I disagree with you on several levels. When we were staffed with 45 people in the newsroom we had 15 to 20 local stories every day and that often crowded out the national and state news.
I don’t think I ever heard anyone complain about biased national stories until Trump came along. When I did, I would ask them to give me examples of the bias. They could NEVER do it. NEVER! They would occasionally point to a headline that wasn’t the best, but I never saw any intentional bias from the Associated Press or any of the supplementary wires we used at different times.
If you want to find bias, you will find it. That doesn’t make it true.
You cannot address a problem without an example of a problem. No one could EVER give me an example. I would go line by line in a story and they could not articulate or point out the bias. That was my experience.
Ken interesting qualifier “intentional”. How does “intentional bias” differ from just “bias”?
What would you accept as examples that would show the existence of bias?
If you don’t want to find bias, you will not find it. Even if it’s staring you in the face.
Really Trump again. Trump played the media, he angered the main stream media with his “fake news” and then every little thing he said or did became front page news. Perhaps if they had stopped writing about the little things and looked deeper into what he was doing he may have faded into obscurity.
Supposedly Oscar Wilde once said that the only thing worse than being talked about was not being talked about, and Trump was the main topic of late-night TV.
I suppose a better word would be “premeditated” bias. For me, bias is when you start with a conclusion and then craft your reporting and writing to fit that narrative. That is what Fox News is being accused of with its coverage of the Big Lie.
As editor, I used to choose what went on the front page most day,but not all. As a middle aged white guy, my interests and beliefs of what is important to our readers were different than say a young woman. When those young women pitched me stories for the front page, I listened closely because they were often choosing stories that I would not have picked for the front page. We all have a personal bias, bu the news people I knew tried to make sure that did not influence the product. They tried to be fair. And I think we did that most days.
Ken, thanks for the reply. Will’s article of Feb 12 “Ohio episode shows toxic impunity that poisons policing“ fits your definition of bias. He starts with a conclusion then crafts his writing to fit that narrative.
In your reply you use the qualifier “premeditated” to define the type of bias. First the use of “premeditated” leads me to believe you see Fox’s actions as criminal. Next you define bias in terms of an error in logic, making the premise fit the conclusion. Which may in part be predicated on a bias, although I didn’t believe it is the essence of bias itself. I’m still attempting to work that one out. Then you use Fox News as an example to support your definition of bias, which is another logical error. You use the word “accused” so the truth of the conclusion at this point in unknown. You are using something unknown to prove something you believe to be true, something which you have defined.
When you have the time look through the preceding articles. Follow the hyperlinks within the article and see where take you.
I agree with you on the simple truth that we all are creatures of bias. Although like it or not, bias will influence all of us. Some will attempt to hide it, some will attempt to define it, others will attempt to understand it. In the end no matter what we do, bias will influence all of us. Even when we look in the mirror and are unable see it.
Both Will and I write commentary. These are not NEWS stories. We provide context for our opinions, but they are our opinions. That is much different then front line news reporting.
Interesting that you use the term “leftist”. What exactly do you mean by that? Since when does covering stories and publishing factual information have any political agenda? Since Trump? What kind of “pieces ignored” stories do you think are being overlooked? Examples?
Losing local newspapers is a very sad development. They are part of our community. And the industry should be respected.
That is the sad part. My experience was that newspaper tried diligently to be fair and apolitical. We had constant conversations about balancing coverage - maybe we worried too much about that - and making sure one political party or viewpoint did not get more coverage than the other. One example was climate change. For years, we felt we had to balance stories that included climate deniers. That was probably a mistake. When 97 percent of the scientists believe it is happening, there is no longer a need to give the other side. But we did that for a long time.
All news is national now. I don’t see how local papers compete with that. That’s one thing Fox does “well.” They cater to exactly what their audience wants to hear so it doesn’t go elsewhere. That’s certainly been revealed. If the audience doesn’t want to hear Trump lost they’ll say he was cheated and Republican pols have to agree. The audience chooses the message.
Can’t recreate that locally and it wouldn’t be journalism anyway.
I disagree with you on several levels. When we were staffed with 45 people in the newsroom we had 15 to 20 local stories every day and that often crowded out the national and state news.
