was definitely on display.
Flag as inappropriate
lewis on October 23 at 9:46 a.m.
Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the department of energy…. during the carter administration?
Anybody? Anything? No? Didn’t think so!
Bottom line. We’ve spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency…the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember!
Ready?? It was very simple…and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.
The department of energy was instituted on 8-04-1977. To lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
Hey, pretty efficient, huh???
And now it's 2009 — 32 years later — and the budget for this “necessary” department is at $24.2 billion a year. They have 16,000 federal employees and approximately 100,000 contract employees; and look at the job they have done! This is where you slap your forehead and say, “what was I thinking?”
Ah, yes — good ole bureaucracy.
And, now, we are going to turn the banking system, health care, and the auto industry over to the same government? Hello! Anybody home?
Flag as inappropriate
Chip Jones on October 23 at 10:26 a.m.
and if Pres. Reagan had not rolled back many of the petroleum-saving measures of the Carter administration, we might have more to show for it.
Oh yeah, advice to young journalists, try to minimize the hyperbole. That’s just how we roll.
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 23 at 10:52 a.m.
At CBS, frothing and errors = job loss.
At Fox, it means you get a ratings boost and a raise.
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 23 at 10:54 a.m.
<<And why are the other news organizations continuing - under the threat of retaliation - caving in to the wishes of Obama? >>
And you know this how?
Flag as inappropriate
Chip Jones on October 23 at 11:30 a.m.
Well Gary, there you go again …
Where was the caterwauling when the Pres had dinner with George Will, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, and William Kristol?
Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 23 at 1:41 p.m.
Show the errors and frothing at Fox … by news people!!! Not commentators.
Watch this everyone … I can flush out Gary and he will demonstrate that he is more aligned to his leftist ideology than he is to his profession.
Gary, there is nothing “chilling” about an administration - like the current one - who attacks, tries to marginalize and declres it open season on a major news organization?
Why is it only a “chiilled wind” when it was Nixon or some other Republican? Can you answer that with honesty AND a straight face?
Flag as inappropriate
Chip Jones on October 23 at 2:19 p.m.
Richard, why is OK for “commentators” to spread erroneous information on something called a news channel?
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 23 at 2:40 p.m.
<<Watch this everyone … I can flush out Gary and he will demonstrate that he is more aligned to his leftist ideology than he is to his profession.>>
Has everyone gotten their popcorn yet?
<<Gary, there is nothing “chilling” about an administration - like the current one - who attacks, tries to marginalize and declres it open season on a major news organization? >>
Why would it be chilling? Has Fox chilled out? All administrations whine about some media outlet or another.
<<Why is it only a “chiilled wind” when it was Nixon or some other Republican? Can you answer that with honesty AND a straight face?>>
So Obama is now wiretapping the media and auditing taxes? Is someone plotting — a la Liddy_ to murder a journalist?
How about some sense of proportion in these silly comparisons?
What will the punishment be for these Fox folks? Or do you need to construct another hypothetical to prove the point?
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 23 at 3:06 p.m.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?…
“An email sent to Jim Romenesko's for posting on the message board of the journalism training center, The Poynter Institute, by former Fox News producer Charlie Reina, described the Fox newsroom as being permeated by bias:
“The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it.
“The Memo was born with the Bush administration, early in 2001, and, intentionally or not, has ensured that the administration's point of view consistently comes across on FNC. This year, of course, the war in Iraq became a constant subject of The Memo. But along with the obvious - information on who is where and what they'll be covering - there have been subtle hints as to the tone of the anchors' copy.
“For instance, from the March 20th memo: “There is something utterly incomprehensible about Kofi Annan's remarks in which he allows that his thoughts are 'with the Iraqi people'. One could ask where those thoughts were during the 23 years Saddam Hussein was brutalizing those same Iraqis. Food for thought.” Can there be any doubt that the memo was offering not only “food for thought”, but a direction for the FNC writers and anchors to go? Especially after describing the U.N. Secretary General's remarks as “utterly incomprehensible”?
