Media's poor use of a narrative

[J Wolfsberger]

We all tend to pay more attention to items that support our views in any event and it is virtually impossible for all reporters and / or editors / producers to avoid letting their views slip into the news. Nor do I think it fair to expect them to do so.

When I read European papers that make no effort to obscure their ideological leaning, I find I tend to get more information from all points in the spectrum on which I can base a decision or opinion. YMMV.

That covers it nicely. NPR has, at least, a Liberal view. But they also provide sufficient depth and context that the facts are presented and the listener can make up his own mind. Fox News, for all the demonization for slanting right, takes pains to ensure that both sides are represented and get equal opportunity to present their case. My commute/driving radio is WRN (World Radio Network) on Sirius, and a big surprise is the quality of news from, for example, Voice of Russia - always with a slant to the Russian view of the world and their interests, but still providing information not included in MSM coverage.

My gripe with the MSM is not their slant or political tilt. It's with their failure (or refusal) to accurately represent both sides of issues. As an example, during the 1980s, the abortion issue was framed as "pro-choice" vs. "anti-choice." That's biased reporting. To see why, think about the coverage being presented as "pro-life" vs. "anti-life." I also recall quite a bit of "coverage" that consisted of an interview with a pro-choice spokesperson, followed by the "reporter" presenting a summary of the pro-life position (as "understood" by the pro-choice reporter).

Journalism, as it is taught and discussed today in the most prominent schools and forums, is about identifying a narrative that supports (or advocates) a particular point of view, then framing the presentation to support it. That framing includes selectively presenting the facts. Most people consider that biased, and rightly consider it propaganda.

[SteveMetz]

Fox News, for all the demonization for slanting right, takes pains to ensure that both sides are represented and get equal opportunity to present their case.

Personally, I don't consider Fox a serious news outlet anymore. Not for their ideological slant, but because of providing a platform for people like Beck and Hannity who are pure (and dangerous) propagandists.

[J Wolfsberger]

Personally, I don't consider Fox a serious news outlet anymore. Not for their ideological slant, but because of providing a platform for people like Beck and Hannity who are pure (and dangerous) propagandists.

I don't want to get into the "dangerous" part, but, yes, they are propagandists. Very clearly so. They would be the first to argue that they aren't presenting "news," they are presenting opinion, and opinion centered discussion. (In Beck's case, observations and analysis, with an invitation to look it up for yourself, but it's still struck me as an "opinion" program the few times I watched.) I have no problem with that on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, et. al. I do have a problem when opinion is presented as news, or when facts are omitted, distorted, etc. in order to advance the advocated narrative.

[SteveMetz]

Both take video clips, selectively cut out a part, and then claim it means something which the whole clip shows is patently false. The funny thing is that they often get called out on this but show no remorse or intention to stop.

Beck is the most overt in using the classic techniques of propaganda: repeatedly asserting a connection between things or people until they two do become associated in the mind of the listener; and the extensive use of fear.

[tequila]

I have no problem with that on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, et. al. I do have a problem when opinion is presented as news, or when facts are omitted, distorted, etc. in order to advance the advocated narrative.

The problem with Fox is that the news programs work hand-in-glove with the opinion shows to drive a single narrative.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...9/for-fox-sake Link broken or incomplete

This oldie-but-goodie poll from 2003 measures misperceptions about the Iraq War. Basically, the more one watched Fox News the greater the misperception.

[Pete]

Back around 1947 my World War II veteran Dad worked as a reporter for the San Rafael Independent, a daily newspaper in the San Francisco Bay area. That year the newspaper lent my Dad to the Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives for San Rafael and Marin County. Dad said it was a good primer for his Washington career yet to come, and that he also had to tell the Congressman not to use arcane Congressional language in his press releases and letters to constituents -- put it in language people understand.

The Congressman took Dad along for a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House. When the main business had been concluded the Congressman introduced my Dad to the President -- "I'd like to introduce my press aide, a veteran of WW II."

Harry S. Truman showed Dad the copy of the "Dewey Defeats Truman" front page of the Chicago Tribune he had hanging in the Oval Office. He told my Dad, "Young man, I hope during your newspaper career you don't do to others what these guys did to me."

[Fuchs]

The problem with Fox is that the news programs work hand-in-glove with the opinion shows to drive a single narrative.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...9/for-fox-sake-

Link broken, the "-" needs to be part of the URL.

link

[Pete]

Dad's last encounter with Harry Truman was in the early 1970s, when he made an unofficial visit to Washington DC. Dad and a couple of other reporters staked out the hotel where Truman was staying, certain that around 7 AM he'd come out for his daily morning walk, his "Constitutional."

Right on schedule Truman came out of the hotel for his walk, and one of the reporters asked, "Mr. President, can we walk with you?"

Truman was touched by the attention, and said, "Thank you, gentlemen, for paying attention to an old man."

Dad had tears running down his cheeks when he told that story.

[Pete]

To the best of my knowledge my Dad's civilian newspaper career did not include writing about military subjects. One exception that I can think of was in about 1985 when he had a local news column in the Metro section of the Washington Post.

The night before he had stayed with his lady friend at her condo in Rosslyn, Virginia, which was adjacent to Fort Myer -- JoAnne's balcony had a view of the fence around the fort, and the horse stables from around the 1920s just inside of the fence. That night when "Taps" played over the post's loudspeaker system it wouldn't stop playing, and it played in a continuous loop all night long. About 8 or 9 AM the next morning it was finally turned off.

The next day Dad phoned Fort Myer to ask what had been going on; he was referred to someone else, who in turn told him to call someone else, and so on, until he was finally speaking to the deputy commander of Military District of Washington, a full colonel.

"I was wondering when you'd call," said the colonel dryly, as though someone from the Post was the last person he wanted to be speaking to. The colonel explained that the post Staff Duty Officer and Field Officer of the Day did not have the keys to the building that contained the control panel to the speaker system. Thus turning off Taps had to await the coming to work of the facilities engineers that morning. That's how Dad described the incident without any drama in his column.

[BayonetBrant]

It's with their failure (or refusal) to accurately represent both sides of issues.

I would argue that this is not the problem. First, it assumes there are only 2 sides to an issue. Second, there have been many times when the "other" side of an issue is given waaaaaaay more prominence than it deserves, or when a reporter has had to dig and dig to find some completely underwhelming "other" side so as have a "balance" in their story - no matter how artificial - so they can insulate themselves from challenges of bias. There are times when one side gets marginalized in the coverage, but no one ever really stops to ask whether or not that side of the coverage was ever legitimate to start with.

Journalism, as it is taught and discussed today in the most prominent schools and forums, is about identifying a narrative that supports (or advocates) a particular point of view, then framing the presentation to support it. That framing includes selectively presenting the facts. Most people consider that biased, and rightly consider it propaganda.

I have a Masters' degree in Journalism, and I've taught in 2 different J-schools as a grad assistant, and I can categorically say that this is 100% not the case in either of the schools I've been associated with.

[J Wolfsberger]

I have a Masters' degree in Journalism, and I've taught in 2 different J-schools as a grad assistant, and I can categorically say that this is 100% not the case in either of the schools I've been associated with.

I specifically had in mind the Columbia School of Journalism, as well as articles by some prominent journalism educators. I didn't intend my statement to be applied to all J-schools. Apologies for my lack of clarity.

Which schools were you associated with?

[BayonetBrant]

Which schools were you associated with?

PM sent