I think the part where they say "some economists disagree" is more than fair. The "some" tells us that "others do agree."

 

The problem is if they only interview one side and not interview another that may challenge that thinking.

 

 

Understood, but one wonders why they didn't say that "some economists agree" vs the contrary, and then interview the economist that agrees vs the contrary. Its subtle I admit, but Americans don't often do a lot of research on issues and have a tendency to be spoon fed by the news organizations, which is why I believe that news organizations MUST be very careful and fair when they report on issues.

 

Perhaps I've been sensitized to listening very carefully how the media reports the news by comments made on here.

 

By the way, the facts of this issue are: I was listening to NPR last night driving home from the office around 7:30. NPR was reporting that McCain had proposed a fed gas tax holiday this summer. They then said that some economists disagreed with it as it would only encourage Americans to use more gas this summer, which would increase usage and drive demand (and prices) higher, and they then only interviewed the economist that disagreed with McCain. Heck, that economist may be right, but I think that NPR had a duty to its listeners to provide the other perspective from a economist that felt to the contrary. To me that's shabby reporting at best and indicates a possible bias at worst. And for what its worth, they were also unfair to Hillary as NPR threw in at the end of the piece that she agrees with McCain that there should be a fed gas tax holiday this summer.

 

And yes, I am a regular listener to NPR as I enjoy getting their perspectives on issues. Don't always agree with them, but I learn a lot from listening. If you keep an open mind and are willing to listen to the other side, it generally results in better opinions on issues.

I think the part where they say "some economists disagree" is more than fair. The "some" tells us that "others do agree."

 

Is that concept even "news" anymore? If someone makes ANY statement, obviously there are going to be those who disagree.

 

"Today, Senator Bloviate stated xyz. Some economists disagree." Well, DUH.

Understood, but one wonders why they didn't say that "some economists agree" vs the contrary, and then interview the economist that agrees vs the contrary. Its subtle I admit, but Americans don't often do a lot of research on issues and have a tendency to be spoon fed by the news organizations, which is why I believe that news organizations MUST be very careful and fair when they report on issues.

 

Perhaps I've been sensitized to listening very carefully how the media reports the news by comments made on here.

 

By the way, the facts of this issue are: I was listening to NPR last night driving home from the office around 7:30. NPR was reporting that McCain had proposed a fed gas tax holiday this summer. They then said that some economists disagreed with it as it would only encourage Americans to use more gas this summer, which would increase usage and drive demand (and prices) higher, and they then only interviewed the economist that disagreed with McCain. Heck, that economist may be right, but I think that NPR had a duty to its listeners to provide the other perspective from a economist that felt to the contrary. To me that's shabby reporting at best and indicates a possible bias at worst. And for what its worth, they were also unfair to Hillary as NPR threw in at the end of the piece that she agrees with McCain that there should be a fed gas tax holiday this summer.

 

And yes, I am a regular listener to NPR as I enjoy getting their perspectives on issues. Don't always agree with them, but I learn a lot from listening. If you keep an open mind and are willing to listen to the other side, it generally results in better opinions on issues.

 

From what you describe I see a bang-up job of reporting by NPR. McCain is the advocate, the economist was the voice for the opposition, and Clinton agreeing with McCain on the gas tax is just fact. If you had another advocate for McCain's idea interviewed you would have given more air time to the pro over the con. It seems like they did a very good job and it's why NPR is about the best news you can get in the US.

In my mind, it's up to the politician advocating the policy position to make their case effectively. I don't have a problem with not including an interview with a third-party person who agrees with the politician as a counterbalance to the third-party person who disagrees, although I think it would strengthen the quality of the reporting.

 

I agree. I think anytime you have "expert" analysis you should show both sides.

From what you describe I see a bang-up job of reporting by NPR. McCain is the advocate, the economist was the voice for the opposition, and Clinton agreeing with McCain on the gas tax is just fact. If you had another advocate for McCain's idea interviewed you would have given more air time to the pro over the con. It seems like they did a very good job and it's why NPR is about the best news you can get in the US.

 

So you are saying then that if Fox only interviewed economists and third parties "experts" that disagreed with the policy positions of Obama and Clinton, you would feel it is a bang up job of reporting. Wow. Heck, I'd disagree with Fox in a heart beat for doing such.

I agree. I think anytime you have "expert" analysis you should show both sides.

 

:thumb:

 

This has become a problem with journalism. News and the editorial page are nearly one and the same...

There is no such thing as unbiased or fair reporting in mainstream media, and that goes for both sides of the political spectrum.

I don't see where he said it was about McCain.

Just a wild guess. If it wasn't about McCain, it will be. The national media does not tilt 80%+ for Democrats in presidential elections and deliver fair, objective news and analysis.

From what you describe I see a bang-up job of reporting by NPR. McCain is the advocate, the economist was the voice for the opposition, and Clinton agreeing with McCain on the gas tax is just fact. If you had another advocate for McCain's idea interviewed you would have given more air time to the pro over the con. It seems like they did a very good job and it's why NPR is about the best news you can get in the US.

Politicians are not economic experts for the most part. McCain consults with his economic advisors then makes his pitch as a politician, not an economist. Fair reporting requires an objective analysis of the plan by experts. When the media presents only an opposing view, they are acting as an advocate - not as a reporter - which I believe is the point Leatherneck is making.

Didn't know I was reading anyones' mind. Is this not about McCain?

Didn't know I was reading anyones' mind. Is this not about McCain?

I responded to woodsider's post before reading LN's acknowledgement that his initial post, which did not identify McCain, was in reference to McCain.

So you are saying then that if Fox only interviewed economists and third parties "experts" that disagreed with the policy positions of Obama and Clinton, you would feel it is a bang up job of reporting. Wow. Heck, I'd disagree with Fox in a heart beat for doing such.

 

If Fox did a story on the Clinton healthcare plan and not thrown in editorial comments during the text of the story (something Fox is bad about doing) and then said "some economists disagree" and showed a quote from an economist I would have no problem. That's fair journalism.

Politicians are not economic experts for the most part. McCain consults with his economic advisors then makes his pitch as a politician, not an economist. Fair reporting requires an objective analysis of the plan by experts. When the media presents only an opposing view, they are acting as an advocate - not as a reporter - which I believe is the point Leatherneck is making.

 

McCain is giving his pitch and the media was showing one opposing view. It's fair. If you had McCain, opposition, pro-McCain then it would require yet another opposition.

McCain is giving his pitch and the media was showing one opposing view. It's fair. If you had McCain, opposition, pro-McCain then it would require yet another opposition.

Fox News has interviewed Rev. Wright and has extended other invitations for him to return for additional interviews.

 

Would I be correct to assume then, based upon your position on the McCain coverage, that you would defend FNC's coverage of Rev. Wright on the basis that he had presented his positions on the Hannity and Colmes show and has an open invitation to return for additional interviews?

 

Economists like Paul Krugman are McCain's opposition.