“The sad truth is, such subtlety is often all it takes to send Fox's newsroom personnel into action - or inaction, as the case may be. One day this past spring, just after the U.S. invaded Iraq, The Memo warned us that anti-war protesters would be 'whining' about U.S. bombs killing Iraqi civilians, and suggested they could tell that to the families of American soldiers dying there. Editing copy that morning, I was not surprised when an eager young producer killed a correspondent's report on the day's fighting - simply because it included a brief shot of children in an Iraqi hospital.
“These are not isolated incidents at Fox News Channel, where virtually no one of authority in the newsroom makes a move unmeasured against management's politics, actual or perceived. At the Fair and Balanced network, everyone knows management's point of view, and, in case they're not sure how to get it on air, The Memo is there to remind them. [5]
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 23 at 3:06 p.m.
Cont'd:
“In a subsequent interview with Tim Greive at Salon, Reina expanded on his brief initial note to Romenesko and explained how the bias of Fox management permeated the newsroom.
“Asked for further examples, Reina described a story he worked on. “It was, I would say, about three years ago. I was assigned to do a special on the environment, some issue involving pollution. When my boss and I talked as to what this thing was all about, what they were looking for, he said to me: 'You understand, you know, it's not going to come out the pro-environmental side.' And I said, 'It will come out however it comes out.' And he said, 'You can obviously give both sides, but just make sure that the pro-environmentalists don't get the last word,' he said.” Reina declined to do the story.
“Pressed for further examples, he told Grieve of one affecting coverage of the Middle East. “I'll give you another example from that memo. When the Palestinian suicide bombings started last year, shortly after they started, one of the memos came down and suggested, 'Wouldn't it be better if we used 'homicide bombing' because the word 'suicide' puts the focus on and memorializes the perpetrator rather than the victims?' OK, never mind the fact that any bombing that kills is a homicide bombing. What would you call a suicide bombing where the perpetrator isn't killed? An intended suicidal homicide bombing? It got ridiculous. It may be ridiculous, but if you watch Fox now, you'll frequently hear suicide bombings described as 'homicide bombings,' right? ,” he said.
“I'll tell you, it's interesting. On that same day [that Fox management distributed a memo suggesting suicide bombings be called 'homicide bombings'], the White House had made the same suggestion — well, the Bush administration, whether it was the White House or the Pentagon or whatever. That's the background to it. By the next day, enough people [at Fox] were saying, 'What about this?' So the next day's memo kind of reluctantly said, 'Well, you could use either one.' But by then, everyone — and again, we're talking about young people who don't have any perspective on this; all they know is that you do what they're told — they know what management's feeling about this is. So … it's 'homicide bombings.' And that's the beginnings of a new P.C,” he said.[6]
“Matt Gross, who left Fox News in March 2001 after working as a web journalist and editor, wrote to Romenesko about Reina's note:
” Let me just say that the right-wing bias was there in the newsroom, up-front and obvious, from the day a certain executive editor was sent down from the channel to bring us in line with their coverage. His first directive to us: Seek out stories that cater to angry, middle-aged white men who listen to talk radio and yell at their televisions. (Oh, how I'd love to stick quotation marks around what is nearly a direct quote.)
“To me, FNC reporters' laziness was the worst part of the bias. It wasn't that they were toeing some political line (though of course they were; see the embarrassing series on property rights from 2000), it was that the facts of a story just didn't matter at all. The idea was to get those viewers out of their seats, screaming at the TV, the politicians, the liberals — whoever — simply by running a provocative story,” he wrote in October 2003. [7]
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 23 at 3:08 p.m.
<<Show the errors and frothing at Fox … by news people!!!>>
They have reporters? What is the category for Fox & Friends? They peddled the Obama-attended-a-Madrassa story.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 23 at 4:40 p.m.
