The Media Bias/Incompetence Thread

[Alan]

*sigh*

A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other.

A conflict of interest can only exist if a person or testimony is entrusted with some impartiality; a modicum of trust is necessary to create it. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs.

modicum:

a small or moderate or token amount

So you're saying nobody thinks CNN has a modicum of impartiality???

Why do we have the media then? Why have the journalist code of ethics?

So all the ingredients are there for a conflict of interest.

1. involved in multiple interests,

Reporting on policy and playing a role formulating policy.

2. one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other

Naturally policies you've taken part in formulating will corrupt your reporting on that policy

3. A conflict of interest can only exist if a person or testimony is entrusted with some impartiality a modicum of trust is necessary to create it.

There is a modicum of trust in the press, in this case the CNN anchor to be at least somewhat impartial.

That is not to say they are totally impartial. It's not black and white as you seem to believe


So for it not to be a conflict of interest. Fareed Zakaria would have to identify himself as a WH adviser but he does not he is a journalist hence there is a modicum of trust that he will have some degree, no matter how minimal, of impartiality.

Journalists everywhere are constantly being faced with moral and ethical issues. One of these issues is conflict of interest.

Conflicts of interest come up all of the time, and some might argue, that as a journalist, you are always being faced with one. So what do journalists to do to avoid getting into these situations?

According to George Daniels, journalism professor at the University of Alabama your first step, if conflicted, should be to recognize the issue.

“Many times people don’t even realize they are being unethical,�? Daniels said.

The next step, is to consult with your editor or supervisor and let them know how you’re feeling. Sometimes editors might not agree and then you find yourself deciding between your ethics and your supervisor’s.

Daniels says journalists have three loyalties: Loyalty to the profession, to the job your in, and to your supervisor.

“You should ask yourself is this story worth it? Is my job more important? Is this a battle I need to be fighting?�? Daniels said.

“Sometimes it better to compromise not your ethics, but how you address the issue. Find a way to be objective,�? he said.

According to the Anti-Corruption Resource Center Web site: “A conflict of interest arises when an individual with a formal responsibility to serve the public participates in an activity that jeopardizes his or her professional judgment, objectivity and independence. Often this activity primarily serves personal interests and can potentially influence the objective exercise of the individual's official duties.�?

News organizations sometimes have a code of ethics, which formally states to employees what is considered ethically and morally OK. What if your own personal ethical code goes against that of the newspaper’s though?

The New York Times, in its company policy in ethics and journalism addresses conflicts of interest in a section titled “On Our Own Time.�? The section goes in-depth into possible issues that journalists might face regarding conflict of interest.

Seems even professors in Journalism think a conflict of interest can arise in journalism. :erm:

 

[porchrat]

modicum:

a small or moderate or token amount

So you're saying nobody thinks CNN has a modicum of impartiality???

No they don't. You yourself have said you don't expect journalists to be impartial. Have you now changed your mind?

Why do we have the media then? Why have the journalist code of ethics?

Because this is what we WANT journalists to be. It doesn't mean it is what they actually HAVE to be.

So all the ingredients are there for a conflict of interest.

Not even close no.

1. involved in multiple interests,


Reporting on policy and playing a role formulating policy.

Yup.

2. one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other

Naturally policies you've taken part in formulating will corrupt your reporting on that policy

Yup agreed on this too.

3. A conflict of interest can only exist if a person or testimony is entrusted with some impartiality a modicum of trust is necessary to create it.

There is a modicum of trust in the press, in this case the CNN anchor to be at least somewhat impartial.

No journalists aren't expected to be impartial. You yourself have said this. We all know journalists can be biased. A journalist that isn't impartial can't suddenly not do the job of being a journalist. Unlike a judge.

That is not to say they are totally impartial. It's not black and white as you seem to believe

No someone is either expected to be impartial or they aren't. They are either impartial or they aren't. You can't be "sort of" impartial. There is no grey area here.

So for it not to be a conflict of interest. Fareed Zakaria would have to identify himself as a WH adviser but he does not he is a journalist hence there is a modicum of trust that he will have some degree, no matter how minimal, of impartiality.

Not unless we expect him to be impartial. Which we don't. We realise that journalists aren't impartial and that they don't need to be impartial to do their jobs. It would be ideal if they were impartial but it is not expected. You yourself have said you don't expect your journalists to be impartial. Now you're saying you trust them to be impartial? Do you even read what you type?

