Posted on 05/22/2015 1:31:45 PM PDT by Kaslin
If you're an intellectually curious person -- and if you're a journalist, let's assume that you are -- you are likely to have embraced a number of notions about how the world works, how it should work and who should be running it. This is natural. It's inevitable, then, that most journalists have formed some opinions about partisan politics.
It's unrealistic to expect that even the most conscientious journalist can wholly divorce his or her professional work from his or her philosophical positions. And even if that person were to put forth the sincerest effort possible, biases are likely to manifest in the focus and tone of his or her work. And this doesn't even take into account editors and headline writers, often the worst culprits in one-sided political coverage.
So though we have many fine political journalists, we have only a handful of truly unbiased ones in the country.
ABC News' George Stephanopoulos is surely not one of them. When The Washington Free Beacon broke the news that "This Week" and "Good Morning America" host Stephanopoulos had contributed $50,000 (now $75,000) to the Clinton Foundation, it did not hide its ideological motivations. But bias isn't tantamount to dishonesty. It just speaks to purpose.
Brent Bozell, president of the conservative watchdog group Media Research Center, says Stephanopoulos displayed "an inexcusable lack of journalistic ethics." He's right. Stephanopoulos failed to disclose his contribution before his on-air grilling of Peter Schweizer, author of "Clinton Cash," about the Clinton Foundation's difficulties. Questioning another journalist's work when you're directly involved in a scandal -- one you're pretending not to have an opinion on -- is in every sense unethical, and not because the former Clinton aide is a partisan. There is little doubt he hid his donation to preserve the pretense of dispassionate coverage. The real scandal is that anyone thought he could provide unbiased coverage even before this revelation.
If Stephanopoulos would have disclosed his charitable giving beforehand, rather than press Schweizer on his past partisanship, he could have asked him: "Listen, I gave money to this foundation, too. I'm a huge fan of the work it does on AIDS and deforestation and working with corrupt Middle Eastern regimes, and I think the entire mission is simply fantastic. What proof do you have that there was a quid pro quo by me or anyone else?"
That would be far more compelling and informative television. Questions are questions, after all. And your outlook doesn't change their legitimacy.
Pointing out bias is fair game, but running from bias is bad form. Bozell also says Republicans should avoid ABC News. After the scandal broke, presidential hopeful Ted Cruz claimed that "debates should not be moderated by partisan Democrats who are actively supporting one of the candidates." And Rand Paul said: "It's impossible to divorce yourself from that, even if you try. I just think it's really, really hard because he's been there, so close to them, that there would be a conflict of interest if he tried to be a moderator of any sort."
This is all true. And so what?
Stephanopoulos is a partisan by the purest definition of the word. He's never been a journalist. He's going to ask Republicans the sorts of questions they should be asked -- the sorts of questions they should have answers for. Moreover, no one has to be confused about the questioner's intentions.
CNN's Candy Crowley, on the other hand, is purportedly an unbiased journalist, and she still couldn't help but correct Mitt Romney when he accused President Barack Obama of refusing to refer to the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, as a "terrorist act" in a 2012 debate. Well, she didn't exactly "correct" Romney. The Republican, it turned out, had it right. But most of the voters watching, people who don't follow politics as closely as you do, never knew she was mistaken. Her job was to mediate. She interceded. Might as well have openly antagonistic journalists asking questions that matter. In the best of worlds, two antagonist journalists would be asking both candidates questions.
And candidates should have nothing to fear, unless they're insecure in their own beliefs. Whether a communist or an objectivist grilled me about my positions, they would not change. Sometimes your answers can give context or challenge the premise. Paul, for example, responded to a gotcha question on abortion with the sort of feistiness that's often necessary when dealing with adversaries.
When Todd Akin -- or whoever the next Todd Akin is -- says something stupid, it's because he believes something stupid. Let's not blame the press. When "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace -- one of the few who is equally tenacious with conservatives and liberals -- attempted to get an answer out of Marco Rubio about Iraq, he couldn't because the candidate has no good answer.
The late David Brinkley, George Clintonopolous’s predecessor on ABC, seemed to me like the epitome of what an unbiased journalist should be like.
Would be nice if we had more people in the media like David Brinkley. I never knew what his personal leanings were.
And that’s the way it should be.
But he's NOT going to ask Democrats the sorts of questions THEY should be asked.
I would like to see liberals debate on Fox News with Kelly, Wallace and Greta as mods.
Now that’s television.
Well, Hell, lets have ABC fire Stephanopoulos and have 10 years of conservative journalism as payback !!!
As the Liberals say, “Let’s be Fair” ........
How could someone give tens of thousands of dollars to the family he used to work for and pretend that he isn't their kept pet? How could anyone write adoringly about the crease in a man's pants and pretend to be neutral?
There’s no such thing as perfect human beings either. So therefore, we ought to feel justified stealing whatever we can, beating the crap out of other people, leaving our crap on the ground, having sex with whatever things or people or animals we happen to fancy at any particular moment, and basically living in a lawless jungle where there is no morality nor concern for other people.
Honestly, do these people claim to have functioning brains?
Stephanopoulos is a partisan by the purest definition of the word.He's not just partisan, he's an activist.
He consciously works to undermine Republicans while protecting Democrats. Any pundit that isn't aware of that is living in a fantasy world.
Oh, admit it, you really wish Leicester City would clobber Manchester United...
There’s no such thing as perfect human beings either......I beg your pardon, base earth animal.
I just found one of the teams is named Chelsea and completely gained a bias.
He’s going to ask Republicans the sorts of questions they should be asked...Mrs. Clinton, if you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?
Bingo.
Among mainstream journalists, it is an article of faith that they are completely objective and without bias, and that the only biased network is Fox News. Do we need any more proof that they are dangerously insane?
They should force news presenters to wear armbands that reflect their personal convictions.. Agendas.. Uhhh.. Yaknow
Or sumthin’.
Over to you, Steppinoutonus!!
No, journalists cannot completely divorce their own personal biases from the stories they cover. And even if they could, the reporters aren't the only people who decide what gets covered, how, and what gets published. Fine. I accept that.
But FACTS admit of no bias. If I write a leed that says
"Two teenage girls were struck and killed Sunday near the Overprice Mall by a driver later identified as Salvador Illegales of Juarez, Mexico. Police are withholding the names of the victims pending notification of their families."
that is a factual who-what-when-where-why leed.
If instead the leed reads
"Two privileged white girls darted in front of an automobile driven by a respected member of the Mexican-American community and were struck despite his best efforts. The girls, who had reportedly been in ill health, later succumbed to injuries."
it is clear that the second leed disposes the reader in favor of the driver and casts doubt on the actions of the girls.
My point is that the first leed -- all facts -- tells a story. The second leed -- replete with vague innuendos, emotionally charged terms, and subjective pronouncements -- casts a bias onto the events. One is an example of good journalism. One is an example of today's journalism. Can you guess which is which?
Give us facts. Keep your biases to yourself. And quit hiding behind flimsy excuses for your cowardly and unprofessional behavior.
I agree completely with your analysis. But there is another level to it - what the media covers, what it emphasizes, and what it ignores or minimizes. A pertinent example is the way the media mocked Bush for “mission accomplished,” but utterly ignored Obama’s equivalent, “we are leaving a safe and stable Iraq.”
Fire all ‘journalist’ and let the government hire goon rewrite men to gussie up press releases.
If we’re going to stop pretending let’s do it right... why pay the liars?
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.