Turning PBS into another propaganda tool

JTT wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

So, if I understand you correctly, you either have no opinion, or you allow yourself to be led by the nose by others in forming your opinion, yes?

The mere fact that you, Blatham and others can not even admit that NPR has a liberal bias is telling.

You asked for my opinion on Fox News, [what an oxymoron!] and that's what you got. You can form opinons when you follow the FACTS, even when those facts are described by others more knowlegeable.

I've shown you some pretty damning evidence that Fox's newscasters [another f..king oxymoron] are, to be charitable, shifty. Show me something that supports your contention. So far all we've got is
"McGentrix doesn't like what he hears".

This is the sum total of the wingnuts' case. "I don't like what I'm hearing [and I'm sure as hell not going to check to see if it's factually based] so I'll just smear it with an oft repeated talking point."

What you have shown is that the Fox news COMMENTATORS have their own opinions.
The COMMENTATORS are not journalists,they are simply giving their own opinions on the news.

The left has the same kind of people,like Al Franken,the talking heads on CNN,and others.
They are NOT journalists,they dont claim to be.
Sean Hannity has NEVER claimed to be a journalist.
The Fox NEWS department is different from the talking heads on Fox.
The NEWS dept is actually pretty good at what they do,which is reporting the news.

The left seems to have a problem admitting that they news and the Sean Hannity types are two different parts of Fox.

0 Replies

Mysteryman

The Left just doesn't get it..........the difference between journalism and commentating.......maybe we should resort to diagrams and/or cartoons.

0 Replies

Well, at least we've reached the point where a differentiation has been made. Let me follow up with several questions to help us get all this clear...

How would you guys define the key elements that differentiates a journalist from a commentator?

Would it matter, for this nation or any other, if one or the other category disappeared?

Who do you think is more influential in forming opinion presently?

0 Replies

Blatham
Perhaps this time you will take the time to read the Journalists Code of Ethics..........your question is clearly answered below

rayban1 wrote:

blatham wrote:
Well, it's interesting to read them if for no other reason than to remind us the dangers to democracy of a poorly educated citizenry.

Blatham.....by denigrating the education of some contributors on this forum, you are violating your own stated rules of rational, reasoned debate just as Moyers violates the ethics of all professional journalists by cloaking himself as a journalist while spreading his evangelical political commentary.

Most of you have probably never viewed the Journalist's code of ethics so I provide it for your examination below:

Two of the rules below that are most often violated by journalists are:

1. * Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.

2. * Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.

Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

Seek Truth and Report It

Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

* Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
* Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
* Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
* Always question sources' motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
* Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
* Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
* Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
* Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
* Never plagiarize.
* Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
* Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
* Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
* Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
* Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
* Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
* Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
* Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

Minimize Harm

Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

* Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
* Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
* Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
* Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.
* Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
* Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
* Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
* Balance a criminal suspect's fair trial rights with the public's right to be informed.

Act Independently

Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:

* Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
* Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
* Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
* Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
* Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
* Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
* Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.

Be Accountable

Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

* Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
* Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
* Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
* Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
* Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of
writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of
the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months
of study and debate among the Society's members.

Sigma Delta Chi's first Code of Ethics was borrowed from the
American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926. In 1973, Sigma Delta Chi
wrote its own code, which was revised in 1984, 1987 and 1996.

Ethics Resources
Ethics Code
Ethics News
Ethics Hotline
SPJ Ethics Listserv
Other Ethics Sources
SPJ Ethics Committee
Ethics Week

For Members | For Leaders | Chapters | Missions | Join SPJ
Copyright © 1996-2005 Society of Professional Journalists. All Rights Reserved.

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center, 3909 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 Fax: 317/920-4789 contact us

Having problems with the site? E-mail us [email protected]

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

Blatham
Perhaps this time you will take the time to read the Journalists Code of Ethics..........your question is clearly answered below

Careful, Rayban, you're turning this code into a propaganda tool. You seem unable to focus on a specific issue. You are content to bad mouth various people without ever addressing any actual issue.

He's a liberal/ he's an elistist/I've got no time for that Castro lover

and whatever other inane comments you've provided; once again, I feel compelled to remind you; without ever actually addressing anything.

I must also point out that Blatham asked you some specific questions, Rayban.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

rayban1 wrote:
Blatham
Perhaps this time you will take the time to read the Journalists Code of Ethics..........your question is clearly answered below

Careful, Rayban, you're turning this code into a propaganda tool. You seem unable to focus on a specific issue. You are content to bad mouth various people without ever addressing any actual issue.

