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

 

See correction.

: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.

 

In political coverage the burden is on the candidate to pitch their policy, not the candidate's economic advisors. I don't know how clearer I can be and some are going to see a "liberal bias" anyway so I don't know why I bother. McCain made the pitch and the economist was the opposition opinion. What do you do then? Do you have someone else defend McCain's policy and leave it at that? That would be 2 McCain 1 opposition and biased. If they had interviewed Clinton and Obama and left out the economists then that would still be 2 pro 1 con.

I would wager that if this was a global climate change story and the reporter didn't cited three opposing opinions you would be nominating it for a peabody. NPR did a very good job and once again showed why they are the best broadcast news in the US.

: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.

Then explain why it took them over a year to report it? Why is it that the story is news now but wasn't 12 months ago? That is what is funny to me.

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

Hannity doesn't claim to non-bias nor does he have to be. He isn't a reporter. He's a talk show host. Talk show host have opinions and they express them quite frequently on their shows. That's what makes them talk shows.

Hannity doesn't claim to non-bias nor does he have to be. He isn't a reporter. He's a talk show host. Talk show host have opinions and they express them quite frequently on their shows. That's what makes them talk shows.

 

My point is, that he fits in quite well in our discussion of "fairness". :lol: Of course he is going to scream "foul" against any liberal wrong doings.

12 months ago Obama was not a leading candidate for the democratic nomination, maybe that's why it took so long. No need to take him down until he's percieved as a threat.

My point is, that he fits in quite well in our discussion of "fairness". :lol: Of course he is going to scream "foul" against any liberal wrong doings.

But he doesn't have to be fair. He isn't a reporter and doesn't anchor a news show.

In political coverage the burden is on the candidate to pitch their policy, not the candidate's economic advisors. I don't know how clearer I can be and some are going to see a "liberal bias" anyway so I don't know why I bother. McCain made the pitch and the economist was the opposition opinion. What do you do then? Do you have someone else defend McCain's policy and leave it at that? That would be 2 McCain 1 opposition and biased. If they had interviewed Clinton and Obama and left out the economists then that would still be 2 pro 1 con.

I would wager that if this was a global climate change story and the reporter didn't cited three opposing opinions you would be nominating it for a peabody. NPR did a very good job and once again showed why they are the best broadcast news in the US.

How about reporting the news and restricting editorials to the editorial page? Would that work?

But he doesn't have to be fair. He isn't a reporter and doesn't anchor a news show.

Notice how nobody complains about Alan Colmes being unfair? :lol:

How about reporting the news and restricting editorials to the editorial page? Would that work?

 

Usually that is the case. NPR is still the best and most fair reporting you're going to get in US broadcasts and in this story they did a great job.

Usually that is the case. NPR is still the best and most fair reporting you're going to get in US broadcasts and in this story they did a great job.

I don't think that's true at all. I think the cable news programs are terrible about it and Fox may be the worst.

I don't think that's true at all. I think the cable news programs are terrible about it and Fox may be the worst.

 

In newspapers it is the case, I should have qualified that. You're right about cable news and Fox is the worst. I agree.

There is no doubt that the line between news and editorializing has been blurred to the point of credibility being lost. When a newsperson says that a candidate has committed a terrible blunder, using the word "terrible" is editorializing. Heck, using the word "blunder" is editorializing. What news shows should do is simply repeat what the candidate said and let the listener determine if it was a blunder and if so, whether it was terrible. Listen carefully to the words being used by news reporters tonight and see if you agree. I won't say it happens in every news cast, but it happens a lot. And its true that I became more sensitive to it during the last several years because the news focused on Bush. My guess is that if a Dem gets elected to the WH and things aren't going well in America, some of my Democratic friends will make the same observation I have made.

 

 

Pat Crowley, a close friend of mine, is the political writer for the Enquirer. I often times call him up after I read his articles and point out how he subtlely editorialized in his articles. I've even got him to agree with me occasionally (well, maybe once.). Frankly I think its become so prevalent, journalists don't even realize they are doing it or can't recognize it.

On NPR's morning edition today, there was an expanded discussion of the idea of a gas tax holiday:

 

2 of 3 Presidential Hopefuls Back Gas Tax Holiday