If you were a bookie... Polls and bets on the 2004 elections

It gets down to what does "freedom of the press" really mean?

0 Replies

under communism government controls business.
under capitalism business controls government.
under either, the citizen is screwed.

0 Replies

adding the margin of the Bush lead to what nimh wrote:

Extra:
IEM political markets, Presidential Winner Takes All, pre- and post-debate:

7/10, last price:
Bush 56,3 Kerry 44,0 Bush +12,3
8/10, average price:
Bush 55,3 Kerry 46,2 Bush +9,1
8/10, last price:
Bush 56,0 Kerry 44,6 Bush +11,4
9/10, average price:
Bush 55,4 Kerry 45,3 Bush +10,1
9/10, current price:
Bush 54,3 Kerry 45,4 Bush +8,9

Follow-up:

9/10, last price:
Bush 53,8 Kerry 45,7 Bush +8,1
10/10, average price:
Bush 53,8 Kerry 46,5 Bush +7,3
10/10, last price:
Bush 53,2 Kerry 46,0 Bush +7,2

0 Replies

No should be able to tell a journalist he must work for any given outlet either, nimh. A journalist considering the policies of his employer to be at conflict with his own sensibilities should be perfectly free to seek out more satisfactory employment. There will be a market for objective, fact-based reportage, and there will be owners interested in serving that market. It is not unreasonable to assume that market would be at once lucrative and highly competitive. If journalistic integrety is a paramount concern for a journalist or an owner or a consumer, by all means, let it be realized.

0 Replies

i don't really like the idea of any pressures being put on the press to be biased one way or the other. but;

timber does have a point that nobody puts a gun to any writer's head to work at this place or that place. so it is really up to the journalist, reporter, op-ed guys to know what their intended mast head is about.

so really, if you go to work for murdoch, you should be prepared to leave certain crusades at the door. same for other outlets.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
The concept of Free Press extends bindingly to Government alone.

Not according to most codes of conduct / codes of practice ...

Are these codes of conduct written by journalists for journalists by any chance? If so, isn't this a reason to suspect that they were written partly as a weapon for journalists to use in company-internal power struggles? If so, does this affect your trust in such codes in any way?

nimh wrote:

No time to look up quotes, but for the businessman owning the newspaper to dictate to the journalists what to write about which topic in their regular news reporting is definitely contrary to most if not all such codes.

And how is this practice fundamentally different from the journalist dictating to the operator of the printing press what to print, as opposed to the operator printing his own articles? Timberlandko is right: In all the philosophical literature I know, from David Hume's On the Liberty of the Press to John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, liberty of the press describes a relation between the press and the government. It doesn't describe the division of labor within a publishing company, which is what your interpretation suggests. For what it's worth, Encyclopedia.com has an article about the subject which is inconsistent with your story, but consistent with Timber's and mine.

nimh wrote:

But if he's a proper journalist, his responsibility extends to the readers - and to something as ephanescent as "the truth" - as much as to the owner.

How is that different from any other business, where the employees and the owners take some responsibility for the welfare of the customer? After all, this is what the customer pays for. As Adam Smith observed, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." By the same logic, it is not from the benevolence of news companies that we expect our daily news, but from their regard to their own interest. And when they supply decent quality, they do so because it's profitable, not because it's virtuous.

nimh wrote:

Journalistic 'freedom' there often comes down to the choice between writing down what the government wants you to write or writing down what Oligarch A or B wants you to write. Joe Public doesn't even enter into the equation.

... because the government there has the power to create and destroy olgarchies at will, as the Yukos example shows. In Western Europe and North America by contrast, everyone can start up a newspaper, a news channel or a website; and Joe Public is free to drive them bankrupt if they don't supply the reporting he wants, or to make them rich if they do. As long as governments respect these freedoms, the problem you described doesn't arise.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

i don't really like the idea of any pressures being put on the press to be biased one way or the other. but;

timber does have a point that nobody puts a gun to any writer's head to work at this place or that place. so it is really up to the journalist, reporter, op-ed guys to know what their intended mast head is about.

so really, if you go to work for murdoch, you should be prepared to leave certain crusades at the door. same for other outlets.

Sure - that leaves the journalist with a free career choice - but does that make the media free?

Any medium (medium?) where journalists are ordered to write what is politically advantageous instead of what would be journalistically upright is not free. The more of such media there are and the more they dominate the media landscape, the less free the media as a whole are. Diverse perhaps, free, less so.

0 Replies

Thomas writes:

Quote:

As Adam Smith observed, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

A very intelligent man that Adam Smith and astute. The NY Times was once the shining example of excellence in journalism in the United States, but its less-than-objective editorial policy and news slant is now watched warily by those of conservative leanings. Fox News is much maligned by the left and even dismissed as without merit by some. Both, however, are serving a constituency who like what they are getting. When that is no longer the case, they will be forced to adjust their product or go out of business.

Meanwhile, while some checks and balances are necessary, those of us who value the freedoms afforded by our Constitution must be ever vigilant lest our elected leaders presume to regulate and eliminate a 'free market' press/media.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Are these codes of conduct written by journalists for journalists by any chance? If so, isn't this a reason to suspect that they were written partly as a weapon for journalists to use in company-internal power struggles?

