Shot In The Dark: But There's No Bias

September 09, 2004

But There's No Bias

Spoons asks a great question:

Ever see an anonymous source from the Clinton Administration -- or from the Kerry campaign, for that matter -- identified like this?
... "It's not a fear of the format," said the adviser, who refused to be identified to avoid annoying Bush.

Look for more and more of the supposed basic tenets of American journalism - fairness, balance, detachment - to fall by the wayside as we get closer to the election.

Posted by Mitch at September 9, 2004 06:44 AM | TrackBack

Comments

Not buying that ANY media source anywhere is "unbiased." That's total BS, and I don't care how much the journos squeal about "professionalism" and "objectivity."

Thoses words mean something totally different to lay people than they do to professional journalists. Just like "justice" and "terrorist" means something different to the Kathleen Soliah/Michael Moore crowd.

We all apparently speak English, but there's a mighty huge disconnect about which words apply to any given circumstance.

Sick and tired of it. We'd all be much better off if the journalists would just wear thier biases on their sleeves. Remember right after all those Internet bubble era investment banks got busted for pimping stock they were underwriting in IPOs?

Newspaper stories and press releases starting carrying information about whether the quoted analyst's company had a financial stake in the subject of the story.

There ought to be the same rule in "news" stories. (Scare quotes intentional) At the bottom of the story, where it gives a reporter's email address, it should say something like, "Sally Smith can be reached at ssmith@bigmediapaper.com. She reads Utne and Mother Jones. She contributed $100 to Betty McCollum in 2004."

Posted by: Mark at September 9, 2004 07:57 AM