The US president can now detain its citizens indefinitely and without trial.

tiffanywint wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

no reputable news source is swayed by politics. If they were to be, the reporters and editors would be fired on the spot. I know it's hard for some people outside of the media to believe, but at any ethical media establishment, there's zero tolerance for bias unless your job is to be biased (e.g., Olbermann, O'Reilly, etc.).

What the hell are you talking about? :affraid: Wade your youthful naivete is showing.

I work in a newsroom. I'm paid to work as a journalist. It's my job. I've studied it. I'm afraid if anyone is naive here, it's yourself.

I read the results of a study a few months back that proved there's little to no bias in what reporters report. Sorry, but as much as the tinfoil hat folks like to say, no editor or publisher in the world working at a reputable company is OK with publishing biased material that's not supposed to be biased. It's highly unethical and will leave you unemployed.

The only bias comes into play when you have talking heads on the table, or if you have a corporate head weeding out content that he/she doesn't find agreeable -- but those places shouldn't be considered "reputable" sources of news if they have that going on, anyway. It's why cable news is a joke of a news source.

Quote :

All newsrooms are biased. News directors and editors set the editorial tone and the writers, producers, anchors proceed accordingly. Some happily march along, others resist as far as they can get away with. I can take any news story under the sun and effortlessly put a slant on it, yet still pass it off as "objective". There is no such thing as the unbiased newswriter/presenter. In fact so-called objective journalism is quite sneaky because the gullible viewer lapping it all up, things it's objective because its packaged that way.

The person behind the reporting might be biased, but if they don't do their best to hide it in their reporting, no respectable journalism outlet will keep them on the job, and that's just a fact.

I'm afraid your "gullible viewer" argument swings both ways. There are also these paranoid folks out there who think everyone in the media is biased one way or the other because of the image the Glenn Becks and Keith Olbermanns of the world give off.

Hate to break it to you, but as someone who works in the field, I can tell you there are a harsh set of ethical guidelines, and if you break 'em, you're SOL. Bias doesn't fly -- end of story.

It's entirely possible that some "respectable" journalism outlets are biased, regardless of the opinions of their staff. I once again bring up the Beeb. No one gets fired because the authorities monitoring their articles don't think there's a problem. The bias (to them it'd just be "representing the status quo of political opinion") is implicit and taken for granted.

Sharky wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

Huh? Paul has less of a chance than Romney or Gingrich, despite your paranoid theory about the media, because he's not conservative enough.

That's bollocks.

Not to Republican officials.

Jack Wade wrote:

I read the results of a study a few months back that proved there's little to no bias in what reporters report. Sorry, but as much as the tinfoil hat folks like to say, no editor or publisher in the world working at a reputable company is OK with publishing biased material that's not supposed to be biased. It's highly unethical and will leave you unemployed.

Wade you have me at a disadvantage. You are still full of student idealism about how the media actually works. And if we must chirp our CV's -( you started it) I've spent too many years working in both national and big city newsrooms in every capacity you can think of from News Director to Anchor/reporter, producer/writer eager coffee-fetcher. Now I work on the business side but the lure of the snakepit is always there, so a return is always possible.

But sorry the bloom went off the rose a long time ago. I can assure you that everyone working in these places has a bias that works its way into their work. No two persons will write or present a story the same way. Their own editorial sense of what's important and what should be emphasized will permeate their work. There are no exceptions.

Compare the way a "straight" news story might be written in the New York Times with whatever you might consider a conservative publication, and tell me there is no difference between the way the two "objective" reporters construct the story.

Gee I wonder why the Toronto Star always calls the Alberta "oil sands" the "tar sands" and conservative publications prefer "oil sands". My bias is apparent even in the way I presented that observation.

Don't worry you'll learn. There is no room for idealism in a broadcast newsroom. You either figure out the politics quick or enjoy getting walked over.

Like I said, if you really want to slant the news, get yourself into a newsroom. All good writers and presenters know how to couch their bias as "objective." The O'Reillys and Olberman's are easily tuned out, if you don't care for their obvious pre-dispositions. Not so much though, the earnest anchor or "objective" reporter.

You are living proof btw. You are a militant liberal. Any media work you might do will come from this perspective until you outgrow it (sorry that's a cheap shot. my bias again) 8)

back to why Ron Paul might not be too popular with small "c" conservatives.

This ranking of candidates by the leftist ACLU doesn't help Paul's cause with the base.