Gary Crooks wrote,
“They have reporters? What is the category for Fox & Friends? They peddled the Obama-attended-a-Madrassa story.”
Well, the S-R peddled the “Cost of living higher in state’s poor neighborhoods” story.
Flag as inappropriate
Chip Jones on October 23 at 5:04 p.m.
Do you have evidence that the cost of living is the same or lower in poor neighborhoods? If so, give us those sources.
Over the last decade or more I have seen several studies indicating that lower income people pay more (but I will need to track those sources down). The poor pay check cashing fees, prices are higher in small neighborhood stores for poor quality foods and they don’t have transportation to large supermarkets, interest rates are higher on loans, they don’t have the cash-on-hand to get cash discounts on many services. I'm not sure what your point is gm.
Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 23 at 5:21 p.m.
Chip asked: “Why is ok for “commentators” to spread erroneous information … “
There are a couple of ways I can respond. First, show me your proof. Give me an example of “erroneous” information from Fox.
Secondly, have you ever listened to MSNBC (of course you have) and there is no erroneous information from them?
You come from a very narrow viewpoint, I have noticed, and you consider anything that you don’t “favor” as “erroneous.” I have seen you express the typical progressive/liberal viewpoint that there really are not at least two sides to every story; but that there is the “correct” version - your version and that of the liberal/progressive world view. Everything else is invalid!
I can tell you right now that I have viewed the world both in very liberal and progressive ways and in very conservative/ libertarian ways. I believe most are to be “valid” views, though I see certain viewpoints to be more credible, more pragmatic, and some more in keeping with the constitution and the founding of this nation. Some are alien to my values, so I reject them. But I do not claim them to be invalid.
I watch MSNBC and I watch some of Fox. Two very different perspectives; in some ways, mirror images. I agree more often with things I hear on Fox because I more closely share its perspective. I reject some of the premises one must have to entertain the notions offered by Olberman.
Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 23 at 5:42 p.m.
Gary … all you ever do is scour the internet to find something, anything to defend your narrow views. Anyone can do that on any subject.
What do you think of an administratoion that blocks a major news organization from the pool of news outlets to interview the “pay czar?”
(By the way, I can pull from theinterview many and varied similar condemnations of all kinds of other news sources being full of liberal bias - so that doesn't impress me at all. I bet I could, if I had the right sources, find former reporters, editors, etc who would say SR has a culture of liberalism. Big deal.)
Even CNN, PBS, ABC, NBC and CBS told Obama to go to hell, they were not going to interview the “pay czar” if he (Obama) was going to try to limit the freedom of press in this nation.
Shades of Hugo Chavez. I recall very vividly, Doug Floyd commenting on how “chilling” it was for Rumsfeld to criticize media for its condemnations of the US military in some of its actions.
He got a “chill” down his spine, he said. I haven't heard him express anything like that from any of the long line of abuses from Obama and his gang.
Why is that?
Answer: Because SR, like nearly every major newspaper in this country is so in the tank for Obama, they refuse to take off their blinkers and criticise him when it is justified.
Now is one of those times. If the majors can finally have the balls to tell Rahm Emanuel to go do something to himself which is physically impossible to do, i would think someone at the SR could at least follow the leader and also stick up for fellow journalists - - - even if their flavor of kool-aid differs from yours,
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 23 at 8:22 p.m.
Chip Jones wrote,
“Do you have evidence that the cost of living is the same or lower in poor neighborhoods? If so, give us those sources.”
Er, I didn't make that claim, Chip. The burden of proof rests with he who holds the affirmative.
See:
http://www.freespokane.net/?p=210
Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on October 24 at 6:09 a.m.
gmorton,
You are correct. The proponent has the initial burden of proof. But I've taken a look at that underlying Brookings Institute paper and there is significantly more to it than justifies your brusque, out-of-hand dismissal.
