Comments on: Journalism Versus Creationism

By: ProfElwood

ProfElwood — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:00:24 +0000

Part of the problem stems from the fact that journalists are paid to produce a lot of material. So if organizations can provide “print ready” press releases, that saves the reporter time and would be more likely to get printed. I remember Bush's staff always baited the networks with sensational video in their press releases on the Iraq war, and the networks bit. There are still a few venues where people pay to get some researched news, such as the Wall Street Journal for financial news, but, for the most part, research in other areas just doesn't seem to be paying off.

By: Truth v. Narrative « his vorpal sword

Truth v. Narrative « his vorpal sword — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:04:46 +0000

[...] “Journalism versus Creationism“ [...]

By: spirasol

spirasol — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:17:26 +0000

I would be happy to just get the facts…………but what I have read is that old time journalists would do their research and tell the truth whereever the chips might fall. The new style corporate journo style as I understand it, is just to report the opposing sides, which seems to me, can easily be manipulated, and the truth somewhat diminished in the way of reporting.

By: ProfElwood

ProfElwood — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:07:07 +0000

I ran (well, walked) for office many years ago, when I was a youngster. The local media can be fair at times, but reporters can be good at distorting what people say, or lie by omission. It's a good idea to teach your kids on how to identify biased language, since they'll run into it often. That's why I've had to go to the “courtroom” approach of finding radically opposed views and checking out the facts that contradict each other. It's not perfect, but it's better than getting spoon fed incomplete information, or outright lies.

By: spirasol

spirasol — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:36:52 +0000

Interesting article, not that I wasn't aware of the network bias, and choose to shut down Fox, but your article speaks to how I might be unconsciously buying into a bias, one I'm not as aware of. I wonder if you would care to take up the issue I have often heard reporters complain of; namely the notion of supplying totally unbiased coverage which is typically done with the reporter asking blue what he thinks and then turning to red to get what he thinks. Why does this not suffice for news or reporting?