EDIT: You're entitled to your opinions though. No matter how contradictory they may be.

 

[Alan]

lol amusing nobody on the planet has a modicum of trust that Fareed Zakaria is impartial hence there can't be a conflict of interest.

Lets scrap journalism and the "free independent press". They have no obligation or expectation of even .001% impartiality. Tear up the code of ethics and chuck it in the bin.

Hey if you don't expect a journalist to be impartial at all he's free to dream up the most ludicrous fairy tales completely devoid of reality.


Anyway here in the real world we accept that journalists as humans, like judges by the way, can't be not 100% impartial but as professional journalists we expect them to try to be. That's what separates them from propagandists . When they flagrantly fail to strive for impartiality like in Zakaria's case it is a conflict of interest between reporting and advocacy.

Go google "Journalism conflict of interest" where you'll find far more qualified individuals than yourself clearly identifying 'conflicts of interest' in journalism contrary to your claims that there can't be.

But we agree to disagree

 

[Fazda]

Alan, you are bloody amazing. You create a thread for your own personal little rant against CNN or any other News Channel that doesn't fit into your blinkered view. Then you rant about their journalists not being one step better than Jesus Christ.

Why are we not getting daily snippets from Fox? Surely Fox's journalists don't all walk on water...?

Do you have any mirrors at home?

 

[Alan]

liberal media continues to try spin the tornado outbreak as the result of "global warming" sorry "climate change" and failing....

First it was NBC, then ABC and now it's MSNBC's turn

MSNBC
News Nation
May 23, 2011

2:34 p.m. EDT

TAMRON HALL: What about climate change? You have many people who see these severe storms, and not just the tornados, but the strength of hurricanes and even severe storms, we're getting hail and high winds right now from Texas, I believe, all the way through the Midwest. Is this a result of climate change or an effect of climate change?

Dr. HOWARD BLUESTEIN, University of Oklahoma: Well I can't speak for hurricanes, but for tornadoes and supercells, I don't think we can prove whether or not the occurrence of all these bad events this year are due to global warming whatsoever. They could be simply due to natural variability. After all, when you think back to some of the other historic events, like April 30 1974, the tornadoes in Missouri in 1953, the tri-state tornadoes back in 1925. If you through the records, you'll see that every 20, 30, 40 years there are these tremendous widespread outbreaks and some of them occurred long before we were talking about global warming.

HALL: Alright, Dr. Howard Bluestein, of the University of Oklahoma, where they certainly see their share of tornadoes in that state. Thank you so much, sir.

:erm:

 

[Fazda]

liberal media continues to try spin the tornado outbreak as the result of "global warming" sorry "climate change" and failing....

First it was NBC, then ABC and now it's MSNBC's turn



:erm:

Sure thing Alan, and you are the only chop who is noticing it.

 

[w1z4rd]

Fox’s Media Bias and Climate Change

We already know that Fox News viewers are much more likely to be misinformed about the science of climate change. Now, a new study from Media Matters (h/t Kate Sheppard) provides some numbers about the kind of biased coverage that produces this type of result.
Media Matters didn’t look directly at scientific statements–instead they looked at the number of guests, across TV news, who were either for or against EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. Still, presuming that the anti-regulation guests also made misleading scientific statements (no big assumption, given the way this debate tends to go), the result is closely related. And even if they did not, the strong bias with respect to policy vies hints at the likely bias with respect to science:
Media Matters analyzed television news guests who discussed the Environmental Protection Agency’s role in regulating greenhouse gas emissions from December 2009 through April 2011. Driven largely by Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network, results show that in 76 percent of those appearances, the guest was opposed to EPA regulations while 18 percent were in favor.
Drilling down on Fox in particular:
81% Of Fox Guests And 83% of Fox Business Guests Opposed GHG Regulation. Fox News hosted 52 guests who criticized the EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases. In that same period they featured only 10 supporters and two guests who took a neutral stance. Fox Business hosted opponents 65 times, compared to seven appearances by supporters. MSNBC hosted four times more supporters of EPA’s action than opponents, but had far fewer guests commenting on the issue than did Fox.
Fox swayed the total so much because the other channels studied were less likely to feature opinionated guests.
Full study here.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/06/07/foxs-media-bias-and-climate-change/

Original study:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201106070010

 

[Hard Rain]

Two fallacies from the above: firstly, appealing to authority (be it pro or anti) is an instant logical fallacy and, secondly, why would opposing EPA "regulation" of greenhouse gases necessarily equate the dissenter as a skeptic of anthropogenic climate change? It is possible that there are global warming advocates who do not believe the EPA or other cockamamie government schemes would "help" with their cause in any meaningful way.

This "study" is more like a partisan hatchet job, if I may be so bold; twisting logic to meet a predetermined conclusion: "Fox News is anti-science and doesn't care about the environment". Of course, we'll just ignore the fact that this is based on Fox's guests whom, I am assuming, speak for themselves only.

 

[Alan]

NBC continues to get ripped for twice editing out the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance during its Sunday coverage of Rory McIlroy's U.S. Open victory at Congressional Country Club outside Washington D.C.

CNN anchor Jack Cafferty called on NBC to fire the "morons" who took it upon themselves to edit tape of school age children reciting the Pledge.

"When your political correctness starts getting up my nose, that's wrong," declared Cafferty on Monday.

CNN anchor Wolf Biltzer agreed, saying NBC committed a "major blunder."

With some tweeters calling for a boycott of NBC, announcer Dan Hicks apologized Sunday for editing out a "portion" of the Pledge.

But Hicks' on-air mea culpa didn't stop critics. So NBC issued a second apology Monday.

"We are aware of the distress this has caused many of our viewers and are taking the issue very seriously. Unfortunately, when producing the piece –- which was intended to capitalize on the patriotism of having our national championship played in our nation's capital –- a decision was made by a small group of people to edit portions of the Pledge of Allegiance. This was a bad decision.," it reads.

"As soon as management became aware of this decision and the controversy it justifiably created, it immediately took steps to correct it resulting in an on-air apology provided by NBC Sports' lead golf commentator Dan Hicks. It was not the intent of NBC to upset anyone and we sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended."

NBC spokesman Adam Freifeld wouldn't say who the "small group" was or if anybody would be fired. Here's video of Cafferty going off on NBC:

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...m-pledge-jack-cafferty-us-open-rory-mcilroy/1

Eish so blatantly stupid even CNN are labelling them morons

 

[w1z4rd]

Two fallacies from the above: firstly, appealing to authority (be it pro or anti) is an instant logical fallacy and, secondly, why would opposing EPA "regulation" of greenhouse gases necessarily equate the dissenter as a skeptic of anthropogenic climate change? It is possible that there are global warming advocates who do not believe the EPA or other cockamamie government schemes would "help" with their cause in any meaningful way.

This "study" is more like a partisan hatchet job, if I may be so bold; twisting logic to meet a predetermined conclusion: "Fox News is anti-science and doesn't care about the environment". Of course, we'll just ignore the fact that this is based on Fox's guests whom, I am assuming, speak for themselves only.

When complaining about another logical fallacies its best not to look like a hypocrite and interject an Ad hominen logical fallacy as your "point".

Your words carry less weight than their research since all you do is try rubbish their name without backing it up with an iota of subsentence. I can see why you would wanna defend Fox News (known internationally as being more dishonest than even Russia Today).

 

[Alan]

So this Jon Stewart muppet goes on FOX news and gets caught out lying through his teeth. How Ironic.

Is Jon Stewart Correct that Fox News Viewers Are "the most consistently misinformed media viewers"?

No, says Politifact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning site that checks statements by pols, media folks, and whatnot (note: Politifact is itself sometimes as full of **** as Daily Show Stewart is this time around).

On June 19, Stewart appeared on Fox News and socratized anchor Chris Wallace thusly:

"Who are the most consistently misinformed media viewers?" Stewart asked Wallace. "The most consistently misinformed? Fox, Fox viewers, consistently, every poll."

Yet, Politifact notes that in a 2007 Pew study of political knowledge, viewers of Fox scored 35 percent, a "score [that] places it exactly at the national average." A 2008 version of the study found overall Fox viewers around the national average for other news outlets. But then there's this:

...particular Fox shows scored well above the average. Hannity & Colmes was one of only four choices to exceed 40 percent -- the others were the New Yorker/the Atlantic, NPR and MSNBC’s Hardball -- while The O’Reilly Factor scored 28 percent, or 10 points above the national average. (Hannity & Colmes even exceeded Stewart’s Daily Show in this poll, 42 percent to 30 percent.)

In all, this poll undercuts Stewart’s position even more than the 2007 poll did.