The ACLU likes Paul better than Obama.

Romney and Santorum, from a conservative pov, score very well though.



First the criteria that they used to rank the candidates (found in the Nashua Telegraph



<BLOCKQUOTE>
The rankings, represented by lit or unlit “Lady Liberty torches,” were based on seven categories: humane immigration policy, closing Guantanamo Bay and ending indefinite detentions, gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, ending torture, ending a surveillance state, gay marriage and freedom of reproductive choice. Candidates could score up to four torches in each category, according to the report.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Here are the 2012 candidates in order of ACLU preference:

<BLOCKQUOTE>
Gary Johnson, libertarian w/ 21 torches

Ron Paul, libertarian w/ 18 torches

Barack Obama came in third w/ 16

Jon Huntsman w/ 12

Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry each got only 2 ACLU torches

Rating lowest and last on the ACLU scale are Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum with 0 torches. Michele Backmann also rated 0 but has dropped out of the race.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

Santorum is a nut case!!

his wife gave birth to a still born baby!!

and they brought the poor baby home to play with it including letting their kids play with it!!

I didn't make this up, you can GOOGLE it

tiffanywint wrote:

You are living proof btw. You are a militant liberal. Any media work you might do will come from this perspective until you outgrow it (sorry that's a cheap shot. my bias again) 8)

Sorry, but I couch my biases in my work. If I don't, my story doesn't run. End of story.

j7wild wrote:

Santorum is a nut case!!

No shit.

Jack Wade wrote:

Sorry, but I couch my biases in my work. If I don't, my story doesn't run. End of story.

Good for you You are learning. That's how it's done.

j7wild wrote:

Santorum is a nut case!!

his wife gave birth to a still born baby!!

and they brought the poor baby home to play with it including letting their kids play with it!!

I didn't make this up, you can GOOGLE it

Had no idea about that.

WTF?

It does "sound" weird but there is also the non-sanctimonious liberal-media-hysteria context to be considered as well.

Yes news-reporting is so objective. God forbid the liberal media would exploit a human tragedy for their own partisan purposes. :shock:

"Couples have different ways of coping, and grief experts say that rituals are often important in healing.

Washington Post columnist Charles Lane < (link) described today his own experience nine years ago with his stillborn son, Jonathan, chastising critics who called the Santorum's response to Gabriel's death as "weird."

"The latest intra-pundit flap of Campaign 2012: a couple of my liberal colleagues have called Rick and Karen Santorum “crazy,” or “very weird” for wrapping and caressing the body of their baby, who died only two hours after emerging from 20 weeks in utero -- and taking it home for their children to see. These opinions provoked a conservative backlash. (One liberal later apologized.)

Maybe it’s not too late for a teachable moment about neonatal death and stillbirth — and the special grief that these not-uncommon, but obviously insufficiently understood, tragedies inflict upon parents."

Wow, one liberal even apologized. Say it ain't so. :shock:

I personally found the full narrative of Santorum's stillborn child to be quite moving.

tiffanywint wrote:

It does "sound" weird but there is also the non-sanctimonious liberal-media-hysteria context to be considered as well.

Yes news-reporting is so objective. God forbid the liberal media would exploit a human tragedy for their own partisan purposes. :shock:

Do you blame everything that doesn't paint the right in the rosiest of colors on the "liberal" this and that? Talk about paranoid. Christ.

This is not a case of "liberal media." This is a case of Santorum doing something that's against societal norms. Taking your stillborn baby's carcass home for your children to play with is newsworthy rightfully or not, regardless of what side of the political spectrum he falls.

It's not a question of right/left/conservative/liberal anymore. Nor does it really matter who makes it into office. In 2008 many people (myself included) breathed a sigh of relief when Obama sailed into the office on waves of hope and change. It had finally happened we thought-- the nightmare was over. And so it seemed, until his cabinet emerged...straight out of the offices of Goldman Sachs. Nothing has changed, and nor will it anytime soon. The country is run from Wall Street. Bankers have had the strongest voice in every presidential administration dating back to at least the 60s. They own the entire money supply and have been slowly but surely eroding the constitution until basically the last vestiges of the old republic were more or less swept away on December 31 2011. The entire executive branch of the CIA is from Wall Street and they have more or less usurped the military. And speaking of the CIA, even if someone like Ron Paul were to make it into office it likely wouldn't be too long until the CIA snuffed him out much as they did Kennedy when he tried to rout the den of vipers from he US government. At any rate we just had a democratic president sign in the most draconian piece of fascist legislation ever to appear in the US. Liberal/conservative doesn't mean shit anymore. The money power rules the land and as of March 3 they will have the power to detain whomever they wish indefinitely and without trial. I'm not trying to sound alarmist but I tremble for the future.

