They're not even trying to hide it any more, are they?
Scary times, indeed.
Posted on 10/23/2008 8:58:03 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
A reporter hired by Newsweek to cover the presidential primary has written an article admitting that he was biased.
Writing in the latest issue of GQ magazine, Michael Hastings describes his personal feelings about various candidates, including Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, and admits that he could not be objective about the people he covered:
If that sounds like I had some trouble being “objective,” I did. Objectivity is a fallacy. In campaign reporting more than any other kind of press coverage, reporters aren’t just covering a story, they’re a part of it—influencing outcomes, setting expectations, framing candidates—and despite what they tell themselves, it’s impossible to both be a part of the action and report on it objectively. In some cases, you genuinely like the candidate you’re covering and you root for him, because over the long haul you come to see him as a human being.
Hastings, a self-described “latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing trust-fund bab[y],” goes on to say that he was “appalled by [the] basic ideas” of the Republicans. He blasts John McCain as "a little crazy," Rudy Guiliani as a "maniac," Mike Huckabee as a "joke" and mentions that Democrat Hillary Clinton “seemed okay” until her campaign began attacking Barack Obama.
In addition to his personal feelings against the Republican candidates, Hastings sets forth how his editors expected him to build trust with a campaign’s staff so that the magazine could later, if called for, damage the candidate:
The dance with staffers is a perilous one. You’re probably not going to get much, if any, one-on-one time with the candidate, which means your sources of information are the people who work for him. So you pretend to be friendly and nonthreatening, and over time you “build trust,” which everybody involved knows is an illusion. If the time comes, if your editor calls for it, you’re supposed to fuck them over…”
Hastings also hints that his opinions were shared by most of the press covering the candidates.
According to his article, Hastings left the campaign shortly before the Republican convention.
In addition to his work for Newsweek Hastings is the author of "I Lost My Love In Baghdad,” a memoir in which he describes the death of fiancé, an aid worker who was killed by a car bomb in Iraq.
His full article appears in the November 2008 issue of GQ, which features comedian Jimmy Kimmel on the cover and the headline “Vote Democrat.”
They're not even trying to hide it any more, are they?
Scary times, indeed.
And in other news, water is wet!
To be fair, GQ also had Kimmel do a “Republican” cover where he’s Richard Nixon. No Marilyn. Sorry. But they did do the same line— “So This Damn Thing Can Finally Be Over”.
And in other news, water is wet!
O’Reilly brought this up last night based on a distorted CNN interview of Sarah Palin. Essentially, the unbiased and objective press is dead in this country. Might as well have Pravda for our news.
It’s become so obvious to the casual observer (80% of poll respondants say it’s obvious) that there’s no need to even use the word “admit” any longer.
The only people stupid enough to publicly pronounce the media as unbiased are the same members of the media who publicly celebrate their biases. When the revolution comes I say we hang the reporters first.
“Objectivity is a fallacy. In campaign reporting more than any other kind of press coverage, reporters aren’t just covering a story, they’re a part of it—influencing outcomes, setting expectations, framing candidates—and despite what they tell themselves, it’s impossible to both be a part of the action and report on it objectively”
Thanks for publicly admitting that.
I agree with him, objectivity is a fallacy. IMPARTIALITY, however, is not. These newsies are frauds, plain and simple.
“...become so obvious...”
Unfortunately, there are American’s out there who don’t recognized the “obvious”.
Churchill was right.
A modus operadi reserved exclusively for Republican candidates no doubt.
Ping for evidence.
But that was still priceless when somebody asked Andrea whats her name...Alan Greenspan's wife if there was a journalistic bias.
She hesitated for a second and then, as calmly as possible gave a no answer. You could see in her face that she knew she was lying through her teeth, but she also knew there was no way she could consider telling them truth because that would just be too ugly.
Truth is, she can't handle the truth.
Wait, so they used the most beloved Democrat president and the most scandalized Republican. Yeah, that’s fair. :)
The bias actually comes in layers, built upon one another. A single reporter may be biased but he or she will consider it just a little and might even believe it can be controlled. But bias comes from assignments editors who determine which reporter covers the story. The reporter adds his or her own bias to the writing in what to emphasize, the terms used, and the items not commented upon. Frequently there is more than one writer, especially for traveling reporters who draft a story and then have it finalized at the home office, adding another layer of bias. The copy editor includes bias in selecting what parts of the story to edit out and the headline wording. The editor selects placement of the story in the newspaper or broadcast. Layer upon layer upon layer where, since most of the media is decidedly left of center, the story is pulled further and further left. Most reporters and other media people may admit they have only a tiny portion of bias and minimize their contributions to the layering effect.
No, it's not a fallacy. The author should invest in a dictionary and use it.
Objectivity is an ideal; a goal. Ideals can't be met perfectly by mere mortals, yet they are worthy and important to reach for.
Jounalistic objectivity is such an ideal.
But this thing won’t be over. No matter who wins in November, the 2006 Congressional race will begin the day after the election.
For Democrats it most assuredly will (it did in 2004, and their 2008 Presidential ran began in 2006 with Democrats pushing for both McCain and Obama in 2006).
If the Democrats lose the White House, they will seek to gain even more seats to block McCain in Congress. If the Democrats WIN the White House, they will seek to block a repeat of the 1994 Republican Revolution.
Its an unobtainable ideal.
I am one of those much maligned lawyers, but we lawyers learned a long time ago that we can never represent two conflicting interest fairly. When so-called journalist try to be unbiased by following some sort of "ethical" guidelines they are at worst a fraud and at best deluding themselves.
Can you imagine if the Messiah wins, and the House-Senate is a dictatorship of Dems, how the Fairness Doctrine will come up and the ACORN thugs will not , not be investigated. Soon all illegals will be allowed legally to vote, felons, our military will not be allowed and wow, we have a nice socialist pacifist monarchy. Ah the good time are coming for the free and the brave.
Is that actually "fiance" or did they mean "fiancee"? Quite a difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.