Sorting opinions in radio airwaves doesn't foster valid discussions (FreeRepublic mentioned)

The Digital Collegian (Penn State) ^ | Monday, April 5, 2004 | Torie Bosch

[Willie Green]

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

Let's be honest here. We all have our biases.

I'll admit to mine right now. I can't stand country music, political strategist Karl Rove and chemistry. So, if I decided to write a column about the Karl Rove-led plan to cut prices on chemistry books by getting country music labels to sponsor them, with promises of renaming elements after country stars (he says "chesneyium" just sounds better than "carbon"), you would probably be a bit suspicious of my motives.

In theory, all journalism is completely without bias. A reporter, whether in print, on-air or onscreen, is supposed to approach a story like a juror, without his or her mind completely made up.

In reality, though, it is impossible to be completely impartial about something, whether it's a new TV show ("I love the show, but I'm biased, because the main character's so hot!") or an Undergraduate Student Government presidential candidate ("I don't know whether he'll do a good job, but I had a class with him last year, and he seemed like a good guy"). For journalists, even deciding what exactly to report on is a judgment call -- what's more important, the death of a soldier in Iraq or the success of a new school for girls in Afghanistan?

It depends on how you look at the news.

People often speak of "liberal bias" or "conservative bias" in the media. These phrases seem more appropriate lately, given the growing success of unabashedly biased books, radio shows and news broadcasts that offer politically skewed looks at world events. Amazon.com's nonfiction top 10 sellers include: Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, by John W. Dean; Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism, by Sean Hannity; and The Official Handbook of the Right Wing Conspiracy, by Mark W. Smith. Smith promises that his book will give readers "all the ammunition you need to help win every argument against loony liberals." He's not even trying to market to anyone outside of his own political ideology.

Biased media got a booster shot last week, when the long-planned liberal Air America Radio launched in six cities. Air America Radio's on-air talents include comedians Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo, as well as rapper Chuck D of Public Enemy.

The first days' shows, available via the Internet for those of us outside of the new station's test markets, repeatedly mocked conservatives by claiming to lock Ann Coulter in the green room and calling Air America Radio a "drug free zone," a reference to Rush Limbaugh's addiction to painkillers.

With Air America Radio (not to be confused with plain old Air America, which deals in paintball gun weapon systems), the media are taking another step away from objective journalism. Since the massive, wood-paneled radio sets of yore, radio has had biased shows, like the xenophobic priest Charles E. Coughlin in the 1930s.

But stations for just liberal talk or just conservative talk make real debate virtually impossible.

No longer must hosts with opposing views sit across from one another and hash out their differences; now, they can sit in their comfortable booths and laugh at any caller whose views run contrary to their own.

Conservative and liberal hosts each say that their own audiences are smarter, better informed and more perceptive than the competition's listeners. They constantly stroke the listener's ego. They call you smart and informed because you share their opinions, so you want to listen more. After all, everyone wants to be called smart.

They give you "information" to back up the opinions you already have, without showing you the other side of the story. That other side is called stupid, and so you feel stupid for wanting to listen to it.

By shutting out other vantage points and listening only to what you agree with, you're just sticking your fingers in your ears and humming. Democracy depends on informed discourse, and the numerous biased radio programs give you anything but that discourse.

There is nothing wrong with reading a book or listening to a program put forth by someone you agree with.

Liberals: If you want, you can listen only to Air America Radio, subscribe only to Mother Jones, surf only www.moveon.org and read only Michael Moore.

Conservatives: If you want, you can listen only to Limbaugh, subscribe only to The Weekly Standard, surf only www.freerepublic.com and read only Ann Coulter.

But then, will you really be able to effectively argue with someone of opposing beliefs? After all, you need to establish common ground to conduct a fruitful debate -- and I don't consider either Moore or Coulter common ground.

We students often claim to fight indoctrination, be it conservative or liberal. But by surrounding ourselves with opinions that we already agree with, we are in fact being indoctrinated and inoculated against further learning.

So don't listen to what anyone else tells you.

Just listen to me, and make up your own mind.

Torie Bosch is a sophomore majoring in English and a Daily Collegian columnist. Her e-mail address is vub101@psu.edu.

[Willie Green]

courtesy ping

[dirtboy]

t then, will you really be able to effectively argue with someone of opposing beliefs?

My goal is not to be able to argue effectively with liberals - that has already been proven to be a pointless endeavor, because liberals have no interest in honest debate. My goal is to use conservative media to make liberals politically irrelevant.

[sinkspur]

Even if Torie were not a sophomore, she would still be sophomoric.

[Support Free Republic]

---

	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-

[Seruzawa]

At least this lady seems like she's trying to make sense of things. She's got just one thing wrong though. Liberals really are stupid.

