Bicycling for Work - Page 96 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

04-28-2004, 03:49 AM

Tom Keats wrote:

> In article <408d3c2c$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].umass.edu>,
> Stephen Harding <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
>
>>Well if that is the case, I wonder why there seems no
>>shortage of news stories critical or outright anti-corporate
>>in nature, appearing in the media?
>>
>>Unless of course you are arguing the news would be even
>>more negative if journalists weren't fearful of getting
>>their next pay check, dependent on what they write.
>>
>>A difficult position to verify I guess, but I still don't
>>think it happens, or happens very often. In cases where
>>it does happen, I believe (in the few cases I'm aware of)
>>it has been a personality conflict between editor and
>>reporter, or owner/manager and editor. Nothing political
>>or "free speech restrictive" in nature.
>
> Now I remember where I got that from. It was an
> interview I transcribed, with Danny Schechter --
> vice president/executive producer for Global Vision,
> editor at MediaChannel.org, formerly emloyed by ABC News
> and CNN. But I don't think I can quote anything without
> infringing on copyrights or some legality. I believe the
> point was that while journalists aren't explicitly told
> how to slant things, they might subconsciously do so in
> deferrence to their employers -- maybe because they're
> like-minded, or out of a sense of loyalty to their employers,
> or out of perhaps paranoid concerns about their jobs.

The subconscious claims to "story moderation" is also
considered by some conservatives to be the driving force
for the alleged "liberal bias" in much mainstream news
media.

The claim is that most journalists tend to be social
liberals and vote democratic, and associate with people
(other journalists I suppose) with very similar ideas.
This produces a biased definition of a "normal" perspective.

Thus, even though a journalist is attempting to be very
objective in the stories he writes, he simply can not
fully divorce himself from his own biases. Thus a "liberal
news bias". *NOT* a plot to produce slanted news.

As a person with largely conservative sympathies, I do
think there is a liberal bias in our mainstream news media.
Not as bad as some hard core right wingers might imply,
but in no way a "vast right wing conspiracy" type of the Left.

All in all, I believe most journalists *try* to present a
view of the truth to the best of their ability. Some are
better at doing so than others.

But I haven't seen this in the so called "alternative news"
sources. They seem politically driven to very high levels.

I read "MIM Notes" (Maoist International Movement) and RAIL
(Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League) papers from time to
time and they often have stories from these "alternative"
sources, that you won't generally find in mainstream stuff.

But it's difficult to take seriously what is written in a
rag that regularly uses terms like "U$", "Bu$h", "criminal
injustice system" and "United Snakes".

> Anyhow, you (and others) might be interested in taking a
> look at:
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> for a different perspective on what the news media
> dishes out, and how they dish it out.

Took a look. Seems to have some "balance" to it, but still a
liberal bias from my POV. I confess I have to wonder:

<quote>
MediaChannel is responding to the crisis of our times. We are
adding news from diverse sources to demonstrate that the world
can be covered in a better, more democratic way.
</quote>

Is the news "better" or more planted in "truth" if events are
covered in a "more democratic way"?

Are the basic tenets of journalistic reporting, "where/when/why/who"
inferior to "democratic" ones? Would publicly elected journalists
be more likely to report "the truth"? What does this mean?

SMH

04-28-2004, 03:49 AM

Tom Keats wrote:

> In article <408d3c2c$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].umass.edu>,
> Stephen Harding <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
>
>>Well if that is the case, I wonder why there seems no
>>shortage of news stories critical or outright anti-corporate
>>in nature, appearing in the media?
>>
>>Unless of course you are arguing the news would be even
>>more negative if journalists weren't fearful of getting
>>their next pay check, dependent on what they write.
>>
>>A difficult position to verify I guess, but I still don't
>>think it happens, or happens very often. In cases where
>>it does happen, I believe (in the few cases I'm aware of)
>>it has been a personality conflict between editor and
>>reporter, or owner/manager and editor. Nothing political
>>or "free speech restrictive" in nature.
>
> Now I remember where I got that from. It was an
> interview I transcribed, with Danny Schechter --
> vice president/executive producer for Global Vision,
> editor at MediaChannel.org, formerly emloyed by ABC News
> and CNN. But I don't think I can quote anything without
> infringing on copyrights or some legality. I believe the
> point was that while journalists aren't explicitly told
> how to slant things, they might subconsciously do so in
> deferrence to their employers -- maybe because they're
> like-minded, or out of a sense of loyalty to their employers,
> or out of perhaps paranoid concerns about their jobs.