I don’t think I ever heard anyone complain about biased national stories until Trump came along. When I did, I would ask them to give me examples of the bias. They could NEVER do it. NEVER! They would occasionally point to a headline that wasn’t the best, but I never saw any intentional bias from the Associated Press or any of the supplementary wires we used at different times.
If you want to find bias, you will find it. That doesn’t make it true.
You cannot address a problem without an example of a problem. No one could EVER give me an example. I would go line by line in a story and they could not articulate or point out the bias. That was my experience.
Ken interesting qualifier “intentional”. How does “intentional bias” differ from just “bias”?
What would you accept as examples that would show the existence of bias?
If you don’t want to find bias, you will not find it. Even if it’s staring you in the face.
Really Trump again. Trump played the media, he angered the main stream media with his “fake news” and then every little thing he said or did became front page news. Perhaps if they had stopped writing about the little things and looked deeper into what he was doing he may have faded into obscurity.
Supposedly Oscar Wilde once said that the only thing worse than being talked about was not being talked about, and Trump was the main topic of late-night TV.
I suppose a better word would be “premeditated” bias. For me, bias is when you start with a conclusion and then craft your reporting and writing to fit that narrative. That is what Fox News is being accused of with its coverage of the Big Lie.
As editor, I used to choose what went on the front page most day,but not all. As a middle aged white guy, my interests and beliefs of what is important to our readers were different than say a young woman. When those young women pitched me stories for the front page, I listened closely because they were often choosing stories that I would not have picked for the front page. We all have a personal bias, bu the news people I knew tried to make sure that did not influence the product. They tried to be fair. And I think we did that most days.
I think you succeeded.
Ken, thanks for the reply. Will’s article of Feb 12 “Ohio episode shows toxic impunity that poisons policing“ fits your definition of bias. He starts with a conclusion then crafts his writing to fit that narrative.
In your reply you use the qualifier “premeditated” to define the type of bias. First the use of “premeditated” leads me to believe you see Fox’s actions as criminal. Next you define bias in terms of an error in logic, making the premise fit the conclusion. Which may in part be predicated on a bias, although I didn’t believe it is the essence of bias itself. I’m still attempting to work that one out. Then you use Fox News as an example to support your definition of bias, which is another logical error. You use the word “accused” so the truth of the conclusion at this point in unknown. You are using something unknown to prove something you believe to be true, something which you have defined.
The following link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic leads to an article on logic.
This link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias leads to an article on bias.
When you have the time look through the preceding articles. Follow the hyperlinks within the article and see where take you.
I agree with you on the simple truth that we all are creatures of bias. Although like it or not, bias will influence all of us. Some will attempt to hide it, some will attempt to define it, others will attempt to understand it. In the end no matter what we do, bias will influence all of us. Even when we look in the mirror and are unable see it.
Both Will and I write commentary. These are not NEWS stories. We provide context for our opinions, but they are our opinions. That is much different then front line news reporting.
Interesting that you use the term “leftist”. What exactly do you mean by that? Since when does covering stories and publishing factual information have any political agenda? Since Trump? What kind of “pieces ignored” stories do you think are being overlooked? Examples?
Losing local newspapers is a very sad development. They are part of our community. And the industry should be respected.
That is the sad part. My experience was that newspaper tried diligently to be fair and apolitical. We had constant conversations about balancing coverage - maybe we worried too much about that - and making sure one political party or viewpoint did not get more coverage than the other. One example was climate change. For years, we felt we had to balance stories that included climate deniers. That was probably a mistake. When 97 percent of the scientists believe it is happening, there is no longer a need to give the other side. But we did that for a long time.
All news is national now. I don’t see how local papers compete with that. That’s one thing Fox does “well.” They cater to exactly what their audience wants to hear so it doesn’t go elsewhere. That’s certainly been revealed. If the audience doesn’t want to hear Trump lost they’ll say he was cheated and Republican pols have to agree. The audience chooses the message.
Can’t recreate that locally and it wouldn’t be journalism anyway.
That is so sad. Often times I think they beat the children as well, perhaps? So the work you did was just invaluable. Wish something could be done.
Im so sorry I can not make it to your March event at the Library! I am away for a month or tow. DARN IT!
I’m sure there will be others.