Posted on 06/04/2010 5:56:01 AM PDT by Zakeet
Note to Mr Kenneth Pauson:
Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf ‘s son ?
With emphasis on the words, "any position or topic".
In a sense he is correct. The problem is more subtle and yet simpler than that and extends to academia as well.
It was expressed to me in Saigon in 1970 when I was berating a VP for CBS about the coverage of the war.
He said, and I think he was correct, that the problem was not intentional bias, but “intellectual incest”, the fact that all the newspeople talked to no one but those who see the world as they do and all their reporting reflected that.
The liberal (progressive??) mindset is that things will only get better when the greatly superior elite control everything and lead the masses (whether they want it or not, the elites know best) to a higher level and on to perfection on earth. Anything that promotes this is good, anything that doesn’t is not just wrong, it is evil. “Whatever it takes baby.”
This mindset is nothing new, from Plato’s Philosepher-king, to Rousseau, to Marx, to Obummer, it’s all the same.
Bwah hah ha hah ha ha!!
Now he has some Florida swampland (Pair-a-Dice acres) and the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you....
It is truly amazing that this "journalist" has to go back 40 years to find an example that makes his point. Out of new ideas, anyone?
Narcissists like to think they are in the center of everything. Nixon's Watergate scandal transformed news reporting from a blue collar vocation to one attracting narcissists looking for fame. If you look at newspapers from before Nixon, very few articles have the reporter's name listed and personal opinions stayed out of it. Now the reporter's name is listed right after the title and you can often tell where they stand politically.
He must be trying out a new stand-up routine for that show “Last Comic Standing.”
I suppose the Harvard and Pew studies to the contrary mean nothing.
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/files/bw04_0614.pdf
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/11/pew-research-center-confirms-media-bias.html
The problem is not their bias. Newpapers have been bias since their creation. The difference now is lack of competition.
Newspapers are so 18th Century. I do not think they will survive. However, that does not mean gathering news is no longer needed. What is needed is more neutral reporting.
News gatherers should remember it is not their job to choose sides, but to report. Who, What, When, Where and very little Why.
The above notwithstanding, laying out the facts used to be a good idea. Now we just have emotions and editorializing.
The -—> In
Yea!sure that’s why newspaper subscribers are dropping like flies fleeing the lies these papers have been feeding them for decades.
I read the column, and basically Paulson is saying there’s no leftist bias in the media because he said there wasn’t any. Well, that sure is great proof. (smirk) Probably people like Paulson sincerely believe there is no bias just as Dan Rather viewed the New York Times as mainstream and unbiased. I think I’ll believe Bernie Goldberg before I believe this clown.
The Onion is a more reliable news source than Paulson
The MSM hit that point years ago
True, more now then ever.
No doubt, Pauslson said that media bias is a myth as he reported that the Obama Administration is the most transparent in the history of our country (because...well, Obama and the DNC said that).
Obviously he doesn’t watch MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS or NBC or read the NY Times or even his own McPaper.
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.