Turning PBS into another propaganda tool

No, actually my daughter doesn't drive and isn't interested in learning or cars. Thankyou, god.

The analogy is not misleading or I certainly cannot see how it is. I fully intended to put your eye on something here using an analogy that would keep us away from the polarized and cliched, knee-jerk ideas and responses. One mention of CBC or Rather and a hundred preformed ideas come into everyone's noggins. That's not helpful.

In the auto advice analogy, it becomes pretty clear that unbiased position (so much as possible, and in line with the code you pasted) and thorough, careful research and reporting will serve the daughter better than will the biased and relatively uneducated and researched opinion will serve her.

Why would that same thing not apply in any area, including politics?

Let's take another imaginary case... a 60s student radio station with a Marxist disc jockey/commentator who starts blabbing about how the university policies are established by General Electric and the CIA (the guy believes this).

Would a listener gain more from that fellow's commentary than if he was instead to find transcripts of university board meetings along with board membership lists and interviews with those board members or dig through student newspapers and local papers for information on policy criteria?

Hold off for a bit lash. Let's try and get some basics in on this one.

OK, blatham.

See what you think of this...

You and I disagree on which is the 60's Marxist.

Blatham

I can certainly see why you don't wish to address anything meaningful such as Rather, the BBC fiasco, the Newsweek scandal or anything that would shine a light on your heroes.......the MSM.

You can dance, you can run but you can't hide forever.

But that is not so. I do wish to discuss precisely those things, but in a manner which is careful, a bit deeper than normal, and which seeks to avoid or undercut the crapola in our noggins - which leads so commonly to folks just yelling cliches and prejudices at each other until the end of time. That's boring. Learning and gaining new viewpoints is way more fun.

You're clearly a nice fellow. But we may not be able to do what we've set out to try here. Not sure what else to say.

Blatham

There is nothing that would please me more than to have a truly meaningful debate on what I consider to be an irresponsible Media Machine. Perhaps I can clarify some of my worries and you tell me if I am justified. I will list a few actions that I see in the media most every day which concern me the most:

1. The NYTimes, the LATimes, and the three major television networks have taken a position on war, any war that is purely idealistic in that any war should be waged in Defense only. This means that we must wait patiently until something like 9/11 happens before we can take any military action. To me this is similar to the domestic violence you read about every day----man beats wife and threatens to kill her.......wife gets restraining order........man stalks wife and kills her and takes the kids and or kills the kids also in some parking lot.
As in the idealistic war stance, the preemptive option has been taken off the table from the police so they can't do anything until after wife has been killed. This has been brought about by what I call the ACLU syndrome......if the police take any positive action they will be hounded into oblivion by the ACLU and the Liberal Press.......the ACLU, nor the Press are ever able to protect the wife from getting killed and this is a fact but yet the ACLU nor the press ever get blamed.....only the police take the blame. The same situation exists with preemptive military action......the press will hurl accusations that the Gov't is not doing enough to protect us but yet will howl about the Patriot Act stealing our freedom even though every instance is tested in court.

My point here is that the MSM becomes more entrenched every day instead of testing every major news item against the code of ethics to determine what harm will done if it is printed..........they instead ask themselves what damage it will do to the administration.....any administration Dem or Repub......and if it will do great damage to the military or the administration they print it immediately without applying the truth test.......all they can see or care about is the headline effect. I never see any evidence that anyone in charge of a newsroom has ever read the Journalists Code of Ethics.

I will not list anymore until you tell me whether I am justified in this one allegation.

I hasten to add that as an ex military guy, I hate war and the senseless destruction it causes but since history tells us that there has always been war, I must take the fatalistic approach that until we are able to inject a drug into every person on the planet that will change human nature with all it's evil tendencies, we will always have war. If one accepts this premise and I think you must, then you must analyse the existing evidence that an enemy will attack or that a man will kill wife and take action to prevent the likely outcome even though if you take action the second guessers will come pouring out of the wordwork. Society will always have it's share of those who stand on the sidelines and takes sniper shots at those who are willing to take action, even if that action proves to be right. Perhaps the same drug that changes human nature will also force the naysayers to hold their tongues.

BBB
bm

Marshall McLuhan
what are ya doing?

Heck even the cooking shows on PBS lean left.

Here, let me repeat my remark, it can't be overemphasized . . .

cjhsa--

LOL!!!

OK, let me try to be serious for a second.

I would deeply love to witness, or take part in a thoughtful, ordered examination of this issue wherein we all check our preconceived biases at the door.

I will make a concerted effort not to buzz in with quips.

Could someone start a convo on the parameters, or method of the discussion?

Most of you probably won't accept the following as a worthwhile source but I persent it anyway to support my last comments about my perception of the Press. It's by a guy named John Leo who I am not familiar with but he writes for US news and world report, and he seems to have presented a fairly even handed commentary......and I point out it is commentary as opposed to factual reporting.