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2007/…
Now it's certainly true that *some* of the research is dated and some of it might be… well, let's call it 'debate-able' in that some of it calls for inferences to be drawn. But there's more than enough foundation laid for those inferences to be at least arguable.
That being so, now the burden of proof does shift to those who would dispute the inferences and argue for drawing different ones. And it's a burden that must be met with significantly more than, 'Pish tosh and twaddle! Lies, lies damnable lies!'
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on October 24 at 7:46 a.m.
“Richard” leaves out a few things that “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” happens to inform us; Fox News that literally has its commentators out cheerleading “TEA party” activists. If you are going to personally get involved with a screw ball political movement, you aren't a news channel no matter what you claim.
I watched Mark Shields and David Brooks on this last night, and I have to disagree with Mr. Shields completely that Obama had no right to snub Fox News if he chose or that it ought to be regarded as childish. What “Richard” doesn't consider is all the “left wing bias” he complains about concerning such news shows as NBC and etc.; remarkable that those “liberally biased” news sources would “stick up” for Fox News. On the other hand, who among the same news media were prepared to “stick up” for Dan Rather when GW finally got him personally driven out of a job on CBS? Or whom among the news media were prepared to “stick up” for any journalist or reporter that GW personally decided wouldn't be included in the Press pool? They didn't. Sorry “Richard,” the news media isn't in the tank for Obama.
As for Mr. Krauthammer's latest rants, Fox isn't hurt any by the White House “official snub.” But when he decides to smear a communications director with a “Mao speech…” Excuse me Krauthammer, but I have seen a lot of little red book toting among self-proclaimed “conservative/libertarians.” If you aren't in 100% agreement with me then you are against the country and the people. There is more Maoist style arguments among the GOP now than can be considered factual in the current Obama administration. Where it stands at less than 1%. One communication director.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 24 at 11:59 a.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“But there's more than enough foundation laid for those inferences to be at least arguable.”
No, Jeffrey. The present authors are making claims about current conditions in Washington State, and asserting that they have conducted a “study” which supports those claims. And they have done no such thing. There is no statistically valid sample, no control group, no quantification of alleged cost differences, and no regression of possible causal factors. I.e., there was no “study,” in the scientific sense of the word.
I have no doubt, however, that the poor pay more for some goods, for reasons that are fairly obvious. They probably pay higher interest rates for mortgages, for example, because they have poor credit histories and spotty employment records.
A real study would attempt to quantify those differences and perform a regression analysis to correlate the differences with underlying causes. In most cases those causes would (I suspect) be factors related to the consumer's personal history and lifestyle choices – the same factors which account for most poverty in the first place.
Flag as inappropriate
Chip Jones on October 24 at 12:33 p.m.
gmorton, you claim the story is not correct. So you have an equal burden of proof. Anything less is makes your statements unverified opinion without merit.
Richard, Glenn Beck said Pres. Obama was a racist. That is a lie.
Glenn Beck recently said that the ongoing promotion of volunteering in America is a communist plot by the Obama administration. That is a lie.
Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on October 24 at 12:47 p.m.
–— … there was no “study,” in the scientific sense of the word. –—
So you just dismiss the Brookings Institute white paper out of hand, along with its citations of authority? As I said above, I can see the potential for some discussion regarding both its data and its conclusions.
But there's than enough to it that just ignoring it won't do.
–— In most cases those causes would (I suspect) be factors related to the consumer's personal history and lifestyle choices – the same factors which account for most poverty in the first place. –—
That's possible. But I believe we agreed a while ago that the proponent bears the burden of proof. Your proof for the above would be…?
And why does this suggested life-style choice result in a higher cost for groceries, for example? Why would (should) such a life-style choice necessarily lead to a higher cost - both in terms of money and time - of doing your laundry? (If you can't afford a washer and dryer of your own, you tote your laundry down to the laundromat and then lose a couple of hours of otherwise unproductive time, feeding the laundromat's washer and dryer with several dollars worth of quarters.)
