 |
| 
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/6/2003 2:20 PM (GMT -6) |   | | http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~24781~1676763,00.html | | Back to Top | | |
 |
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/6/2003 4:54 PM (GMT -6) | | | ALL newspapers have bias: don't you know that? The good ones admit it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/7/2003 9:38 AM (GMT -6) | | I use "bias" for papers who will not admit it; such as the LA and NY Times. I have no problem with papers leaning one way or another. But when you act as if you have none, then you have bias (a long in your eye). Then you began to believe you truly are reporting the news, not your version of the news.
I believe everybody has a bias; the only way to report the news fairly (or do anything fairly) is to adknowledge it and work with it in mind. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/7/2003 9:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Yes it does matter, but when you do not adknowledge it, you tend to view yourself as neutral (like your friend Krugman) and view all others as not reporting the news but their "take" on the news. THe La Times was most likely does not even understand why they are being taken to task by many. Why? Because to them they are simply reporting the news, but what they believe is the news. The adknowledgment of bias is the only way to report the news fairly.
As far as your second question, DLW, I don't understand it.
Of course papers effect the news (as they should). And that is why they should report anything newsworthy about the canditates. But by bringing up Arnold's part without bringing up Davis's they show that they are not interested in being fair. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/7/2003 10:03 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by honorman
Yes it does matter, but when you do not adknowledge it, you tend to view yourself as neutral (like your friend Krugman) and view all others as not reporting the news but their "take" on the news.
that isn't true, but there are some pretty good neutral descriptions of what is going on in the political process...
But there also is much activism/advocacy on both Krugman and I's part(and the ratio of activism/facts is generally even higher in your posts).
quote:
THe La Times was most likely does not even understand why they are being taken to task by many. Why? Because to them they are simply reporting the news, but what they believe is the news. The
I'm sure that they know when they are politicking and, apparently, a lot of people do care about how politician's comport themselves with people of the opposite sex(as evidenced with Bill Clinton). So the stories on Arnold were newsworth, as were those on Gray Davis. There problem was to censure the stuff on Davis.
quote:
adknowledgment of bias is the only way to report the news fairly.
There are problems though with saying just how biased our bias is, since this often hinges on what is eventually judged as the "right" answer and we are in the process of politicking/swaying public opinion regarding that.
quote:
As far as your second question, DLW, I don't understand it.
Of course papers effect the news (as they should). And that is why they should report anything newsworthy about the canditates. But by bringing up Arnold's part without bringing up Davis's they show that they are not interested in being fair.
sure,
but there are lots of problems with defining neutral and bias, much of the media is about trying to influence people a certain direction and they need to be held accountable ethically in this regard.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/7/2003 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Its very true, DLW (perhaps you yourself have a problem adknowledging your own bias). One has only to read Klugman's stuff to recognize that it isn't just about disagreeing with conservatives but that he simply doesn't like conservatives. He is a deep liberal who acts as though he somehow is above the fray. His book is a deep case in point. His writing, in many ways, echos Al Franken's mean spirited stuff, yet he is arrogant in his attitude. Because he is (as he sees it) outside the Washington estasblishment, he is somehow an objective observer (I think his being a professor only adds to his own confusion). He was in San Diego recently pushing his book and the Book editor did a good job in pointing this out.
That is not to say that his book isn't good or right (aside from much of his "doomsday" attitude and meanness). It is only to say that people like Krugman are in the same boat as the rest of us and all the arrogance in the world (and protesting) doesn't change that fact.
As I've said before, there is no such thing as neutral... | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/7/2003 10:59 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by honorman
Its very true, DLW (perhaps you yourself have a problem adknowledging your own bias). One has only to read Klugman's stuff to recognize that it isn't just about disagreeing with conservatives but that he simply doesn't like conservatives. He is a deep liberal who acts as though he somehow is above the fray.
nonsense, he knows he is in the fray, but believes that some of the reasons he dislikes conservatives are for objective reasons, his understanding of what is going on, ie. crony-capitalism as opposed to market-capitalism.
quote:
His book is a deep case in point. His writing, in many ways, echos Al Franken's mean spirited stuff, yet he is arrogant in his attitude. Because he is (as he sees it) outside the Washington estasblishment, he is somehow an objective observer (I think his being a professor only adds to his own confusion). He was in San Diego recently pushing his book and the Book editor did a good job in pointing this out.
define objective...
One can advocate a partisan approach based on one's more objective understanding of what is going on within the political process... Krugman is not just a mean-spirited partisan, he was highly critical of Bill Clinton as well.
quote:
That is not to say that his book isn't good or right (aside from much of his "doomsday" attitude and meanness). It is only to say that people like Krugman are in the same boat as the rest of us and all the arrogance in the world (and protesting) doesn't change that fact.
As I've said before, there is no such thing as neutral...
Yes, but there are things like facts and there are ad homs and often when one lacks the former, the latter are used to take their place.
Krugman has a better handle on the facts than I'm sure most people do and that is why he has such a prominent opinion column.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/7/2003 1:29 PM (GMT -6) | | | Yawn, we disagree. Yawn, I'm bored. Yawn I'm done. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/7/2003 8:44 PM (GMT -6) | |  People block me? Oh no, my life is over!  DLW, what is the point of going round and round when it is obvious we disagree. What would I learn...that you see the world different than I do? I thought that was obvious...
as an afterthought I have to add that I have never wondered if people block me (but I do exhale...)
And I do apologize if you considered this rude...was just a little attempt at humor... | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/8/2003 5:21 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by honorman
People block me? Oh no, my life is over! DLW, what is the point of going round and round when it is obvious we disagree. What would I learn...that you see the world different than I do? I thought that was obvious...
as an afterthought I have to add that I have never wondered if people block me (but I do exhale...)
And I do apologize if you considered this rude...was just a little attempt at humor...
This may surprise you but productive exchanges are possible between people who disagree.
Learning is possible if people take the time to provide facts for their contentions. It is always good and wise to learn from your political opponents.
dlw | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/8/2003 5:33 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/8/2003 5:59 AM (GMT -6) | | At an impasse, but we weren't even talking about anything substantial, just playing word games about the meaning of bias and the significance of acknowledging one's "bias".
dlw | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:57 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|