Drax wrote:

It's not a question of right/left/conservative/liberal anymore. Nor does it really matter who makes it into office. In 2008 many people (myself included) breathed a sigh of relief when Obama sailed into the office on waves of hope and change. It had finally happened we thought-- the nightmare was over. And so it seemed, until his cabinet emerged...straight out of the offices of Goldman Sachs. Nothing has changed, and nor will it anytime soon. The country is run from Wall Street. Bankers have had the strongest voice in every presidential administration dating back to at least the 60s. They own the entire money supply and have been slowly but surely eroding the constitution until basically the last vestiges of the old republic were more or less swept away on December 31 2011. The entire executive branch of the CIA is from Wall Street and they have more or less usurped the military. And speaking of the CIA, even if someone like Ron Paul were to make it into office it likely wouldn't be too long until the CIA snuffed him out much as they did Kennedy when he tried to rout the den of vipers from he US government. At any rate we just had a democratic president sign in the most draconian piece of fascist legislation ever to appear in the US. Liberal/conservative doesn't mean shit anymore. The money power rules the land and as of March 3 they will have the power to detain whomever they wish indefinitely and without trial. I'm not trying to sound alarmist but I tremble for the future.

The lesson I took out of this: get a job at Goldman Sachs.

As to media bias, of course it exists, in both directions, in extremes and in minutia, incidentally and insidiously. And I'd really like to see the study that managed to quantify bias in reporting

Partisan Politics and Vicious Assaults by Peter Wehner

Quote :

First it was Alan Colmes; now it is Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, who went on MSNBC to mock Rick Santorum for how he and his wife Karen dealt with the death of their son Gabriel. (A severe prenatal development led to his very early delivery, and Gabriel died two hours after his birth.)

“He’s not a little weird, it’s that he’s really weird,” Robinson said of Santorum. “And some of his positions he’s taken are just so weird, um, that I think that some Republicans are gonna be off-put. Um, not everybody is going to, going to be down, for example, with the story of how he and his wife handled the, the, the stillborn ah, ah, child, ah, um, whose body they took home to, to kind of sleep with it, introduce to the rest of the family. It’s a very weird story.”

On these comments I have three observations to make, the first of which is that spending time with a stillborn child (or one who died shortly after birth, as in the Santorum case) is commonly recommended. The matter of taking the child home for a few hours is less common, but they did it so that their other children could also spend a little time with the deceased child, and that is definitely recommended. For example, here’s the official page of the American Pregnancy Association (an association of health-care providers that treat pregnant women) about stillbirth. It recommends that parents spend time with the child, as the Santorums did, and the APA writes:

With the loss of your baby, your family members will also grieve. Your baby is someone’s granddaughter, brother, cousin, nephew or sister. It is important for your family members to spend time with the baby. This will help them come to terms with their loss. If you have other children, it is very important to be honest with them about what has happened by using simple and honest explanations. It is your decision whether you would like the children to see the baby. Ask for a Child Life Specialist at the hospital; these are trained professionals who can help you prepare your children for the heartbreaking news, and prepare them to see the baby if you wish.

This is basically what the Santorum family did. They also had a funeral, which is often done in these kinds of situations. It seems to be enormously helpful to people in a moment of terrible pain. So Robinson, like Colmes, was speaking out of a seemingly bottomless well of ignorance.

The second point is the casual cruelty of Robinson and those like him. Robinson seems completely comfortable lampooning a man and his wife who had experienced the worst possible nightmare for parents: the death of their child. It is one thing to say you would act differently if you were in the situation faced by Rick and Karen Santorum; it’s quite another to deride them as “crazy” and “very weird,” which is what commentators on the left are increasingly doing, and with particular delight and glee.

We are seeing how ideology and partisan politics can so disfigure people’s minds and hearts that they become vicious in their assaults on those with whom they have political disagreements. I would hope no one I know would, in a thousand years, ridicule parents who were grappling with unfathomable human pain. Even if those parents were liberal. Even if they were running for president and first lady.

The third point is it tells you something about the culture in which we live that in some quarters those who routinely champion abortion, even partial-birth abortion, are viewed as enlightened and morally sophisticated while those grieving the loss of their son, whom they took home for a night before burying, are mercilessly mocked.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the times.