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 24 at 1:05 p.m.
Chip Jones wrote,
“gmorton, you claim the story is not correct. So you have an equal burden of proof. Anything less is makes your statements unverified opinion without merit.”
The *story* was incorrect insofar as it portrayed the *report* as being a scientific study. If you read the report, you will see that it is not. (I assume you know how scientific studies are done).
I made no claim about the conclusions of the report *per se*. Only that the report supplied no evidence to support them.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 24 at 1:15 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“That's possible. But I believe we agreed a while ago that the proponent bears the burden of proof. Your proof for the above would be…?”
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba428/
“And why does this suggested life-style choice result in a higher cost for groceries, for example?”
The SPAN “report” provided no evidence that the poor pay more for groceries. It just assumes that they do. Nor does it do any analysis of the reasons they pay more, if they do. It just assumes certain reasons. Anecdotes and assumptions are not evidence.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 24 at 1:30 p.m.
Jeffrey,
It is quite possible that the poor pay more for groceries. But you first have to establish that, by comparing the food expenditures of a sample group of the poor with a control group of the non-poor. Then you have to establish that the poor are buying the *same things* as the non-poor (the “study” claimed that the poor pay more for the same things). That conclusion would not hold up, for instance, if the poor pay more for groceries because they are buying more prepared foods – Stauffer's dinners, deli meals, etc. – because they don't wish to cook. Or because they buy from nearby convenience stores, rather than walk 6 blocks to the supermarket.
Then you have to identify all the possible reasons they pay more, if they do, and see which are actually operative, via a regression analysis.
Flag as inappropriate
Chip Jones on October 24 at 1:48 p.m.
The report did not present the raw data, you are correct, gm. But that, ipso facto, does not mean the report was in error. Is there a more detailed report and is the raw data available? Did you call the listed number for additional information?
The summary stated that the data were from respondent surveys. I agree that that is not the best way to produce robust data, but that does not make it wrong. Respondent survey studies are an accepted social scientific method. Are you familiar with the wide range of accepted scientific methods in the social sciences? Your comment suggests that you are not. The link you provided with a critique clearly is just an agenda-driven web site, hardly a very authoritative source.
You argue that publication of a story about this survey in the Spokesman is evidence of media bias and represents publication of inaccurate information. As Jeffrey_Grey has been so kind to point out, the conclusions of the study are in line with other similar studies. The Spokesman story contained qualifying phrases such as :”according to the report.” Release of such a report is news, and the Spokesman reported the news. You just don’t like the report, fine. Hardly evidence of media bias, though much evidence of your biases.
Flag as inappropriate
Chip Jones on October 24 at 1:54 p.m.
AD, good points – below is a story from the Christian Science Monitor about Anita Dunn. I find it hard to get hysterical about one line, taken out of context, and twisted by Beck for his own agenda. Fox Noise started a “war” (to use their term), and now they get all whiny and hysterical when the White House responds.
The story:
Washington
“White House Communications Director Anita Dunn set the political world on fire with her comment on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” Oct. 11 that Fox News was “a wing of the Republican Party,” adding “let’s not pretend they’re a news organization like CNN is.”
Fox commentator Glenn Beck mounted a counterattack, going after Ms. Dunn for a statement she made in a speech to a private school in suburban Maryland, quoting Mao Zedong and calling him one of her “favorite political philosophers.”
Mr. Beck’s response: “It’s insanity. This is her hero’s work. She thinks of this man’s work all the time? It would be like me saying to you, ‘You know who my favorite political philosopher is? Adolf Hitler.”
Dunn countered that her line about Mao “was intended as irony,” and that she got the Mao quote from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater. A certain Fox commentator’s “sense of irony may be missing,” she quipped.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 24 at 2:32 p.m.
Chip Jones wrote,
“Respondent survey studies are an accepted social scientific method.”