He's a liberal/ he's an elistist/I've got no time for that Castro lover

and whatever other inane comments you've provided; once again, I feel compelled to remind you; without ever actually addressing anything.

I must also point out that Blatham asked you some specific questions, Rayban.

You seem determined to inject yourself into this conversation with an antagonistic and confrontational attitude. This could be a learning experience for all of us but I will not respond favorably to your specific, intentional insults. Your appology, if extended, would be accepted......other wise go pick a fight somewhere else. The rest of us would like to have an adult discussion.

0 Replies

Thankyou for the repost rayban.

I wonder if I might get your own, and mm's take on those three questions?

For many, political 'education' comes via commentary of the modern Crossfire or 'yelling partisan pundit' variety.

If, as you seem to suggest with your repost, journalism is anchored in a code of ethics which seeks objectivity, absence of conflicts of interest, avoiding distortion, care in claiming fact, etc, then what might be the codes, if any, governing 'commentary'?

What might be the consequences of a citizenry who are increasingly 'educated' by political information flow unconstrained by such a code?

0 Replies

And under the heading of goddamn propaganda...

Galloway's testimony has now been scrubbed from the government website
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=51783&start=230

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

So the liberal, govt supported mouthpiece of the left is being forced to be more honest in it's reporting? What is the issue?

How many conservatives are on NPR or PBS? I would say if the govt is supporting them then they need to have a balance.

I've always heard PBS referred to as WDNC. Somehow or other, for a publically funded outfit to be simply handing its donor rolls over to the DNC bothers me.

I'd just as soon see it closed down.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Well, at least we've reached the point where a differentiation has been made. Let me follow up with several questions to help us get all this clear...

How would you guys define the key elements that differentiates a journalist from a commentator?

Would it matter, for this nation or any other, if one or the other category disappeared?

Who do you think is more influential in forming opinion presently?

These three questions are only the beginning but since you started asking I will attempt to provide satisfactory anwers

1. How would you guys define the key elements the differentiates a journalist from a commentator?

A jounalist deals in finding facts and reporting those facts so that the reader or listener can form his own conclusion. The commentator does not trust the intelligence of the reader or listener so in his arrogance and sometimes superior intellectual position trys to force his opinions on the audience. The true journalist is bound by a strict code of ethics whereas the commentator is bound only by a general understanding and knowledge that he will only be listened to if he maintains credibility by analysing the facts of the journalist and presenting sound logical conclusions.

2. Would it matter, for this nation or any other, if one or the other category disappeared?

IMO there is and alwasy will be a need for both but the true journalist is absolutely essential to society. Any real value of a commentator is only relevant if he is in tune with the majority of society and uses his normally superior intellect to strengthen the knowledge of the average citizen. There is however a danger presented by the commentator who has a powerful and persuasive intellect coupled with oratory skills when he chooses to be destructive to society by advancing cynical and nihilistic views. At this point in history cynicism and nihilism are becoming very powerful and devisive to our society........I can only hope that this tendency is modified as the pendulum swings with time.and some the most devisive issues are resolved.

3. Who do you think is the more influential in forming opinion presently?

Wow....this question will create a storm of controversy because of our differing opinions. But I would be forced to go with Bill OReilly as number one and Rush Limbaugh as number two. OReilly in my opinion is really tuned in to the average American citizen and is their voice now.

I hope this will be the start of a healthy debate but for now must take the wife shopping.

0 Replies

It is a good start. Thankyou kindly for trying to sort out some complicated issues.

Let's try to maintain some set of criteria which don't head in the direction of the conclusion we hope will result. Your point 1 is a good example.
We can sort of rough draft things as we go.

For my # 3 question, I actually meant to address now which individuals were most influential (though I think by statistic, O'Reilly and Limbaugh are most watched/listened to) but rather whether journalism or commentary is the more influential presently?

I'm out for a bit too.

0 Replies

I'm sure I'm not the only conservative who is seriously concerned that many young adults think Jon Stewart is a news anchor.

0 Replies

He's the only one with the balls to tell the truth about your leaders. I'm sure you do find it concerning that more and more young adults are turning to him for news.

