Biased reporting - an example for your consideration.

Here's a link to the google search, which give a lot of information on that letter sent out. It's funny, but kind of awful.

http://www.theinquirer.net/

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

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.

ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Laughing

LW - You might have saved yourself some time--and some poorly considered sarcasm--if you'd tried clicking on the HEADLINE of my citation, as it is a link to the article on the Washington Post Web site, which mainstream newspaper was its source. (I do hope the WP meets with your high journalistic standards!) Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

not if they're plagerizing

One can not be quilty of plagiarizing from a source that is offered specifically for reuse. (sigh)

- TW

0 Replies

PD - I can see you're worked up about this, but I wonder whether you've really thought it through. The stance you seem to be taking is that you think it is wrong for these people to express their political opinion in the way they have chosen to express it, because some or all of the specific words are not their own. Personally, I'd rather use my own words to express my point of view, but I'm not about to sit here and tell someone else how they can or can't express theirs. Are you? Of course, you are perfectly welcome to dislike this tactic, and I respect your opinion. (I'm not altogether sold on it being a smart move, due to the potential for backlash.) I guess this is a form of free speech you'll just have to tolerate. I expect that editors will catch up and be weeding these prefab letters out in short time. Until then, take a deep breath and smell the freedom! :wink:

0 Replies

I can see why some people are getting worked up about "cookie cutter" letters, but I do not think that this is a new phenomenon. Over the years I have seen political propaganda of all flavors, with a message to "write your Congressmen to............................. (fill in the blanks). After all, is not a petition a "cookie cutter" letter, yet I have not seen people worked up by THAT concept.

I think that what we may be observing is a proliferation of this sort of propagandizing on a greater level because of the power of the Internet. But there is really no difference.

0 Replies

Phoenix

For sure, various constituencies have encouraged mass letter writing before. But there is a difference, I think, between petitions or encouraging folks to write on the one hand and cookie cutter letters on the other. The last pretends to be something it is not.

0 Replies

blatham- I see what you are getting at. Bottom line, I think that people need to be educated that a lot of spin and misinformation is happening on a regular basis, and not to believe everything that they read in print.

You see this on A2K, where we are supposedly a knowledgable, more sophisticated group of people. How often has on or another of us been taken in my an "Urban Legend", or repeat some spinmeister's editorializing as if it were actual reportage.

Going after cookie cutter letters individually, to me is like trying to kill cockroaches, one at a time. People need to be informed about what is happening in the newpapers, on TV in in the internet, and taught to become more discerning recipients of information.

0 Replies

blatham -- the NYT "Confirmation of Existence" process is relatively painless, especially since they started accepting hair rather than blood for their DNA samples.

Of all Republican tactics to bemoan, I do find this one rather far down on the list. I regularly get "sample letters" from various activist organizations, whether Working Assets or NARAL or Amnesty International, and I doubt everyone re-words them. A letter to the editor is different, yes, and feels dishonest, yes, but I find things like this much more disturbing.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

For sure, various constituencies have encouraged mass letter writing before. But there is a difference, I think, between petitions or encouraging folks to write on the one hand and cookie cutter letters on the other. The last pretends to be something it is not.

How so? It pretends to be representative of the opinion of the sender. Unless they are being forced to send it, I think we can assume that it is. Again, I'm not necessarily for this tactic, but I think some of you are a little unreasonably and unthinkingly against it.

- TW

0 Replies

sozobe

That's almost as repugnant as Willie Horton and McCain's black baby.

Tres

You suggest you are 'not necessarily for this tactic'. Perhaps your own intuitive response holds the clue.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

You suggest you are 'not necessarily for this tactic'. Perhaps your own intuitive response holds the clue.

You keep tap-dancing around the core issue here. Is this protected political speech, or is it not?

0 Replies

I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. Just, it's kinda yucky.

0 Replies

Missed your link but that page is "On Politics" and therefore not in their regular news reporting (i.e., front page reporting of the budget being delivered). I've read the entire article and even if you could interpret it as vaguely biased, it's still grasping at straws as to what effect you believe this might have on the public. Those who subscribe to the Post know what they're getting.

0 Replies

tres

Try harder, dear fellow. Is there a one to one relationship between written law and acts of deceit or impropriety which the community validly is concerned with? Clinton getting a blowjob from a trailerpark floozie with a banana shnoz wasn't illegal, but I'll wager you thought it deserving of reprimand.

0 Replies

I'm racing out to buy Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media? today.

It's too good and too long to excerpt, so here's the link to the .pdf file (you need Acrobat):

What Liberal Media?

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

I've read the entire article and even if you could interpret it as vaguely biased...

Thank you. That was my only point. Very Happy

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. Just, it's kinda yucky.

Okay, I can agree on that. Sorry for the pitbull act.

0 Replies

0 Replies

PD

Read the first few pages....brilliant, with great confessional quotes from Safire, Kristol, Buchanan and others as to the flim flam of this whole idea of liberal media bias....thank you very kindly indeed.

0 Replies

My point is that if an article in a paper whose politics one doesn't agree with shows up in a section as specific as "On Politics" and one perceives as vaguely biased causes one to rant (violent and extravagant speech), maybe some anger management is in order. That's just what I would do 'cause I'm not really interested in your personal business. I'm generally empathetic toward all who allows something so trivial to raise their blood pressure -- I've recognized it as a slow suicide for many years.

0 Replies

Biased reporting - an example for your consideration.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know