And in 2010, Fox viewers again hit the national average but

Fox actually scored better than its two direct cable-news rivals -- MSNBC, which is a liberal counterpoint to Fox, and CNN, which is considered more middle-of-the-road. Also scoring lower than Fox were local television news, the evening network news shows and the network morning shows.

And for the third time, particular Fox shows scored well. Hannity ranked fifth (just ahead of MSNBC’s liberal shows hosted by Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow) and O’Reilly ranked ninth. For the first time, Pew included Glenn Beck in its rankings, and the Fox host finished 12th -- slightly ahead of Stewart’s own Daily Show.

How about that? Glenn Beck viewers more informed than Daily Show watchers? Hannity zombies sharper than Olbermann and Maddow drones? What a world of wonders! As the great band The Godfathers once put it: Things ain't what they seem to be/Cary Grant's on LSD. Mmm, LSD...

http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/21/is-jon-stewart-correct-that-fo

Own goals FTW

 

[Palimino]

You can't be "sort of" impartial. There is no grey area here.

That’s like being ‘sort of’ pregnant. You are or you aren’t.

 

[w1z4rd]

So this Jon Stewart muppet goes on FOX news and gets caught out lying through his teeth. How Ironic.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/21/is-jon-stewart-correct-that-fo

Own goals FTW

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-june-21-2011-cameron-diaz (watch the video if you can afford it Alan)

This is covered in his latest episode.

This is why a liberal will always have more character than a conservative. Jon addresses `s the issue, apologizes for being misinformed and talks about integrity. He then goes on to show the many many times that Politifact have shown that Fox has blatantly lied (there are so many examples.. and we are not talking about the presenter being misinformed, Im talking about fully manufactured blatant lies).;

If a conservative had half the character Jon has he would be double the man.

Its freeken hilarious how many times Politifacts has caught Fox lying. Difference between Fox and The Daily Show? Integrity. Jon admits he was misinformed, Fox just continues to spread their lies. Shows you so much.

Well done again Jon, you once again showed conservatives how to do it right. My respect meter just went up major for Jon. Thank you so much Alan for bringing this to our attention.

 

[Alan]

Oh my another "mis informed" half wit comedian.

This time 'Real Time' Bill Maher calls Sarah Palin and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann a couple of "crazy" "know nothings" "who both get their historical facts wrong all the time" just after getting his own facts wrong lol

He said:

My larger point was that it seems like if there was an equivalent of privatizing FEMA on the left, it would be something like nationalizing the oil industry which you never hear.

oh really

Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Waters calls for nationalization

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ&feature=related

Democrat Congressman Maurice Hinchey calls for nationalisation of refineries

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vhft39_gkc

Sounds like a prominent leftwing politician here....

 

[w1z4rd]

Epic fail Alan. So predictable.

We want another one just like the other one The rancid right... they never change, that was makes them so special.

 

[rainynight65]

Doesn't it just scream 'bias' when every single excerpt Alan presents here is from what he calls 'liberal' media?

 

[Fazda]

Doesn't it just scream 'bias' when every single excerpt Alan presents here is from what he calls 'liberal' media?

Yes, but we are dealing with Alan here, the only person around here who would actually start a thread so that he can constantly try and show us what he thinks of the liberal media.

Of course if we started one about FOX he would be screaming blue murder

 

[Alan]

Haters are gathering. C'mon start posting FOX News stuff ups. After all there are so many.....

Keith Olberman's new show on Al gore's propaganda channel aimed at naive kids "Current TV" will no doubt advocate extensive social endangering like AA to advance "diversity"

Yet his crew seem so pale

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/keef.jpg

 

[rainynight65]

I actually had work to do today, so you'll have to wait for another time for me to start dissecting Fox News or whatever other stuff there is.

 

[Fazda]

Haters are gathering. C'mon start posting FOX News stuff ups. After all there are so many.....

Keith Olberman's new show on Al gore's propaganda channel aimed at naive kids "Current TV" will no doubt advocate extensive social endangering like AA to advance "diversity"

Yet his crew seem so pale

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/keef.jpg

Alan, haters are so easy to gather when you deliberately post crap in order to attract people who are obviously going to disagree with you. You are troll who obviously thrives on negativity.

If you get your rocks off by watching people disagree with the crap that you post, then enjoy it.

I don't need to wade through FOX rubbish every day to find something to upset you. I have a life.