The subconscious claims to "story moderation" is also
considered by some conservatives to be the driving force
for the alleged "liberal bias" in much mainstream news
media.

The claim is that most journalists tend to be social
liberals and vote democratic, and associate with people
(other journalists I suppose) with very similar ideas.
This produces a biased definition of a "normal" perspective.

Thus, even though a journalist is attempting to be very
objective in the stories he writes, he simply can not
fully divorce himself from his own biases. Thus a "liberal
news bias". *NOT* a plot to produce slanted news.

As a person with largely conservative sympathies, I do
think there is a liberal bias in our mainstream news media.
Not as bad as some hard core right wingers might imply,
but in no way a "vast right wing conspiracy" type of the Left.

All in all, I believe most journalists *try* to present a
view of the truth to the best of their ability. Some are
better at doing so than others.

But I haven't seen this in the so called "alternative news"
sources. They seem politically driven to very high levels.

I read "MIM Notes" (Maoist International Movement) and RAIL
(Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League) papers from time to
time and they often have stories from these "alternative"
sources, that you won't generally find in mainstream stuff.

But it's difficult to take seriously what is written in a
rag that regularly uses terms like "U$", "Bu$h", "criminal
injustice system" and "United Snakes".

> Anyhow, you (and others) might be interested in taking a
> look at:
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> for a different perspective on what the news media
> dishes out, and how they dish it out.

Took a look. Seems to have some "balance" to it, but still a
liberal bias from my POV. I confess I have to wonder:

<quote>
MediaChannel is responding to the crisis of our times. We are
adding news from diverse sources to demonstrate that the world
can be covered in a better, more democratic way.
</quote>

Is the news "better" or more planted in "truth" if events are
covered in a "more democratic way"?

Are the basic tenets of journalistic reporting, "where/when/why/who"
inferior to "democratic" ones? Would publicly elected journalists
be more likely to report "the truth"? What does this mean?

SMH

04-28-2004, 03:49 AM

Tom Keats wrote:

> In article <408d3c2c$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].umass.edu>,
> Stephen Harding <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
>
>>Well if that is the case, I wonder why there seems no
>>shortage of news stories critical or outright anti-corporate
>>in nature, appearing in the media?
>>
>>Unless of course you are arguing the news would be even
>>more negative if journalists weren't fearful of getting
>>their next pay check, dependent on what they write.
>>
>>A difficult position to verify I guess, but I still don't
>>think it happens, or happens very often. In cases where
>>it does happen, I believe (in the few cases I'm aware of)
>>it has been a personality conflict between editor and
>>reporter, or owner/manager and editor. Nothing political
>>or "free speech restrictive" in nature.
>
> Now I remember where I got that from. It was an
> interview I transcribed, with Danny Schechter --
> vice president/executive producer for Global Vision,
> editor at MediaChannel.org, formerly emloyed by ABC News
> and CNN. But I don't think I can quote anything without
> infringing on copyrights or some legality. I believe the
> point was that while journalists aren't explicitly told
> how to slant things, they might subconsciously do so in
> deferrence to their employers -- maybe because they're
> like-minded, or out of a sense of loyalty to their employers,
> or out of perhaps paranoid concerns about their jobs.

The subconscious claims to "story moderation" is also
considered by some conservatives to be the driving force
for the alleged "liberal bias" in much mainstream news
media.

The claim is that most journalists tend to be social
liberals and vote democratic, and associate with people
(other journalists I suppose) with very similar ideas.
This produces a biased definition of a "normal" perspective.