Vesper wrote:

And I'd really like to see the study that managed to quantify bias in reporting

It was published last year. Can't remember where I read it. Regardless, it's easy to spot bias in reporting, so I don't see what the issue is.

Jack Wade wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

It does "sound" weird but there is also the non-sanctimonious liberal-media-hysteria context to be considered as well.

Yes news-reporting is so objective. God forbid the liberal media would exploit a human tragedy for their own partisan purposes. :shock:

Do you blame everything that doesn't paint the right in the rosiest of colors on the "liberal" this and that? Talk about paranoid. Christ.

This is not a case of "liberal media." This is a case of Santorum doing something that's against societal norms. Taking your stillborn baby's carcass home for your children to play with is newsworthy rightfully or not, regardless of what side of the political spectrum he falls.

Wade do you ever understand what you are actually reading. Maybe in your world there is no such thing as media bias in reporting. "Doing something against "societal norms" I suppose you think you are being objective with that remark. eg. "societal norms;" very quaint,but there are societal norms and there are societal norms. Conformity isn't necessarily a virtue. Yes most persons probably don't take their deceased still-borns home so there's your societal norm, but more relevantly is it a societal norm that matters? I think if you read the story with compassion, you will see that Santorum had compelling and honest decent reasons for bringing the body home. No harm.

As he's an enemy Presidential candidate, vicious liberal media, cranked up their spin machines, and put the ugliest taint on the story they could muster. Journalism at this level is a dirty and mean game.


Wade, there is liberal media bias and there is conservative media bias. Deal with it.

Like I said, God forbid liberal media would exploit a human tragedy for their own partisan purposes. Perish the thought. Such a thing can't be................:roll: groan.

btw, a deceased human body is generally not referred to as a "carcass" A dead deer, no problem though.

The children "played" with the "carcass". This isn't even bias, although it does address bias. It's more a distortion of the facts, utilizing sensational language to spin a story in a negative light, which is not uncommon in reportage, but generally the practictioners are fully aware of what they are doing, and do so with purpose. Wade I am not sure, I can say the same for your reportage of the story.

Actually you seem to be under the impression that much liberal biased reporting is actually objective reporting, hence your dismay at liberal bias being identified as such. The joke is on you though as even the editorial board of the New York Times would freely acknowledge the liberal bias inherent in their reporting. They don't pretend its not there. The trick is to write or present skillfully enough that the bias is disguised. The same goes for conservative publications. In this way biases can be peddled under the guise of objective reporting. And the skilled reporter knows exactly what they are doing. They blend the spin with the facts. It all looks so objective. But it isnt. Media consumers lap it up with varying degrees of awareness. As consumers though we generally tend to pick what we like, and that's that.

tiffanywint wrote:

"Doing something against "societal norms" I suppose you think you are being objective with that remark.

What's the bias? There are things that are considered "normal." While "normal" is subjective, it's not subjective what those things that are considered normal are.

Quote :

Wade, there is liberal media bias and there is conservative media bias. Deal with it.

I never said there wasn't. I'm saying any respectable journalist that wants to keep their job doesn't let their bias interfere with their work.

Quote :

Like I said, God forbid liberal media would exploit a human tragedy for their own partisan purposes. Perish the thought. Such a thing can't be................:roll: groan.

Prove the "liberal media" was exploiting it for partisan purposes.

It's a strange story that any news outlet would pick up on, regardless of so-called political bias, because it would get plenty of views.

Also, you can't pick on "liberal media" for exploitation without mentioning Fox News.

Quote :

Actually you seem to be under the impression that much liberal biased reporting is actually objective reporting, hence your dismay at liberal bias being identified as such.

I did not once say that or infer that. Just because I think blaming every little thing on the "liberal media" is paranoid doesn't mean I equate "liberal bias" with being objective.

Quote :

The joke is on you though as even the editorial board of the New York Times would freely acknowledge the liberal bias inherent in their reporting. They don't pretend its not there.

I never said the Times wasn't liberal. I'm not OK with the fact that the Times doesn't hide it. Still, I think the Times is more guilty of its political leanings on the opinion side rather than its editorial side.

Quote :

The trick is to write or present skillfully enough that the bias is disguised.

... or not presented at all.

What I'm getting here is that while Wade's talking about personal bias, timmer's referring to the general bias of a news corp.

