Skip to main content

View Diary: NYT reporter under attack for blasting Bush, right wing (194 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Fox News (0+ / 0-)

    Fox News a perfect example. How many of us are ever going to take Brit Hume seriously as a journalist again, now that we know so clearly where he stands politically? When you hear him report a story about ant political figure, don't you automatically assume he's shaped it to be favorable to the conservative point of view?

    Journalism only has a real value as a source of information if the audience is able to trust that the reporter is providing all the relevant facts and not selecting or omitting things that favor one side. And now that Ms. Greenhouse has made it so clear in a public forum how she feels about controversial issues, it's going to be harder for her to do that.

    By so openly catering to the right, Fox has put itself into a box now so that no matter how supportive its right-wing audience may be, it's never going to be seen as credible outside of that group.

    Doc Sarvis is exactly right. Journalism demands reporters to put their personal feelings aside about controverisal topics they cover. Most of the criricism I read in the original post and most of the comments here suggest that not many people really understand why this matters, but it does.

    •  A reporter who does this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Canadian Reader, BenGoshi, corvo

      Journalism demands reporters to put their personal feelings aside about controverisal topics they cover.

      Writes nothing of value to anyone.

      Nobody goes into journalism to be a stenographer.

      Gunter glieben glauchen globen

      by quaoar on Wed Sep 27, 2006 at 05:25:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not a stenographer (0+ / 0-)

        You miss my point. Of course reporters should do more than just regurgitate what was said, and that includes fact-checking and truth-squadding. A lot more of that should happen than does.

        BUT, the reader has to be able to be trust that the fact-checking is not one-sided. And now, if Ms. Greenhouse writes an article about Guantanamo, it won't matter how accurate and factual it is, because the right wing will be able to say "She's biased, look at what she said earlier about Guantanamo."

        They won't even have to prove that the article is inaccruate; it doesn't even have to be inaccurate ... she has compromised her ability to report on that topic. Anything she writes about it now can be dismissed more easily by the right.

        I don't even think journalists like David Gregory should double as pundits on Sunday morning. The viewer watching Gregory question Bush at a press conference should not have any idea whether Gregory privately loves or hates the man. The viewer should only know that Gregory will ask a cogent, intelligent question and press for an answer.

        I'm not saying reporters don't or should not have strong opinions. But reporters should not be too open about expressing those opinions on topics they cover. It sucks sometimes, but it is a part of the job and people who can't do it should look into other lines of work.

        •  You suggest (5+ / 0-)

          BUT, the reader has to be able to be trust that the fact-checking is not one-sided.

          You suggest that the reader can trust the fact-checking as long as he/she does not know how the reporter feels about the subject he/she is writing about. That's ridiculous.

          You don't gain trust in a newspaper or a reporter by being ignorant of how journalists feel. You gain that trust by reading it day after day and seeing how the stories stand up to challenge and actual events. People who write bullshit don't last very long unless they have compromising Polaroids of the publisher.

          Gunter glieben glauchen globen

          by quaoar on Wed Sep 27, 2006 at 05:57:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  problem is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BenGoshi, Fabian

      most news stories select and omit facts. it's a matter of space, or what the reporter or editor feels is relevant to the story, or what they feel we as readers need to know. does that selection/omission take place purely along the lines of ideology? most times no, but does that make it any better? the answer is to read as many news sources as possible and read as many analysis pieces as possible to get a fuller picture.

      Only Americans can hurt America

      -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

      by missreporter on Wed Sep 27, 2006 at 05:29:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Another point worth mentioning (9+ / 0-)

        is that if the reporter is already on record about their bias, then we as informed readers are better able to judge whether or not their ideology is shaping their reporting.

        I guess I'd be a little more sympathetic to Flash's "concerns" if Linda Greenhouse were the only reporter working the Supreme Court.

        But she's not.  If we just take the major tv and cable networks, the national dailies, the local DC dailies, the radio networks, and we're already up to least twenty reporters covering the Court.  Do all those reporters share Greenhouse's bias?  Will they all include and omit exactly the same information as Greenhouse does?

        Personally, I'm glad to have a reporter in the Supreme Court who has demonstrated her commitment to the rule of law.  I wish I had a hundred senators who shared her commitment...

        •  Diplomatically stated, litho (0+ / 0-)

          I guess I'd be a little more sympathetic to Flash's "concerns" if Linda Greenhouse were the only reporter working the Supreme Court.

          When we take back the WH, I would like to nominate you to join the foreign service - how does Ambassador to [Tr]Holland strike your fancy?  

      •  Got no problem or argument with that. ( nt ) (0+ / 0-)

        We're working on many levels here. Ken Kesey

        by BenGoshi on Wed Sep 27, 2006 at 05:46:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site