Yes, when the responses are obtained from a statistically valid sample and compared with those from a control group, and when the validity (the phrasing, framing, and significance) of the questions are field tested before the survey is taken.
“Are you familiar with the wide range of accepted scientific methods in the social sciences?”
Very much so. The methodology (if you want to call it that) of this “study” is not among them.
“The link you provided with a critique clearly is just an agenda-driven web site, hardly a very authoritative source.”
The web site was not the source. The Census Bureau and the OECD were.
Flag as inappropriate
DavidBray on October 24 at 9:38 p.m.
As I read this blog I have to wonder at the point of it…or the purpose. Those who support the left can find other articles or evidence to back them up and those who support the right can find equal evidence to back up their position. I doubt either side has the motivation or the objectivity to search for, or submit, any truths they may discover and show proof of it.
The media has a reputation for leaning way to the left and whether it's true or not, it seems to be the case. That alone has cost the media, and especially the newspapers, a considerable measure of credibility (it's not just the internet that's killing newspaper circulations). Yet as the mainstream media continues to decline, they continue to walk with blinders on; often changing formats but very rarely addressing content, be it the written word or the spoken.Thousands of journalists have been laid off and college Journalism classes are going the way of Latin classes, one is a dead language and the other may well soon be.
I find this to be a sad situation, that a media branch would pursue it's own agenda regardless of the adverse contribution to it's own demise.
Kind of Spartan-like in my opinion, except lacking a “glorious death” when it finally comes. I wonder if this as drastic a situation worldwide or if the U.S. is leading the planet in the funeral of the newspaper industry….. If the latter is true there might be some help in a little research; if not….. a sad day is coming.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 24 at 11:03 p.m.
Newspapers cannot survive as “mainstream” media. They have to abandon the mass market and focus on the literate customer seeking depth. They have to deliver a product those readers will be willing to pay for. The WSJ targets that readership, and is doing fine.
Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 25 at 7:25 p.m.
Chip - Beck offered his opinion of Obama … and you retort that it is a lie! How is an opinion about a set of political viewpoints and policies a lie? By definition, it is an opinion. I suspect it is a “lie” because you don't share Beck's view. And that iseems to be more and more a prevelant stance of Obama supporters because they are so incredulous that there are people who did not believe in the “magic” or the hype that is Barack Obama. But that is only my opinion.
You have your blinders on to “see” nothing of the continuous leftward lean of media, and that is fine. But your protests that there is no evidence fails the laugh test.
When 70 to 80% of Americans share the same view of US media they are all viewing and reading, you come dangerously close to looking follish. What would be the motive for 8 out of 10 Americans - who rarely agree on anything to that magnitude - to “make it up” that they see a pronounced bias?
That figure has to include a large number of liberals and Democrats and independents, so why would they acknowledge something that is “false,” and which contradicts their best interests?
There is no rational reason.
It is easy to view the CBS Evening News - or ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS - and be “content” that they are offering a fair and balanced view of the events in the world. We watch what we agree with; would you accept that? So why are network news shows going the way of the hula hoop while Fox -being the newest to the business - have such a growing audience?
Now it could be that all those people have succumed to some kind of mass “hypnosis,” or it could be that more and more Americans are coming to the conclusion that Fox is the ONLY news network that offers an alternative to the day-in-and-day-out sameness (liberal slant) of all the others.
I have always been amused by those who single out Fox and call it a “right-wing” biased network, and then fail to see the logic of their pronouncements.
Compared to what? That is the relevant question. And they fail to even notice that the obvious answer is … all of the rest of major media, which they view as centrist - but which is liberal/progressive, and which coincides with their worldview.
I acknowledge Fox commentators offer conservative views and the news people sometimes demonstrate their conservative worldview. I suspect you and most of those who “fail” to see the bias in all other news outlets do so because they “agree” with the news they get on those programs … when compared to Fox.
