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.

 

No. NPR did one story. A very fair one. The difference with NPR is that they give you a news show, no info-tainment, and they only have an hour to do it. Fox gives 24 hour "coverage" to something and usually only presents one side of the argument. As I stated before if Fox did a story on Clinton's helthcare plan and didn't editorialize it, and showed someone who disagreed and left it at that then that would be great. What all cable news does is give us some information and then has post-game analysis to tell us what to think.

 

The problem with Fox, and to a lesser extent the other cable news programs, is they frame the interview to one side. Hannity is well-known for not letting guests answer questions and then shouting them down when they give an answer he doesn't like. Add that to Fox's 24 hour Rev Wright insanity coverage, panel discussions that are made up of just conservatives, and inserting editorial comments into the text of what is supposed to be a news story and you have the US version of Pravda.

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.

 

You would be correct as the point I was making.

No. NPR did one story. A very fair one. The difference with NPR is that they give you a news show, no info-tainment, and they only have an hour to do it. Fox gives 24 hour "coverage" to something and usually only presents one side of the argument. As I stated before if Fox did a story on Clinton's helthcare plan and didn't editorialize it, and showed someone who disagreed and left it at that then that would be great. What all cable news does is give us some information and then has post-game analysis to tell us what to think.

 

The problem with Fox, and to a lesser extent the other cable news programs, is they frame the interview to one side. Hannity is well-known for not letting guests answer questions and then shouting them down when they give an answer he doesn't like. Add that to Fox's 24 hour Rev Wright insanity coverage, panel discussions that are made up of just conservatives, and inserting editorial comments into the text of what is supposed to be a news story and you have the US version of Pravda.

 

Of course you realize the NPR reporters don't have to shout down everyone if they are only interviewing people that agree with the NPR reporters.

 

Look, I'm a fan of NPR. Generally they do a good job, but there is no way that this was a fair piece. No way. Try to defend it all you want, but when you have a piece analyzing a candidate's policy and only present economists disagreeing with it, its not a fair piece.

Of course you realize the NPR reporters don't have to shout down everyone if they are only interviewing people that agree with the NPR reporters.

 

Look, I'm a fan of NPR. Generally they do a good job, but there is no way that this was a fair piece. No way. Try to defend it all you want, but when you have a piece analyzing a candidate's policy and only present economists disagreeing with it, its not a fair piece.

 

Will just have to agree to disagree. I'm coming at this from my education in journalism and from what I see, it's a fair story.

No. NPR did one story. A very fair one. The difference with NPR is that they give you a news show, no info-tainment, and they only have an hour to do it. Fox gives 24 hour "coverage" to something and usually only presents one side of the argument. As I stated before if Fox did a story on Clinton's helthcare plan and didn't editorialize it, and showed someone who disagreed and left it at that then that would be great. What all cable news does is give us some information and then has post-game analysis to tell us what to think.

 

The problem with Fox, and to a lesser extent the other cable news programs, is they frame the interview to one side. Hannity is well-known for not letting guests answer questions and then shouting them down when they give an answer he doesn't like. Add that to Fox's 24 hour Rev Wright insanity coverage, panel discussions that are made up of just conservatives, and inserting editorial comments into the text of what is supposed to be a news story and you have the US version of Pravda.

 

You have got to be kidding, right??? Do you EVER watch CNN or MSNBC?

You have got to be kidding, right??? Do you EVER watch CNN or MSNBC?

 

Perspective.

Perspective.

It has nothing to do wiht perspective. The mainstream media did everything they could to ignore the Wright story. Sean Hannity has been screaming about it for over a year. The same with Ayers. The only reason anything negative about Clinton gets reported is because they are so in love with Obama.

It has nothing to do wiht perspective. The mainstream media did everything they could to ignore the Wright story. Sean Hannity has been screaming about it for over a year. The same with Ayers. The only reason anything negative about Clinton gets reported is because they are so in love with Obama.

 

:lol: Oh now that's funny. :lol::lol:

We've had probably a total for 4 weeks where the media can't go 30 minutes without talking about it.

Thanks though. You gave me a good laugh for the day.

What??? :confused:The mainstream new media are bias and try to inluence voters with what they say and how they say it?

 

What a Shock!! Who Knew?:lol::lol:

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

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Of course you realize the NPR reporters don't have to shout down everyone if they are only interviewing people that agree with the NPR reporters.

 

Look, I'm a fan of NPR. Generally they do a good job, but there is no way that this was a fair piece. No way. Try to defend it all you want, but when you have a piece analyzing a candidate's policy and only present economists disagreeing with it, its not a fair piece.

 

By every definition I know, it is as straight down the middle as it gets, just like I learned it in my Newswriting 101 class. As ME said, McCain is the advocate and the disagreeing economists are the opposition. I don't know how much more "fair and balanced" that could be without it turning into a back-and-forth shouting match.

 

The contention that McCain does not count as one side of the story is completely ridiculous. It's not as though he came to his economic plan independently, i.e., without the input of economists who agree with him. In this case, he is acting as a proxy for just those economists. Unless, of course, you think McCain just came up with it on his own accord, with no input from anyone.

I guess that main stream liberal media group must meet in a room and dictate all the news that Americans will get. There they control it all to get their way and their man/woman in power. I almost hear the sinister laughing from behind that closed door now.

 

They probably meet across the hall from the select Jewish banking groups that control the banking (please note sarcasm).

 

Then down the way the big oil brokers meet to plan with Dick and George their next price gouge. :lol:

 

I wish I could find those secret buildings just once.

It has nothing to do wiht perspective. The mainstream media did everything they could to ignore the Wright story. Sean Hannity has been screaming about it for over a year. The same with Ayers. The only reason anything negative about Clinton gets reported is because they are so in love with Obama.

 

Oh yes...we all know that Sean Hannity is the beckon of fairness and non-bias.

By every definition I know, it is as straight down the middle as it gets, just like I learned it in my Newswriting 101 class. As ME said, McCain is the advocate and the disagreeing economists are the opposition. I don't know how much more "fair and balanced" that could be without it turning into a back-and-forth shouting match.

 

The contention that McCain does not count as one side of the story is completely ridiculous. It's not as though he came to his economic plan independently, i.e., without the input of economists who agree with him. In this case, he is acting as a proxy for just those economists. Unless, of course, you think McCain just came up with it on his own accord, with no input from anyone.

 

Interesting. If that's what they are teaching in journalism classes, such may be a reason a lot of Americans are losing a lot of confidence in the integrity of journalists.

Interesting. If that's what they are teaching in journalism classes, such may be a reason a lot of Americans are losing a lot of confidence in the integrity of journalists.

:thumb: Agreed. I can remember when some articles were written without commentary. Candidates' speeches were reported as news and the mainstream media did not feel compelled to refute the positions of candidates whom they opposed.

 

Most reporting on non-liberal presidential candidates is analogous to allowing the prosecution to parade a string of experts in front of the jury while making the defendant keep his or her experts out of the courtroom.

 

It is sad that this kind of biased reporting is apparently being taught in journalism schools. This kind of reporting has always been done but it has not always been taught as good journalism. The media now feels the need to educate misguided conservatives instead of informing them of events and trusting people to draw their own conclusions. We called such reporting propaganda back during the Cold War.