This is the first paragraph and the URL for the remainder follows:

The Media in Trouble

It's official. conservatives are losing their monopoly on complaints about media bias. In the wake of Newsweek 's bungled report that U.S. military interrogators "flushed a Qur'an down a toilet," here is Terry Moran, ABC's White House reporter, in an interview with radio host and blogger Hugh Hewitt: "There is, I agree with you, a deep antimilitary bias in the media, one that begins from the premise that the military must be lying and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong." Moran thinks it's a hangover from Vietnam. Sure, but the culture of the newsroom is a factor, too. In all my years in journalism, I don't think I have met more than one or two reporters who have ever served in the military or who even had a friend in the armed forces. Most media hiring today is from universities where a military career is regarded as bizarre and almost any exercise of American power is considered wrongheaded or evil.

I repeat the last sentence above for emphasis:

Most media hiring today is from universities where a military career is regarded as bizarre and almost any exercise of of American power is considered wrong headed or evil. As you can see in my comments above this is precisely what I perceive......just different words.

here is the url for the remainder of the article:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050530/30john.htm

Sorry I'm so long getting back to you,but here is my answer...

The biggest difference betwen a journalist and a commentator is simple,IMNTBHO.

A journalist is like the old town crier.

They tell you what happened,where it happened,and how it happened.
My journalism classes always stressed WHO,WHAT,WHEN,WHERE,WHY,and HOW.
That is all a journalist is supposed to do.
Once they diverge from these 6 things,they become commentators,or analysts,or whatever you want to call them.

A journalist is not supposed to make news,nor are they to try to influence opinion,or change the world,or anything else.

Having said that,I do believe that some journalists (the recent Dan Rather fiasco comes to mind),have crossed the line into editorializing.

An analyst (or commentator,if you prefer that word) is the one charged with influencing opinion,by giving his and trying to convince others.
An analyst,ala Rush,Sean,James Carville,Dick Morris,etc. takes the news and spins it the way they want it to appear,and uses their words to alter the news to suit them.

BTW,both sides have their analysts or talking heads that do that,not just one.

I do think it would matter if one or the other of them were to dissapear,for several reasons.
Many people use these analysts to refute or confirm their opinions,and the press is one of the gardians of our freedom.
I believe that BOTH are neccessary to a free society.

Yes,I do believe that right now analysts are more influential in forming public opinion,but that is cyclical.
At other times journalists were,so I am not worried about it.
The pendulum will return to the other side eventually.

rayban

Let's go back a bit. You previously suggested that the two most influential people in news/commentary were Limbaugh and O'Reilly.

Would the code you've pasted apply to them, given their influence?

Damn Blatham.......are you trying to exasperate me on purpose. Both those guys are commentators/new analyists. The code does not apply to them.


The code does apply to Shepard Smith the young smart ass who comes on just before OReilly. He passes on what he considers news items but does NOT do commentary.

rayban

Thanks for your patience.

If I have you right then, there is no obligation of any sort for O'Reilly or Limbaugh or any other such 'commentator' to adhere to the code you've posted? For example, O'Reilly or Limbaugh or Coulter or Franken may, without any ethical or professional lapse:

state things which he knows to be untrue? (code point 2)

be dishonest about anything/everything ? (under 'seek truth and report it')

be completely careless as to accuracy of what he says and even deliberately distort (under 'journalists should')

fake a photo or film footage without saying he's done so (same section)

repress in any way he can all opposing viewpoints (same section)

secretly accept money from a political party to say what they want

etc.

All that is ok for a 'commentator'?

Blatham
You are determined to turn this into a free for all but I will take the bait and say......Yes........there's only one catch......maintaining credibility. If they maintain credibility, they keep their listener base and add to it. If they rant and rave they soon slip into telling any lie to justify their rant and they're dead.

IMO, Franken never established any credibility and his base never grew so his days are numbered. OReilly and Limbaugh make a concentrated effort to be accurate and credible with their conclusions and therefore are successful. OReilly in particular is very aware of the difference because he frequently states that he is a news analyst instead of a reporter.

Then you have the guys who masqerade as Journalists but cross the line when they jump into commentary as Walter Cronkite did when he pronounced the Vietnam war unwinable........nobody caught it so he was an overnight sensation but he violated the code.

Now we come back to the title of this thread which deals with PBS and Moyers. Moyers masqueraded as a jounalist but with every breath he attempted to influence the public............I rest my case.

It seems that blatham measures the level of influence, rather than the job description--and seeks to apply a parallel level of responsibility to adhere to the Journalistic Code.

It may seem unfair that one can say whatever he pleases--and another is censured heavily--but that is the nature of Journalism contrasted to a Commentator.

I think it is just irritating to those on the end of the political spectrum opposite the heavy hitters--O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity... The heroes of the opposing group are unfortunately people who ARE bound by the Journalistic Code. They are not Commentators, but reporters and anchors.

Well, I suppose we've reached a clear agreement here - that O'Reilly, Coulter, Limbaugh etc consider themselves free of any ethical responsibility to be either truthful or accurate, and that you folks are content in such an understanding.

I shall retire from the conversation at this point.