Replies

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.

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

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.