Sharky wrote:

What I'm getting here is that while Wade's talking about personal bias, timmer's referring to the general bias of a news corp.

Yup.

Regarding "societal norms" I made an edit addressing that point. eg there are societal norms and there are societal norms. Some matter, some don't. In this case who cares, unless you are tying to spin the story to make him look bad, then go nuts.

Quote :

I'm saying any respectable journalist that wants to keep their job doesn't let their bias interfere with their work.

The opposite is true, but you'll learn, as its virtually impossible not to keep your bias out of your "objective reporting"

Quote :

Prove the "liberal media" was exploiting it for partisan purposes.

Prove it wasn't. What's "proof" got to do with it? You have the news business confused with the courts I think.

Quote :

It's a strange story that any news outlet would pick up on, regardless of so-called political bias, because it would get plenty of eyes to look at it.

Yep its a good story. I like the way Charles Lane presented it. Very compassionate. Peter Wehner has a nice handle on Robinson's bogus "reporting"

Quote :

I never said the Times wasn't liberal. I'm not OK with the fact that the Times doesn't hide it. Still, I think the Times is more guilty of its political leanings on the opinion side rather than its editorial side.

Well good, you get on your horse and revolutionize the reportage business. The Times isn't "guilty" of anything or anything that matters. They have a "journalistic" ( I hate that word. So pretentious) right, even obligation to adopt an editorial stance. Don't worry, I'm not going soft. I would still characterize their stance as brain-dead liberal to borrow from Mamet.

Quote:

The trick is to write or present skillfully enough that the bias is disguised.

... or not presented at all.

But "not presented at all"; that's not realistic. Reporters are not so delusional as to fail to understand they slant their stories and most are happy to do so. Why does anyone get into the news business? Because they have ideas as to how the news should be presented. They want to participate in the process.

Cops, do so try to be objective in their police reports, but even they mostly fail.

What is important to teach in the schools, is for students to know when they are editorializing. That dictinction has to be hammered home , as most students don't have a clue and can't construct a story to save their lives. It's 101 time. Teachers though can only teach the students to write what appears to be objective. If they can do that, than that's something. There is no need to teach how to weave a bias or slant into a story. The student will figure that out on their own, when they are so inclined or motivated. Otherwise they will do it anyway, but be oblivious. If later they are berated by editors for writing with a slant, it simply means the journalist has failed to guage the editorial flavour of the outlet, and better figure it out or find a way to work around it. Eg at any public broadcaster, you can slant stories liberal so long as the veneer of objectivity remains, and all will be well. Try to push the spin the other way and you'll hear about it. Public broadcasters are well staffed by think-alikes. Everything is vetted.

With private broadcasters, its a little more wild west. There are generally power struggles and factions within the newsroom, but the default-stance skews liberal. Conservatives have to work smarter and craftier to push their slant.

Personally what I find laughable, is how many liberals seem to think that their liberal slants are actually objective. I've never met a conservative though that wasn't fully aware of their slant.

Hence in the USA you have networks like Fox that brazenly skew conservative and make no bones about it,(same here with Sun Media) yet the other three majors like to think they are middle, despite the fact their newsrooms are riddled with liberals, who slant quite liberal whether they care to admit it or not. TV is a lot of politics and bs. You survive if you can play the game.

Real world influences will ultimately shape the budding "journalists" style and biases. Not what they learned in school. School just earns the the right to fetch coffee (a vital skill) in a newsroom. I wouldn't even address an intern assigned-to-me by name, until they had mastered the prepping and fetching of coffee for both me and my favoured colleagues.The good intern learns by mastering coffee prep and due deference, and only then might they benefit from the cynical and self-serving insights of their handler. First lesson; toss everything you learned in school out the window. All that matters is Survival 101 skills for the viper-pit currently occupied.

Nothing more tiresome than interns rambling about what they were taught in school. Tell me what you learned today in this newsroom. Not that I care, but maybe I can pick up some intel from you. We are in a ratings war. Why can't we can't find anchors with bigger boobs? How come we are out of cream? I can't drink this swill. Who wrote this crap? This is the stuff that matters. This is the newsroom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mztfFdpd1Rk

Part of me has known this all along.

Edit: Here's a link to the full documentary. Bin Laden worked for the CIA and Al Qaeda is ultimately a fabrication. Surprise surprise...

Bin Laden did work for the CIA, during the Afghanistan War fighting against the Russians, as one of those Mujahadin with weapons supplied by the USA