Thus, even though a journalist is attempting to be very
objective in the stories he writes, he simply can not
fully divorce himself from his own biases. Thus a "liberal
news bias". *NOT* a plot to produce slanted news.

As a person with largely conservative sympathies, I do
think there is a liberal bias in our mainstream news media.
Not as bad as some hard core right wingers might imply,
but in no way a "vast right wing conspiracy" type of the Left.

All in all, I believe most journalists *try* to present a
view of the truth to the best of their ability. Some are
better at doing so than others.

But I haven't seen this in the so called "alternative news"
sources. They seem politically driven to very high levels.

I read "MIM Notes" (Maoist International Movement) and RAIL
(Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League) papers from time to
time and they often have stories from these "alternative"
sources, that you won't generally find in mainstream stuff.

But it's difficult to take seriously what is written in a
rag that regularly uses terms like "U$", "Bu$h", "criminal
injustice system" and "United Snakes".

> Anyhow, you (and others) might be interested in taking a
> look at:
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> for a different perspective on what the news media
> dishes out, and how they dish it out.

Took a look. Seems to have some "balance" to it, but still a
liberal bias from my POV. I confess I have to wonder:

<quote>
MediaChannel is responding to the crisis of our times. We are
adding news from diverse sources to demonstrate that the world
can be covered in a better, more democratic way.
</quote>

Is the news "better" or more planted in "truth" if events are
covered in a "more democratic way"?

Are the basic tenets of journalistic reporting, "where/when/why/who"
inferior to "democratic" ones? Would publicly elected journalists
be more likely to report "the truth"? What does this mean?

SMH

04-28-2004, 03:49 AM

Tom Keats wrote:

> In article <408d3c2c$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].umass.edu>,
> Stephen Harding <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
>
>>Well if that is the case, I wonder why there seems no
>>shortage of news stories critical or outright anti-corporate
>>in nature, appearing in the media?
>>
>>Unless of course you are arguing the news would be even
>>more negative if journalists weren't fearful of getting
>>their next pay check, dependent on what they write.
>>
>>A difficult position to verify I guess, but I still don't
>>think it happens, or happens very often. In cases where
>>it does happen, I believe (in the few cases I'm aware of)
>>it has been a personality conflict between editor and
>>reporter, or owner/manager and editor. Nothing political
>>or "free speech restrictive" in nature.
>
> Now I remember where I got that from. It was an
> interview I transcribed, with Danny Schechter --
> vice president/executive producer for Global Vision,
> editor at MediaChannel.org, formerly emloyed by ABC News
> and CNN. But I don't think I can quote anything without
> infringing on copyrights or some legality. I believe the
> point was that while journalists aren't explicitly told
> how to slant things, they might subconsciously do so in
> deferrence to their employers -- maybe because they're
> like-minded, or out of a sense of loyalty to their employers,
> or out of perhaps paranoid concerns about their jobs.

The subconscious claims to "story moderation" is also
considered by some conservatives to be the driving force
for the alleged "liberal bias" in much mainstream news
media.

The claim is that most journalists tend to be social
liberals and vote democratic, and associate with people
(other journalists I suppose) with very similar ideas.
This produces a biased definition of a "normal" perspective.

Thus, even though a journalist is attempting to be very
objective in the stories he writes, he simply can not
fully divorce himself from his own biases. Thus a "liberal
news bias". *NOT* a plot to produce slanted news.

As a person with largely conservative sympathies, I do
think there is a liberal bias in our mainstream news media.
Not as bad as some hard core right wingers might imply,
but in no way a "vast right wing conspiracy" type of the Left.

All in all, I believe most journalists *try* to present a
view of the truth to the best of their ability. Some are
better at doing so than others.

But I haven't seen this in the so called "alternative news"
sources. They seem politically driven to very high levels.

I read "MIM Notes" (Maoist International Movement) and RAIL
(Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League) papers from time to
time and they often have stories from these "alternative"
sources, that you won't generally find in mainstream stuff.

