NO SUCH THING as objective reporting

Back in my heyday (sp?), otherwise known as when I was 20, I was a part-time copy editor for a city newspaper with about 25,000 daily subscribers. Every once in a while, I got to pick stories from the Associated Press to be put in the paper. Other times, I had to cut 1,000-word stories by more than half to fit the space allotted.

What I learned:

1. There is NO SUCH THING as objective reporting.

2. Decisions on what to report is largely based on what the business believes the viewers/readers/listeners are interested in.

3. As such, newspapers with a largely caucasian/Republican base are less likely to report on a Mexican family's struggle for citizenship or a black man proven innocent after years behind bars.

4. The subjectivity doesn't end there. Even when stories are run, reporters decide what angle to take . Notice how many newspapers have a "Business" section versus how many have a "Labor" section. The little guy isn't focused on for two reasons. One, he doesn't pay the newspaper's bills, and two, she is still dreaming of when she's no longer poor and thus wants to know about stock markets and insider trading.

5. Then there's what information to share about the story that's been decided on. Say, for instance, a newspaper is going to write about a high school track coach who's been convicted of pedophilia. The story could include the following information: how to talk to your children about pedeophilia; how many cases the coach was convicted of; two students' accounts of what a good teacher the coach was; one team member's account of walking in on the coach with a fellow teammate; how many people are convicted of pedophilia each year; what the school's going to do for the high school students; what background checks and other measures the school uses when hiring. Now, the newspaper only has room for half of the information I just listed. Someone has to choose.

6. And how does that information get chosen? By people. Who are ALWAYS subjective. Say we have three reporters who can report the story. One is the mom of a child on the junior high football team. One is a sports fanatic. The third downloads porn during spare time. Think you're likely to get three different stories? Oh, yeah, baby. Now, the stories will almost always be accurate, truthful, and unbiased in the telling. But the telling of the story is only what we see. So much more goes on behind the wizard's curtain.

:)Kim Edwards

http://wooran.com

An argumentum ad populum

The mainstream media likes to keep us confused. I need no help in that department. It scares me when people blindly follow the herd. Many times the facts are never revealed to the public. More people need to challenge the information that is presented to them.

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."

Some things never change. I may be married to a marine, but I can't for the life of me see the logic in blowing things and people up. This just does not compute.

http://wooran.com

9/11/2006 RELIGIOUS TERRORIST ATTACK

The mainstream media may not have alerted you to the fact that there was another bomb attack on American soil on 9/11/2006, on the fifth anniversary of the first 9/11 attack.

If it seems strange that such an event wasn't picked up by the right wing conservative media echo chamber to fan the flames of fear in the U.S. and rally more Americans to the cause of fighting a global war on terror, the reason for this lapse is simple:

The religious terrorist, in this case, was a Christian extremist who bombed an abortion clinic.

Martín Rizzi said:

I think that most religiously motivated terrorists would agree with this goal, in fact, many of them are actively working toward the goal of having only a single religion-- theirs.

Personally, I think valuing diversity would be a better goal. I think people should not argue about things that can't be proven to exist. Carl Sagan spoke for me (you might go to my "Pale Blue Dot" thread if interested).

I dont really know about this "religiously motivated terrorists" stuff;

supposedly in Iraq these religiously motivated terrorists blow up mosques;

i dont buy it; i think that religiously motivated terrorists is just a meme.

Marcus B.

http://wooran.com

What the public believes to be true

I really don't know what to believe about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction. At times I feel we will never know the truth.

What the public believes to be true

U.S. adults believe that the following are true about the war in Iraq:

* Seventy-two percent believe that the Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein (slightly down from February 2005 when 76 percent said this was true).

* Just over half (55%) think history will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq (down substantially from 64% in February 2005).

* Sixty-four percent say it is true that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (the same as 64% in February 2005).

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=684

chaos and violence

We all get ripped off everyday when people cause chaos and violence. What makes them use these methods of expressing themselves?

http://wooran.com

Thanks Harry

I always say things the wrong way. I do not think terrorism or any crime can be attributed to poverty.

"The poor person is the victim of, NOT the perpetrator of, terrorism."

I disagree.

http://wooran.com