CBS and Tracey

At the risk of sticking my neck out here, I don't think this bias holds true only for political candidates and the media. It extends across the board and careers and lives are ruined because of it. We see more of it in the political and entertainment arenas because these are public figures, hence when the story breaks it breaks nationally or even globally. JMH&CPO

 

Absolutely right. That's what makes the whole situation so insulting. It's like they think we're too stupid to make up our minds about candidates without having them painted for us in black and white.

"Here kiddies, this is your lesson for today. This guy is the bad guy, see the black hat? This guy is the good guy, his hat is white. The bad guy is bad because we said so (and we've taken a lot of things out of context). The good guy is good because we said so (and we've left out the parts that don't show him in a favorable light). End of story."

Long ago in my "salad days" ... ... I, too, worked for a newspaper. I was shocked to find out how much bias was written into local and national stories. We would get a story directly off the Associated Press wire, and the news editor would either insert sentences and paragraphs, or leave them out, in order to "tailor" the news to his political liking. There was no indication to the general public that this was done, and for all they knew, not one word had been altered from the original AP byline.

Today, I read multiple news web sites, and independent bloggers, to get my news because I do not trust getting it from one source. This is the strength of the Internet.

As others have said, and I briefly mentioned in my post above ... the network bias does not stop at politics. We've seen this with the Ramsey case, and Tricia has had first hand experience with it at CBS.

I believe this comes from a three-fold mindset.

1. They are after ratings, not facts. Whatever story will get the most viewers, no matter how sensational nor suspect, they charge ahead. They think a show that says they've found the killer of JonBenet(!) will garner more ratings than a show which impartially presents factual evidence.

2. They think those who are pursuing the Ramseys as suspects in the death of JonBenet are typical, muck-raking conservatives who have not been enlightened by 1960s liberal thinking. The Ramseys were victims of LE ("the fuzz") and were unfairly persecuted ("police brutality"). It's the government vs. the people, and we shall overcome.

3. They have a high-handed attitude, and think they should never be questioned. They believe they are smarter than us, and only they know what they're doing. We are amateurs, and country bumpkins, and goodness knows ... we are not THEM! They feel they are the only ones with a corner market on the truth.

What the media, in particular CBS News, needs is a big dose of humble pie. Their arrogance has exposed what many of us have known for a long time ... that truth is not an easy commodity, and it must be pursued with an unflagging determination and unimpeachable integrity which is not always present in the half-baked, sensational stories of today's media.

 

"The point is, their judgment was clouded by their personal vendetta against the Bush family."

I agree their judgment was clouded, and it could well have been by a personal vendetta. I surely agree with this: "They, like all other Americans, are welcome to their own political viewpoint, but when it interferes with the unbiased reporting of national news, then it becomes a problem."

 

I guess to them, the education level of the professional person who might be blogging on the side makes no difference, as they would lump the educated with the untrained, by their adoption of attitude(s) as such. The liberal media was pointed out to me very early on, by parents who pointed out to me that the Houston paper was running pictures of candidates which were either scowling (the obvoiusly unendorsed runner), or smiling (you guessed it, the paper liked that guy). The same attitude is transcribed over into the visual media, where the person that they do not support has every iota of his/her personal life scrutinized under a microscope, but the indiscretion(s) of those who are supported by the same media would be overlooked.

After all, so what if sexual promiscuity gives all of America a bad name in the international arena, he's just a man, and he has needs. It isnt sex, anyway, if a guy gets a hummer off of some intern or other wench, right? And "white" lies are still lies. Especially under oath.

Maybe Fox, that bastion of expose' reporting, needs to get in on some of the action regarding other untrue issues which are being presented to the public as "truths".

 

Right Cherokee--you articulted that better than I did. I don't like being talked down to by people in the media, and I find it galling that they just assume their opinions are the best way to go especially given the fact that getting a journalism degree doesn't mean you know anything about history, politics, or science.

 

Another thing that's crept into journalism in the last thirty years is this idea that it is a reporter's job to make certain minority groups look good. That's not their job. A great example is AIDS coverage. After about fifty stories in the Statesman regarding how AIDS is "spreading" amongst heterosexuals I had to confront the editor. The fact remains that in the US, the vast, vast majority of AIDS cases involved gay men, IV drug users and people who got it through a blood transfusion--so why were they implying that it was this huge growing problem for straight people? I was told that if they didn't say that, that funding might get cut for AIDS research! I was stunned. First of all--I give Americans more credit than that. We would not stop spending money on AIDS research if the public "learned" who it was hitting disproportionately! The public ALREADY KNOWS. But once again--the media types assume that the public is a racist gay bashing mob looking for an excuse to be evil.

But beyond that--it's NOT their job to act as a PR person for gays or blacks or women or anybody else. When did they get this idea?

 

Jayelles,

Yes, Erin Moriarty was the correspondant on the 48 Hours show which featured Lou Smit and the Gary Olivia story-- maybe about 2 years ago...

 

This gentleman from Arvada has some things to say about Michael Tracey in his letter to the editor in the Rocky Mountain News:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_3208143,00.html
Talk back to the media, September 25
September 25, 2004

How did critic miss 'Rathergate' story?

What a joke. Why do you continue to pay Michael Tracey for "media criticism"? He has a history of using his column inches to spout leftist views - and now, in his column of Sept. 18, he misses the biggest media story of a generation: the Dan Rathergate meltdown at CBS. How could a true media critic fail to write about CBS News' reliance on fraudulent documents to try and take down President Bush? Instead, Tracey enlightens readers today with this bit of nonsense: 83 percent of Americans can't find Afghanistan on a map, therefore it is the media's fault. Wow. Breathtaking. That's his key finding in the lead sentence of his second paragraph. Now, most folks would attribute lack of knowledge to lack of education - but far be it from the "professor" to point a finger at his own profession.

(see link for remainder of letter)

 

"There seems to be this attitude in the world today--and you see it in people like Michael Moore and Dan Rather--that if you don't like a certain political candidate then the ends justify the means. The means run from blatant lying (Michael Moore) ..."

I'm crushed. I've been avoiding asking this for almost two days, but here goes. What did Michael Moore lie about?

 

I agree with all you have to say here WY, and I don't think it will be deeply investigated either. I think we would all get a shock if they started investigating all of these top stations on TV and checked their sources.