But it's difficult to take seriously what is written in a
rag that regularly uses terms like "U$", "Bu$h", "criminal
injustice system" and "United Snakes".

> Anyhow, you (and others) might be interested in taking a
> look at:
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> for a different perspective on what the news media
> dishes out, and how they dish it out.

Took a look. Seems to have some "balance" to it, but still a
liberal bias from my POV. I confess I have to wonder:

<quote>
MediaChannel is responding to the crisis of our times. We are
adding news from diverse sources to demonstrate that the world
can be covered in a better, more democratic way.
</quote>

Is the news "better" or more planted in "truth" if events are
covered in a "more democratic way"?

Are the basic tenets of journalistic reporting, "where/when/why/who"
inferior to "democratic" ones? Would publicly elected journalists
be more likely to report "the truth"? What does this mean?

SMH

04-28-2004, 03:49 AM

Tom Keats wrote:

> In article <408d3c2c$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].umass.edu>,
> Stephen Harding <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
>
>>Well if that is the case, I wonder why there seems no
>>shortage of news stories critical or outright anti-corporate
>>in nature, appearing in the media?
>>
>>Unless of course you are arguing the news would be even
>>more negative if journalists weren't fearful of getting
>>their next pay check, dependent on what they write.
>>
>>A difficult position to verify I guess, but I still don't
>>think it happens, or happens very often. In cases where
>>it does happen, I believe (in the few cases I'm aware of)
>>it has been a personality conflict between editor and
>>reporter, or owner/manager and editor. Nothing political
>>or "free speech restrictive" in nature.
>
> Now I remember where I got that from. It was an
> interview I transcribed, with Danny Schechter --
> vice president/executive producer for Global Vision,
> editor at MediaChannel.org, formerly emloyed by ABC News
> and CNN. But I don't think I can quote anything without
> infringing on copyrights or some legality. I believe the
> point was that while journalists aren't explicitly told
> how to slant things, they might subconsciously do so in
> deferrence to their employers -- maybe because they're
> like-minded, or out of a sense of loyalty to their employers,
> or out of perhaps paranoid concerns about their jobs.

The subconscious claims to "story moderation" is also
considered by some conservatives to be the driving force
for the alleged "liberal bias" in much mainstream news
media.

The claim is that most journalists tend to be social
liberals and vote democratic, and associate with people
(other journalists I suppose) with very similar ideas.
This produces a biased definition of a "normal" perspective.

Thus, even though a journalist is attempting to be very
objective in the stories he writes, he simply can not
fully divorce himself from his own biases. Thus a "liberal
news bias". *NOT* a plot to produce slanted news.

As a person with largely conservative sympathies, I do
think there is a liberal bias in our mainstream news media.
Not as bad as some hard core right wingers might imply,
but in no way a "vast right wing conspiracy" type of the Left.

All in all, I believe most journalists *try* to present a
view of the truth to the best of their ability. Some are
better at doing so than others.

But I haven't seen this in the so called "alternative news"
sources. They seem politically driven to very high levels.

I read "MIM Notes" (Maoist International Movement) and RAIL
(Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League) papers from time to
time and they often have stories from these "alternative"
sources, that you won't generally find in mainstream stuff.

But it's difficult to take seriously what is written in a
rag that regularly uses terms like "U$", "Bu$h", "criminal
injustice system" and "United Snakes".

> Anyhow, you (and others) might be interested in taking a
> look at:
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> for a different perspective on what the news media
> dishes out, and how they dish it out.

Took a look. Seems to have some "balance" to it, but still a
liberal bias from my POV. I confess I have to wonder:

<quote>
MediaChannel is responding to the crisis of our times. We are
adding news from diverse sources to demonstrate that the world
can be covered in a better, more democratic way.
</quote>

Is the news "better" or more planted in "truth" if events are
covered in a "more democratic way"?

Are the basic tenets of journalistic reporting, "where/when/why/who"
inferior to "democratic" ones? Would publicly elected journalists
be more likely to report "the truth"? What does this mean?

SMH

05-02-2004, 10:46 PM