Perhaps we should legislate that Stewart has to offer 'balanced' viewpoints as well before our nations children become corrupted by the Liberal viewpoint.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Perhaps we should legislate that Stewart has to offer 'balanced' viewpoints as well before our nations children become corrupted by the Liberal viewpoint.

Perhaps if liberals were to start having children of their own instead of aborting them all, they wouldn't have to work so hard at indoctrinating everybody elses children.

0 Replies

Blatham

Your further definition of your intent for the number three question is a striking example of the difference between your and my position.

The true jounalist does not have the authority, according to the way I understand the code, to even attempt to be influential........he/she has a profound responsibility to determine and report the facts.......not to inject any opinion.

On the other hand, the commentator or I think more correctly the news analyst, has the licence and the obligation to analyze/interpret the intent/content of the news and put forward his/her opinion of the implication and/or consequence for the citizens of a particular country and/or the global community.

It seems to me that in your comments regarding jounalists, you hold the opinion that jounalists have the obligation to attempt to influence opinion........to me that is contrary to the intent of the Journalists code of ethics.

There was time when I had a deep and profound respect for the BBC news reporting. The cultured/well educated voice putting forth the facts that were known at that time with absolutely no intent to influence my opinion. That to me is the epitome of the conduct that I expect from a jounalist/news reporter. Anything else is an insult to the intelligence of the reader/listener and the reporting by BBC during the Iraq war was a good example of how far they have strayed from the high standard they once held dear.
They made it clear they violently disagreed with Mr. Blair for entering the war and they also made it obvious they intended to punish him for his decision. The two top officials at BBC paid dearly.......they resigned because they supported Andrew Gilligan in his attempt to bring down the Gov't but instead his zealotry caused a man to commit suicide and of course it brought the world down on their heads. The BBC is entirely supported by PUBLIC money which is collected each year from every single owner of a television set at roughly 100 lbs per set which amounts to billions of pounds and since the exchange rate is now approx'tly 2-1 that translates into doubling the number to get $$$dollars. The BBC has a gigantic global organization with the power to influence Billions of people and when they become a rogue organization with the perceived obligation to bring down elected gov'ts because they disagree with their policies, you have a very dangerous situation. On the other hand when they had the opportunity to criticize the gov't in Zimbabwe which has been taken over by a thug, they barely issued a whimper..........why should the public trust such an organization?

0 Replies

I'd be satisfied that what is actually news is regarded as news, and that people knew the difference between news and entertainment.

But, that's just me.

0 Replies

rayban

Let's do this carefully.

Note I did NOT say a journalist should TRY to influence.

Let's imagine you have a daughter who wants to buy a new car. She turns to two adults for advice, yourself and an uncle.

The uncle is a life-long Chevy driver and he runs down Ford and Japanese cars and you know much of what he's saying is bullshit and you know he doesn't really know all that much about foreign cars at all. He's really just a bit of a blowhard with opinions. He tells her to buy a Chevy. "Great car", he says, "you can't go wrong".

You, on the other hand, stay in touch with the good auto publications, reading the test accounts and the long-term driving reports, you're familiar with the Consumer Reports data, etc. You have a personal preference for German cars, but know a lot of other cars are fine too. You also are aware that GM autos have, on average, a very poor rating with every publication. You pass along what you know, but give her the relevant publications to look at herself.

Notice who is trying to 'influence', in a specific manner or direction.

But on the other hand, is it the uncle or yourself who the daughter is best advised by?

0 Replies

Blatham

You say that you did not suggest that the journalist should try to influence anyone but then you immediately give an example where you want to "influence" your daughter.......that was YOUR daughter wasn't it???
I think you used a poor example which caused the reader to take his eye off the ball with a misleading analogy

I think we should we should stick with politics and attempts to influence the vote, since that is the most volatile and polarizing subject today.

0 Replies

Dan Rather would be one interesting case in point.

One of three major (or 4) coveted and historically respected iconic positions; men who are charged with straight dissemination of the news.

He was a major Democrat fundraiser, constantly attacked Republicans, and I think he massaged himself to orgasm whenever he interviewed Bill or Hill. He fell all over himself lauding them.

He ran with a story he had no credible source for--because he wanted to cause Bush to lose the election.

Could we start be saying he tried to influence voters?

0 Replies

and hey, there's always Bob Novak.

0 Replies

Turning PBS into another propaganda tool

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know