What you call "company-internal power struggles", I call the right to report freely, without the constraints of political directives or censorship.

Thomas wrote:

If so, does this affect your trust in such codes in any way?

No. It's akin to saying one neednt trust the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because it was authored by governments, and thus probably meant to be used in "intergovernmental power struggles". I mean, it was, but no, no reason to not take it as touchstone.

Thomas wrote:

In Western Europe and North America by contrast, everyone can start up a newspaper, a news channel or a website

That sounds wonderful, it still does. And it probably holds up for the websites at least, still. But otherwise, there's a certain cloud-cuckoo land quality about this assertion. In practice the tendency of scaling-up and the concurrent proportional increase in investment-intensity involved in owning/running a national media (esp. broadcast media) has lead in many places to a series of mass-mergers, resulting in dramatically increased concentration of ownership. You'd need very deep pockets indeed to "start up a news channel" alongside them on national scale.

To showcase what I'm talking about, take Italy's broadcast media, even before Berlusconi became president and thus got to control the public broadcasters as well. All main private national broadcasters were already in his hands. In another example, all Dutch national newspapers of significance are now owned by either of two companies. Imagine if they would start claiming/using the right of telling "their" journalists what to write. Our 'free media' would be reduced to presenting just two points of view.

Perhaps the era of digital TV, pay-per-view TV and webcasts will change all that again, and break open the looming near-monopolisation of the media in some places. But as for now, the "no need to complain, if you're not happy with the news coverage start your own TV channel" line is a bit of a red herring, which makes the question of editorial independence all the more urgent.

Thomas wrote:

How is that different from any other business, where the employees and the owners take some responsibility for the welfare of the customer?

The fundamental difference, I'd suggest, is that free and responsible baking, brewing and butchering are not essential to safeguarding democracy, whereas free media are an essential component of a democratic society. In that sense, journalists are not just more employees, no matter what people like Berlusconi or the many communists-turned-businessmen in the former Soviet Union and South-Eastern Europe seem to think.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

one thing nimh brought up to which I take exception is the assertion it is a no-no for OWNERS to influence, or even to dictate, the editorial stance and the selection of what is to be reported on by the media which they own.

What exactly makes it a scandal, in your opinion, if a news director tells his staff to impose a political bias on their reporting (see your above post about the ABC "memogate"), but makes it OK if the owner tells the staff to impose a political bias on their reporting? What's the difference in terms of standards on journalistic freedom?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

That sounds wonderful, it still does. And it probably holds up for the websites at least, still. But otherwise, there's a certain cloud-cuckoo land quality about this assertion. In practice the tendency of scaling-up and the concurrent proportional increase in investment-intensity involved in owning/running a national media (esp. broadcast media) has lead in many places to a series of mass-mergers, resulting in dramatically increased concentration of ownership. You'd need very deep pockets indeed to "start up a news channel" alongside them on national scale.

Nevertheless, Ted Turner managed to do it when he founded CNN, and that was before he was a multibillionaire. And thanks to the technical progress in cable TV, it has gotten easier since Turner did it in the 1980s.

nimh wrote:

Imagine if they would start claiming/using the right of telling "their" journalists what to write. Our 'free media' would be reduced to presenting just two points of view.

Even after having imagined it, I still disagree with you. As long as audiences demand more than just two points of view, it is profitable for the owners to supply them, so they probably will -- whatever political conviction they may hold in private. Unless, of course, the owners of the media companies get hold of a state and manage to make it insulate them from the pressures of consumer satisfaction -- as Berlusconi did in Italy.

nimh wrote:

But as for now, the "no need to complain, if you're not happy with the news coverage start your own TV channel" line is a bit of a red herring, which makes the question of editorial independence all the more urgent.

How about "no need to complain, if you're not happy with the news coverage on TV, switch the channel, or switch to webstreams of foreign stations, or switch to reading newspapers"? Sounds workable to me -- and from my own experience as a customer of media outlets, it is.

nimh wrote:

The fundamental difference, I'd suggest, is that free and responsible baking, brewing and butchering are not essential to safeguarding democracy, whereas free media are an essential component of a democratic society.

On the other hand, we can live without a democratic society, but we can't live without food. So your argument would seem to suggest that responsible baking, brewing and butchering is even more important than responsible newscasting. Anyway, my intended point is that the same process that brings about responsible baking, brewing, and butchering can be expected to bring about responsible reporting. I see no fundamental difference between those things as far as the laws of supply and demand are concerned.

0 Replies

Nimh writes:

Quote:

What exactly makes it a scandal, in your opinion, if a news director tells his staff to impose a political bias on their reporting (see your above post about the ABC "memogate"), but makes it OK if the owner tells the staff to impose a political bias on their reporting? What's the difference in terms of standards on journalistic freedom?

It is one thing for a newspaper, radio station, television outlet, etc. to adopt a conservative or liberal emphasis for either their editorial policy or their news division. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, has a decidedly conservative editorial department and a much more liberal news division within the same organization. There is nothing wrong with this as the publication or media outlet is catering to its primary constituency/demographics as Thomas suggested. An unsigned editorial can be expected to have a particular slant; syndicated columnists are by nature partisan but they sign their columns.

