esmaspäev, mai 03, 2004
Ignorance
From today's Howard Kurtz chat at washingtonpost.com:
Atlanta, Ga.: Dear Howard
How would you compare the professional committment of your colleagues to professional excellence in accuracy and objectivity with yourself and the most immediate past generation of same prior to the explosion of cable?
I ask this because I find you to be one of the most professional journalists working today. Yet, I find most in the mainstream press appear to be more concerned with their own particular political agenda and simply report facts consistent with same. If it were not for Fox News Channel and talk radio, I would consider myself ignorant.
Dittohead Mike
Mike, does it even need to be pointed out that you are ignorant? Do you really think Rush Limbaugh doesn't have a poltiical agenda? I mean, really. I'm asking. This is unbelievably stupid logic.
"The mainstream media's biased, so I'm going to go to even more biased sources so I won't be ignorant."
You can like Fox News and talk radio and you can think the mainstream media is biased, but can you really be so astoundingly stupid that you don't recognize that Fox News and talk radio are blatantly biased? Is it possible to be such a lunkhead that you think they're giving you the whole story and CNN isn't? I can accept that people listen to and agree with Rush Limbaugh and other conservative radio hosts, but how can they delude themselves into thinking that he doesn't have a political agenda?
My personal read on the mainstream media is that it does try to be objective. Bias creeps in from time to time and it cuts both ways, but on average, it's pretty fair. There are certainly stories that are overly favorable to Bush every day that piss me off, but there are also those that are too hard on him and too easy on Kerry, in my opinion. I'd say the pro-Bush stuff comes along more than the pro-Kerry stuff, but I suppose that's debatable. More often than not, it's all very fair. But if I felt it wasn't, why on earth would my solution be to look to news sources that don't even try to be objective?
|
From today's Howard Kurtz chat at washingtonpost.com:
Atlanta, Ga.: Dear Howard
How would you compare the professional committment of your colleagues to professional excellence in accuracy and objectivity with yourself and the most immediate past generation of same prior to the explosion of cable?
I ask this because I find you to be one of the most professional journalists working today. Yet, I find most in the mainstream press appear to be more concerned with their own particular political agenda and simply report facts consistent with same. If it were not for Fox News Channel and talk radio, I would consider myself ignorant.
Dittohead Mike
Mike, does it even need to be pointed out that you are ignorant? Do you really think Rush Limbaugh doesn't have a poltiical agenda? I mean, really. I'm asking. This is unbelievably stupid logic.
"The mainstream media's biased, so I'm going to go to even more biased sources so I won't be ignorant."
You can like Fox News and talk radio and you can think the mainstream media is biased, but can you really be so astoundingly stupid that you don't recognize that Fox News and talk radio are blatantly biased? Is it possible to be such a lunkhead that you think they're giving you the whole story and CNN isn't? I can accept that people listen to and agree with Rush Limbaugh and other conservative radio hosts, but how can they delude themselves into thinking that he doesn't have a political agenda?
My personal read on the mainstream media is that it does try to be objective. Bias creeps in from time to time and it cuts both ways, but on average, it's pretty fair. There are certainly stories that are overly favorable to Bush every day that piss me off, but there are also those that are too hard on him and too easy on Kerry, in my opinion. I'd say the pro-Bush stuff comes along more than the pro-Kerry stuff, but I suppose that's debatable. More often than not, it's all very fair. But if I felt it wasn't, why on earth would my solution be to look to news sources that don't even try to be objective?