Thus, logically speaking, Fox is the only network which is a counter balance to the rest and why inflamed liberals show their contempt for Fox, and Fox only.
Plus, there are many studies which reveal liberal bias; but which liberals always reject for some nebulous reason, be it a rejection of who performed the study (Pew Research?), or saying it is not “scientific” enough (UCLA) to suit their highly attunded sensitivities.
Balderdash! When there are both studies, and huge margins of public opinion, it looks awfully silly for those to continue to deny, deny, deny - especially those in media!
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 26 at 10:05 a.m.
<<Gary … all you ever do is scour the internet to find something, anything to defend your narrow views. Anyone can do that on any subject. >>
As opposed to just making stuff up? Richard, all you do is twist every event into another episode of “As the Media Bias Turns.”
Anybody could do that.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on October 26 at 10:28 a.m.
And of course, following “Richard's logic,” Fox News Channel is a news channel because “Richard” completely agrees with it.
Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 26 at 1:00 p.m.
I guess no one can really offer anything substantive to challenge my last posting, as evidenced by the two postings above… except to try to marginalize me personally … or to merely run and hide.
But I know that it is becoming increasingly difficult since January 20th to continue the charade that mainstream media is fair and balanced. and some people are just “die hard” believers, and no amount of evidence could dispel what they are “committed” to believing.
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 26 at 3:55 p.m.
The important thing is this is not an obsession for you.
There is nothing substantive in your post, Richard. It's the same daily diatribe in a different dress.
Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 26 at 6:59 p.m.
It could come up and smack you in the face (which it really is doing, only in more subtle ways - but that is another story) and you would stand by your position that media does not tilt to the left. And that is fine; you are expected to defend your profession.
I am assumming that beyond your views of media, you are principled in that reporting of news must offer a balanced and fair presentation. I believe that you are a fair person, so we are really on the same side.
i would vastly enjoy waking up tomorrow to see a vibrant, growing media which dogged ALL government officials and poilicies and legislation, in the search for truth. I just don't believe we have that anymore … if indeed, we ever did have that.
Flag as inappropriate
spokelooneh on October 26 at 7:54 p.m.
Fox has no burden to tell the truth (same as the rest of the news media) and Fox actually went to court (and won) to protect their (and all news media ) “right” to publish news reports THEY KNOW to be false and/or misleading.
“The CeaseSPIN headline gets right to the point: “Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling.”
Here’s the rundown: On August 18, 2000, journalist Jane Akre won $425,000 in a court ruling where she charged she was pressured by Fox News management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.
The real information: she found out cows in Florida were being injected with RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce milk – and, according to FDA-redacted studies, unintentionally designed to make human beings produce cancer.
Fox lawyers, under pressure by the Monsanto Corporation (who produced RBGH), rewrote her report over 80 times to make it compatible with the company’s requests. She and her husband, journalist Steve Wilson, refused to air the edited segment.
In February 2003, Fox appealed the decision and an appellate court and had it overturned. Fox lawyers argued it was their first amendment right to report false information. In a six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals decided the FCC’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a “law, rule, or regulation.””
http://www.philly2philly.com/politics…
Not surprisingly, there was virtually no “mainstream media” coverage of this decision.
The supposedly ultra liberal NY Times REPORTER, not columnist, Judith Miller, notoriously reported WMD “facts” in the lead up to the 2003 invasion, facts she obtained from the utterly discredited serial liar Ahmad Chalabi, for which the Times had to (eventually) apologize for.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on October 28 at 9:22 a.m.
Of course not, Spokelooneh. After all, the news media will stick up for one another when the new administration is Dem run and every man can hang for himself when the administration is Republican.
So, can I remind you about that ruling concerning Fox News and their pro-industry bias even when it causes health risks? Wonder, just how many Fox News Channel fans over in Florida will now die of cancer because of RBGH injected into cows?
Guess there is one more reason why I don't drink a lot of milk.
Flag as inappropriate