Hi Class,
In preparation for Eric Black's appearance next Wednesday, please read the articles by Cunningham and McGill originally assigned for this week, and consider the following questions: (Please post a response to at least one of them):
1) What explanations do Cunningham and McGill offer for why it is difficult for journalists to say explicitly when someone is lying? What solutions do they offer?
2) In the U.S., most mainstream press outlets try to maintain a stance of neutrality in their news columns. In Europe, most mainstream press outlets have an identifiable political point of view - e.g., the Times of London and Figaro in France are right-of-center, while the Guardian (UK) and Liberation (France) are left of center. Would the US public be better or worse served if our mainstream news outlets were explicitly partisan?
Also, please read the following articles and come prepared to discuss them with Eric:
http://ericblackink.minnpost.com/2007/07/23/bachmanns-mean-streak/ Pay special attention to Eric's discussion of why he didn't write about this story when he was at the Star Tribune.
For balance, you can (optional)also read Eric's two-part series that starts with http://ericblackink.minnpost.com/2007/07/23/bachmanns-mean-streak/ and we can ask Eric why none of the major news outlets covered this story while Mike Hatch was still in office.
And thanks to John See for finding this piece by David Brauer in MinnPost, which should be good grist for our conversation with Eric:
http://www.minnpost.com/davidbrauer/ Strib editor: Political reporters should ask themselves, 'If I were running ...'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
1)Lies are a tricky area. as mcgill mentions about quotes, the reporters might have some idea they are being lied to. but must pass on the information as they hear it, not as they perceive it to be. the problem comes when the story needs to be checked and if there is some doubt to a part it poses the question "Do we know this?" and obviously the press must report upon the known and not the known unkowns or the unknown unknowns or however that goes. an answer to the problem is having journalist's, and reporters become specialized in topics. being educated in sociology than reporting on some recent research could result in better, more useful dissemination of information.
2) the problem lies in the objectivity inherent in the press. Essentially, since the public is viewed as the disinterested observer the journalist's offer the information in a he said she said fashion or other forms like interviews as best they can. this attempt at being fair/ balanced results in the story becoming overly undecided. as Cunningham says the press should acknowledge that the news is more bias than not. if you know what side the particular media is advocating you can goto either side for each point of view. it is not like people in America do not have preference on which news outlet they recieve information from. it is merely that we, as a public, put a premium upon unbias reporting.
Question #2
The question of a partisan press is a difficult one for me. First of all, in many ways we already have a partisan press in the U.S. I’m not just talking about the never ending accusations of “liberal media bias” that permeate nearly every level of political discourse in this country. I’m talking about the reality that if one searches hard enough you can find a media outlet that espouses exactly what you want to hear if not exactly what you believe. Obviously this can be tremendously reassuring. Who doesn’t want to hear that they are right? Better still, you’re a member of an elite club of like thinkers. You are all right and everyone else is wrong.
One of the dangerous side effects of this is that people aren’t exposed to alternate viewpoints. And even if those views are expressed they are very often shot down immediately, without debate or discourse, if not outright ridiculed.
Far too often, in my opinion, the result of partisan media isn’t the shattering of the illusion of a perfectly objective press, but rather a serious loss of civility and all too frequently the inability or unwillingness to think critically.
The other edge of this double-edged sword is that based on my experience living in London I believe that a partisan press can benefit the public. I would much rather have the “agenda” out in the open than hiding behind a veil of objectivity. That isn’t to say that I believe the press in this country isn’t capable of objectivity, I honestly believe the vast majority of the members of the press are objective. However as Mike Meyers and MinnPost’s David Brauer have recently discussed pressures that mainstream media, such as the Minneapolis Star Tribune, face in their efforts to be seen as impartial and objective often results in over correcting to the point of bias towards the other end of the spectrum.
Unfortunately, I don’t think the U.S. is ready to fully embrace a partisan press. We are too divided politically and the economic divide is too large that I believe a more partisan press would only exacerbate the problem.
Thanks for reading this!
Post a Comment