[international american]

"Liberals: If you want, you can listen only to Air America Radio, subscribe only to Mother Jones, surf only www.moveon.org and read only Michael Moore.


Conservatives: If you want, you can listen only to Limbaugh, subscribe only to The Weekly Standard, surf only www.freerepublic.com and read only Ann Coulter."

At least we got a free plug for Free Republic!!

[telebob]

"Conservatives: If you want, you can listen only to Limbaugh, subscribe only to The Weekly Standard, surf only www.freerepublic.com and read only Ann Coulter."

Well, the thing about FreeRepublic is you get the liberal viewpoint as well as the conservative. Unlike what libs expose themselves to.

Here you have the opportunity to sort out the facts for yourself.

Plus, it's really fun to slam liberals and lefties. Freepers are a hoot. Lefties are on a permanent life bummer.

[freedumb2003]

A child arrives at the obvious and has the temerity to publish it. This article is like publishing the discovery that water runs downhill unless you put mechanisms in place to do otherwise.

Poor kid doesn't even know enough to be embarrassed.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Conservatives: If you want, you can listen only to Limbaugh, subscribe only to The Weekly Standard,surf only www.freerepublic.com and read only Ann Coulter.

But then, will you really be able to effectively argue with someone of opposing beliefs?

1. As Ann Coulter notes inSlander, conservatives live in a sea of liberal media - we couldn't keep from being exposed to the most agressive form of liberal propaganda - "objective" journalists who are objecive wise in their own conceit - without living inside a bubble. As your

   In theory, all journalism is completely without bias. A reporter, whether in print, on-air or onscreen, is supposed to approach a story like a juror, without his or her mind completely made up.

   In reality, though, it is impossible to be completely impartial about something . . .

   For journalists, even deciding what exactly to report on is a judgment call -- what's more important, the death of a soldier in Iraq or the success of a new school for girls in Afghanistan?

   aptly points out.
2. Can Freepers tear apart a "Barf Alert" posting or a troll posting in minutes? You bet.

[neefer]

By shutting out other vantage points and listening only to what you agree with....

Hmm. He must not understand what the (Barf Alert!) notation is. And doesn't he listen to all the liberals phoning into Rush's show?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

He must not understand what the (Barf Alert!) notation is. And doesn't he listen to all the liberals phoning into Rush's show?

Quite obviously not, in both instances.

But there's hope for her, in her analysis of journalistic "objectivity."

[Gorjus]

But there's hope for her, in her analysis of journalistic "objectivity."

Very little (hope, that is). Her point is valid, but she ignores the key issue. There are objective facts, and objective journalists could report them regardless of their personal biases. And 'facts' do not mean getting a lying quote correct, nor misleading with pseudo-quantitative qualifiers and characterizations.

The job of a journalist includes using language to communicate as accurately as possible. I once wrote a letter to my local paper about bias in language. They characterized those on one side of a judgment call as "some Republicans", while those on the other side (this was a few years ago) were "Mr. Clinton's defenders."

I wrote back and said that, while it was true that 'some Republicans' felt the way the article described, it was also true that some who were not Republicans felt the same way - myself, for example. So the best characterization would not be with a partisan political label, but with a more generic label such as 'Americans.' And while 'some' is a valid word to use as a pseudo-quantitative qualifier, surely among all the Americans who felt the way I did - millions and millions of them based on opinion surveys - it would be valid and more accurate to say 'many' in place of 'some.' I pointed out that using a non-partisan, non-political, 'inoffensive' label like 'defender' for the other side was also a sign of bias.

To show the bias in the comparison, I pointed out it would be equally 'factual' to say, "Many Americans believe xxx, while some partisan Democrats believe yyy," yet it would leave a very different impression.

They forwarded my letter to their Washington managing editor, who didn't understand why I felt their article was biased.

At which point, I canceled my subscription to that newspaper.

[Fenris6]

"Conservative and liberal hosts each say that their own audiences are smarter, better informed and more perceptive than the competition's listeners. They constantly stroke the listener's ego. They call you smart and informed because you share their opinions, so you want to listen more. After all, everyone wants to be called smart."

She misses a key point: I listen to conservative talk radio because (before FOX) I couldn't GET conservative opinion in the media - thats what led to AM politcal talk shows in the first place. I rountinely read the Wash Post and NYT, and they routinely left out key facts and counterpoints that weakened the "purpose" (ahem) of their story. Its called "censorship by ommision". If journalists were truly obejective and unbiased, there would never have been a need for an alternative media.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

There are objective facts, and objective journalists could report them regardless of their personal biases.

