Biased reporting - an example for your consideration.

seems to me the article is sensationalist not biased, they are with all news items.

TW- It may take some work, but I think that it might be interesting if people post the lead ins as written about the same story by three newspapers- a conservative, a liberal, and a middle of the roader.

Phoenix:

Very true!

what would you all consider reuters to be? liberal - conservative - middle?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77345,00.html

This is from Fox, the Conservatist Ikon.

I love the following:



And Fox follows with:



Which, IMHO, turns Bush's statement into the fallacy that it is!

Relative to obvious media bias: what happens when the voice of the people gets as fake as a TV laugh track?

That's what happened to the "letters to the editor" column in scores of newspapers across the country, thanks to a tactic known as "AstroTurf." Borrowing a trick from Congressional lobbyists, interest groups use phony grassroots letter-writing campaigns to make their public support appear larger than it actually is.

This past month, the Republican National Committee was caught distributing a form letter praising President Bush that ended up printed, often verbatim, in nearly 75 papers coast to coast. One newspaper in Santa Barbara, CA printed the letter twice in the same week. From two separate readers, naturally.

The letter beginning, "When it comes to the economy, President Bush is demonstrating genuine leadership," was purported to be the genuine feelings of writers from Rutland, VT, to Palo Alto, CA. The truth, as savvy Google sleuths soon discovered, was that the text was posted on a RNC website that included links to local news outlets.

The website (www.gopteamleader.com), is described as "an online toolbox for Republican activists." Once a visitor registers, they'll receive Republican e-mail updates and even the exciting opportunity "to collect 'GOPoints' by completing Action Items [aka letters to the editor] and redeem them for collateral of your choice, ranging from coolers to mouse pads."

Well, that's OK then; if there's a tote bag in it, abusing media ethics isn't so bad.

So you're not going to tell us what journal this reporting came from, tres? Why keep it a secret. I still don't get this transfixion with biased news reporting -- exactly what is it suppose to do? The phrase "don't even factor in" is not a learned journalistic form (it's too obviously editorialized) so I'm guessing it's from a Website news source. The answer is -- read news reporting from Drudge and NewsMax if you want a right headed bias. If you're going to quote from journals, at least pick those that have at least a modicum of editorial control.

as i reported on another thread that no one responded to, Gary Hart Published a Federal Study of Homeland Security stating that we WOULD be attacked by terrorists and that was in 1999, this was a non partisan study, which everyone including the press totally ignored. This report was hand delivered to Bush 43 and handed off to Chenny who prompted ignored it as well.

"We predicted it," former Senator Gary Hart said the last time I spoke to him, on Sept. 12, 2001. "We said Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers -- that's a quote from the fall of 1999." The quote comes from the Phase One Report of the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century, which was co-chaired by Hart and former Sen. Warren Rudman, R-NH,. But, before 9/11, no one seemed to much care about their conclusions. During our Sept. 12 conversation, Hart said he was "tearing (his) hair out" in frustration.

He still has criticisms and strong ideas as to how he would handle things differently. "Within a week after 9/11," Hart said Wednesday. "I would have begun a search for a new CIA director... It's important to say, if you're running a big institution -- and that institution suffers a serious deficiency -- that you will be held accountable. But if nobody is sacrificed for a failure then nobody is accountable. " he also has harsh comments about the FBI's anachronistic worldview. "The ghost of J. Edgar Hoover is still in that damn [FBI] building!" Hart says. "They need to clean it out and start all over again."

I find Reuters, being based in Europe has a decidedly anti-American flavor. I have seen side-by-side comparisons with AP headlines on the same story, and the difference is striking. Sorry I have none to offer right here right now.

PDiddie - How is an individual "abusing media ethics" if he or she chooses to borrow another person's words to express himself or herself? If you have one person sending out multiple copies of this letter under fictional names, I could see your complaint, but as far as your story goes, I think your complaint is just sour grapes. You have real citizens expressing real support for their President. What does it matter if they didn't write every word themselves? Doesn't the first amendment give them the right to speak with whatever voice and whatever words they choose?

not if they're plagerizing

Let's be clear about this, trespasser:

I DON'T have a problem with it if they were addressing those letters to their Representatives, or Senators, or the President.

I have an EVEN BIGGER PROBLEM with a lazy, compliant, corporatized, conglomerated media that allows it to happen.

AND I HAVE THE BIGGEST PROBLEM OF ALL with a citizenry that is so somnambulent that they are willing to trade their 'free speech' for a MOUSEPAD.

And so should you, irrespective of which side of the Astroturf these weeds sprout.

(applause, applause) (crowd murmer, crowd murmer)

I am absolutely appalled that they could get away with that sort of, well, idiocy. Here, the cheapest subway give-away paper won't publish any letter til they've called the writer to discuss their opinions.

Bethie, to what are you refering?

I'm assuming the cookie-cutter letters...

I've had several letters published by the NYT and such, and they verify that I exist but not my opinions.

No one has ever verified that I exist. It's making me nervous.

dys...I knew of the Hart story already, so didn't respond.

tres...I think you are seeing blue meanies where there aren't none. When I look at that bit you quoted here, it's difficult to see what you might refer to: That all seems quite benign. Perhaps it is the following portion: