thornhappy
Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006 Status: offline
|
Check out what constitutes bias in their style guide. I saw many acts of what constitutes liberal that I've seen with conservative sources. The main issue I have is the whole "balanced coverage" thing. In an article about Obama's citizenship there's someone who gives all the proof of his citizenship and the viewpoint, theories, etc. of a "birther". They are considered equal, even though the birther is incorrect. Or someone who explains what was behind the rumors of "death panels" and how it's was a mistaken viewpoint, and then Sarah Palin ranting about death panels. This happens over and over. Journalists should be doing research, digging out facts, and reporting them. But that takes time, and doesn't fit the 24-hour news cycle, where everyone has to be the first to jump on a story. The stories may be long and a bit dry. Networks jump on sensationalistic stories generated by bloggers (true or not) or stuff by the likes of Breitbart, and when the people are cleared weeks later the correction runs on page 23 or is not even acknowledged by the original broadcasters. Let alone the folks like Beck, Limbaugh, etc. I haven't watched Olberman for years (I watched him on a business trip, right when the markets crashed, because the hotel had such a crappy assortment of channels. We had free WSJ to read and it was fascinating to see the whole house of cards come tumbling down.) Another thing that really, really pisses me off is folks who use material from think tanks without announcing their party affiliation. I've seen folks from the AEI or Heritage "fellows" that were nothing more than past writers, literary "bomb throwers" ,etc. treated like researchers. Online I often see editorials taken as fact. Anyway, that's my rant for the day.
|