Think of history as a huge picture, and journalism as a magnifying glass held over one portion of the picture. Journalisim emphasizes some details, at the cost of obscuring or distracting from others. Story selection emphasizes the death of one soldier in Iraq at the expense of the more historically significant fact that life in Afghanistan and Iraq is being normalized.

The thing to realize is that story selection is driven by the imperative to entertain the reader/viewer. Once you understand that, you understand why "Man Bites Dog" is a good headline and "Dog Bites Man" doesn't make the cut. Thus the journalist can follow the rules of journalism consistently but still come out with a consistently liberal bent to the result.

[lowbridge]

But then, will you really be able to effectively argue with someone of opposing beliefs? After all, you need to establish common ground to conduct a fruitful debate -- and I don't consider either Moore or Coulter common ground.

I find this article a bit irritationg. What makes her think that we've been insulating ourselves to one point of view? Ever since I first got internet access back in 1996-7. I have been doing nothing but debate liberals and expose myself to their point of view. I cant escape them on the internet even if I wanted to. I've argued with them in chat rooms, message boards, usenet newsgroups, blogs, etc.

All they know is what the Michael Moore's and Al Franken's of the world tells them. Those guys come up with some new book or article, and the liberals are breathless with excitement as they post it everywhere they go on the net and email to each other endlessly untill someone like me comes along and takes apart piece by piece their newfound "evidence" of Republican wrongdoing.

Their fellow liberals emailed it to them, therefore it had to be true!

[Gorjus]

The thing to realize is that story selection is driven by the imperative to entertain the reader/viewer.

Nice theory - and I already knew about the 'news' focusing on 'Man bites dog.' But in practice, the bias has overcome the journalist 'rules'. You can't follow the rules of valid journalism and consistently come out with a liberal bias. You can, however, follow the rules of what passes for journalism in America. It's as simple as reporting core facts (good journalism) versus merely quoting opinions (American 'journalism'). Facts are politically neutral. What someone says is political and subject to bias. Classic example: Did federal government revenues go up or down after the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts? A 'good' journalist would report that fact every time the Dems said the tax cuts caused the deficit.

And your 'entertainment drives' is false to fact - not exclusively so, but in practical effect. Hence the drop in ratings of the major networks and the rise of Fox News Channel. If the networks were really interested in entertaining the viewer, they would have 'fixed' their bias and never let the viewers slip away to a network with the slogan of 'Fair and Balanced.' Instead, it's more important to them that they preach their faith to the heathens.

And that's exactly what it is - a faith doctrine. It doesn't rely on faith in any power larger than themselves, but it's still a faith. And like all zealots, they can't see facts any more.

Yet facts do exist, and for that reason I'll hold to my original contention, that the writer of the essay is correct to recognize the all people have biases, but misses the key point when she fails to see that there are ways to overcome that bias.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

You can't follow the rules of valid journalism and consistently come out with a liberal bias. You can, however, follow the rules of what passes for journalism in America. It's as simple as reporting core facts (good journalism) versus merely quoting opinions (American 'journalism'). Facts are politically neutral. What someone says is political and subject to bias. Classic example: Did federal government revenues go up or down after the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts? A 'good' journalist would report that fact every time the Dems said the tax cuts caused the deficit.

A 'good' journalist would truly live up to the codes of journalistic ethics - whereas the profitable journalist pretends to but does not. In effect those codes of ethics tell you what you want to hear - and then the journalist does what helps the bottom line.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[TC Rider]

I can't stand country music, political strategist Karl Rove and chemistry.

I'm always fascinated by the left's kneejerk hatred of Karl Rove.

I couldn't come up with one Rove quote if my life depended on it. He's not out in front screaming like Carville, or spreading lies on CNN as Begala was, and is, wont to do.

So, what's up with Rove hatred? Is it something leftover from Ma Richards campaigns?

[supercat]

You can't follow the rules of valid journalism and consistently come out with a liberal bias.

Actually, on some issues one could do so very easily.

Which of the following news stories do you think would play better on a nightly newscast, even if ideology wasn't a factor:

1

[City street; night. Reporter in fg. Police cars visible in near bg with lights flashing.]

Here at the intersection of 33rd and 24th, around 7:40pm, a jogger's nightly stroll turned tragic when she was gunned down in an apparent robbery...

2

[City street; night. Reporter in fg. No activity visible in bg.]

Here at the intersection of 33rd and 24th, around 7:40pm, a heinous crime didn't happen. A jogger was approached by a man who suggested that she should hand over her wallet. When the jogger drew a Kel-Kec P32, the approaching individual apparently decided he had urgent business elsewhere as he left in great haste.

One doesn't need to have a liberal bias to decide that the first news story is more newsworthy than the second. After all, most people aren't interested in reading about things that could have happened, but didn't.