It is NOT okay, however, to intentionally distort and misrepresent the reporting of the news put out there for public consumption, at least if the publication/media outlet wishes to maintain journalistic integrity and respect. What the ABC leadership has done is to instruct its news division to intentionally distort news reporting to favor a particular presidential candidate. This is perfectly legal, but perfectly unprofessional and reprehensible and is a disservice and insult to their readership/listeners.

0 Replies

Keeping the thread sort of focused on polling, this site was linked to Andrew Sullivan's editorial piece today and is interesting--it may have been referenced earlier in the thread:

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/10/a_busy_weekend_.html

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

[Hmm ... we are talking here of a politically-motivated intervention in the broadcasters' editorial policies by the owner of the business. You will find that such political intervention into editorial practice is almost as much frowned upon when it is done by the commercial owner as when it is done by a government party, and for good reason. Editorial independence after all is one of the main criteria by which freedom of the media is measured. If you look at the principles used by international bodies and journalist organisations, you'll find that a commercial party (the owner) interfering with an editors' or journalist's job, telling them what to cover or not to cover in what way, is considered an infringement of journalistic freedom and independence just as well - all the more so when it's on political grounds.

....
A media landscape in which each media's coverage and programming would be determined by the political conviction of its owner may still ensure a diverse media - assuming there's millionaires of all kinds of political stripes - but no longer a free media. Owners ordering editors and journalists to broadcast a specific piece of political propaganda - and classify it as "news" so as to avoid the regulations on political broadcasts - should have no place in a democracy that prides itself on its free media.

I believe Nimh (a good guy otherwise) is in the grip of serious delusions in this area. The notion that an editorial board or management team, however composed, truly can, or should be, able to function independently of the wishes of the owner is a delusion of the first magnitude. In the first place this notion is not consistent with the reality of corporate law for privately owned media. In the second, not even the much vaunted BBC is truly independent of the government (or at least the sub constituencies within it to which it serves).

In the cases of both the New York Times and the BBC we have seen the owners intervene and replace members of the editorial/management team when bad outcomes resulted (or, as they put it, their policies were found to have been violated). The new managers were selected by the owners in accordance with their wishes. The defense, of course willl be that such actions occur only on the violation of broad guidelines and not on the matter of editorial content. Nonsense. If a government media entity loses political support or if a privately owned one loses money, its management is toast. Period.

Besides the notion that "editors" are somehow more noble, objective, and dispassionate than "owners" is both absurd and contrary to experience. Do the politicaL convictions of owners count for less than do those of their employees who style themselves as "editors", "journalists", or "commentators"? Only the Svengalis of the liberal media elite and their many Trilbys really believe that nonsense.

0 Replies

Quote:

Only the Svengalis of the liberal media elite and their many Trilbys really believe that nonsense

And they only believe it of the liberal press, but fortunately for them there is a lot more liberal press than conservative press.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Doesn't look good. The WaPo poll now has Bush increasing his lead by 1% for three consecutive days. The Rasmussen poll has had Bush increasing his lead by anything between 0,3% and 1,4% for four consecutive days. All that in the days following the last debate. And when a shift in the tracking poll takes place gradually rather than with a spike, its more likely to reflect a real change.

On the contrary, it looks very good to me.

Bush will win with a 4%-5% margin in the popular vote.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe Nimh (a good guy otherwise) is in the grip of serious delusions in this area.

Well, "this area" happens to be my job ... these are the topics I deal with on an everyday basis. So yes, I consider myself qualified to say something on the matter.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
I believe Nimh (a good guy otherwise) is in the grip of serious delusions in this area.

Well, "this area" happens to be my job ... these are the topics I deal with on an everyday basis. So yes, I consider myself qualified to say something on the matter.

Didn't mean to offend. I have no doubt of your qualifications, your ability to research & assemble information and analyze it well, your likely ability as a journalist or commentator. or your overall intelligence. All are clearly above the norm, even for a high-perfoming group. I just think it is a delusion to believe that, because you may be in such a position, your views are better or more objective than they would be if you owned the damn organization.

0 Replies

So, who is ahead in the electoral vote race?

According to http://www.electoral-vote.com/ , it's Kerry 270 Bush 248.

According to http://www.race2004.net/ , it's Kerry 243 Bush 196.

According to http://www.mydd.com/popup.html , it's Kerry 274 Bush 264.

Still prettttttty close, all over the map... but Kerry has put himself into position to win this thing with a strong debate on Wed. night.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So, who is ahead in the electoral vote race?

According to http://www.electoral-vote.com/ , it's Kerry 270 Bush 248.

According to http://www.race2004.net/ , it's Kerry 243 Bush 196.

According to http://www.mydd.com/popup.html , it's Kerry 274 Bush 264.

Still prettttttty close, all over the map... but Kerry has put himself into position to win this thing with a strong debate on Wed. night.

Cheers

Can't argue with your conclusion. The undecideds will decide it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

If you were a bookie... Polls and bets on the 2004 elections

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know