The Free Press

[manny31]

I don't mean to go down a quasi political rabbit hole. What do current or alumni journalism students(not exclusively though) think about the Wiki Leaks about different members of the press working with certain candidates? Let's for the sake of argument say that the leaks are true. Do journalists feel a responsibility to report objectively? I once read a quote on Scoop by a former journalism student. To paraphrase he/she said that their intent was to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Again not about politics, I want to know if journalists have a responsibility to be objective?

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I am unfamiliar with the WikiLeaks allegations you are referencing.

What are they exactly and has there been any response?

[brandx]

Every single journalist KNOWS what their journalistic responsibility is. Most - at least on the print side - do a pretty good job of separating their personal beliefs from their journalistic duty.

Whether you agree with "Lib" papers like the NYT or Washington Post - or conservative ones like the Chicago Tribune or Wall Street Journal or LA Times, the reporting is generally pretty honest.


When it comes to the Internet or Cable TV "News", there is almost no such thing as responsible journalism. They are just shills for advocacy sites.

[muwarrior69]

I don't mean to go down a quasi political rabbit hole. What do current or alumni journalism students(not exclusively though) think about the Wiki Leaks about different members of the press working with certain candidates? Let's for the sake of argument say that the leaks are true. Do journalists feel a responsibility to report objectively? I once read a quote on Scoop by a former journalism student. To paraphrase he/she said that their intent was to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Again not about politics, I want to know if journalists have a responsibility to be objective?

There are not too many "objective" reporters out there and even fewer "objective" editors today. If there are any out there I would like to know who they are.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

There are not too many "objective" reporters out there and even fewer "objective" editors today. If there are any out there I would like to know who they are.

Its so hard to be an objective reporter even in the sports world. I recently wrote an article on Colombia soccer and I found myself going a lot easier on Colombian fans than other writers did in regards to the James death threats, and I dont think i even did it intentionally.

I actually think being an unbiased editor is much easier. I am an editor for a sports news website and I find it rather easy to place articles without my personal bias coming in. Then again, I make zero money from sponsors and such on that website so that may make a slight difference.

[HouWarrior]

I just googled the words "Wiki Leaks journalists". given the search results....well this thread is masking a totally political current issue in the news...it aint journalism its political posturing .....I dont go there anymore, per our mods requests.

ie in before the lock

[manny31]

I just googled the words "Wiki Leaks journalists". given the search results....well this thread is masking a totally political current issue in the news...it aint journalism its political posturing .....I dont go there anymore, per our mods requests.

ie in before the lock

As I recall I said "for the sake of argument" let's just say they are true. I then asked if journalists feel an obligation to be objective?  Simple as that. You can say yes or no and if you feel like it you could state why that is your opinion. After you've u stated your opinion you could then argue why your opinion is correct. Unless you have another agenda I don't see what the problem is in asking if journalists feel a duty to be objective.
It is also informative that another poster brought up the editorial role in reporting. That is appreciated.
Also what about "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" I would like a journalism major or an alum speak to that. In truth that bothers me and I don't think I am being unreasonable. I don't think these are political questions, I think they tend toward the moral and ethical variety. If that proves difficult for your alma mater failed you.

[Pakuni]

There are not too many "objective" reporters out there and even fewer "objective" editors today. If there are any out there I would like to know who they are.

How many news reporters and editors do you know?

[dgies9156]

Nobody wants to talk about it but the notion of an objective press is a misnomer that arose only in the past few decades.

Think back to William Randolph Hearst, Col. McCormick, The Grahams etc. All advocated a position for their newspapers. Colonel McCormick was a rock-ribbed conservative. Phil Graham, before he committed suicide, was a closet Kennedy advisor. Reporters have gone back and forth between political advising and reporting for years. Heck, David Axelrod, ye of Obama fame, wrote the lead story in the Tribune about the American Airlines DC 10 crash in May 1979. Axelrod didn't go back into the media because there was far more money in advising political candidates.

The media is made up of people and people have perspectives that creep into their work. An intelligent media consumer acknowledges that and tries to be a renaissance person by reading multiple perspectives on an issue. As one former conservative colleague once said when caught reading the New York Times, "I like to know how the other side thinks!!!"

[Mutaman]

Leaked emails indicate Clinton once washed a spider down the plughole. 

[MU82]

There are many different classifications of journalists.

For example, a newspaper columnist is paid to have an opinion and to express it in a compelling way ... which some might argue means their very job is to NOT be objective. They look at an issue, take a stance on it, and argue for their stance.

A newspaper reporter is supposed to be objective. But that line has blurred at a lot of newspapers, as staffs are smaller and more reporters write columns, at least occasionally.

TV reporters? Most look at themselves as at least some part entertainers. Or at least they are well aware that their business is ratings-driven. It's a different standard, in general.

Internet reporters ... again, it's a somewhat different standard. They have to draw eyeballs.

Back when Woodward and Bernstein were breaking the Watergate story, those who hated Nixon thought they were "objective" and those who liked Nixon (or hated the press) thought they were biased.

So even the measurement of objectivity is subjective. I could write the most fact-driven Trump article to appear in a newspaper tomorrow, and Trump supporters would say it was not objective.

To answer the general question posed in the opening post ... yes, a majority believe they should be "objective." But again, one person's objectivity might be another's subjectivity.

Of course, journalists are human, and humans are subject to biases of one kind or another.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

To assume WikiLeaks is true is very dangerous.  An agenda driven source that operates under a shroud of darkness.  What they leak cannot always be verified by another source.  How much is doctored?  The alleged Clinton-press email could easily be faked.  Secondly, I have a problem with anyone acquiring information illegally, such as hacking.  I will address the rest in a separate post.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I worked in local broadcast TV news for 10 years.  The phrase "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" is not journalism - it's activism.

I prefer "our job isn't to tell people what to think, but what to think about."  Want to say that was said by Walter Cronkite but not 100% sure.

Ideally journalists remain objective but it is impossible to not let your personal viewpoints creep in on a subconscious level.  The key is to try to be fair, truthful, and unbiased.

For example, I made the decision not to even consider signing Scott Walker's recall because I felt that doing so would make me biased.

I also had to cover WI state assembly and senate.  I went to HS with on of the politicians daughters, was friends with her, and even helped make campaign signs for her dad's first campaign.  I feel this did not compromise my objectivity for any general stories in the legislature (he has served in both houses) or any of his committee work.  If there would have been a controversial story that directly involved him, I would have recused myself for a conflict of interest.  One of my co-workers was an investigative reporter and would recuse himself over any issues his wife, a lobbyist, lobbied for.  That is what a journalist should do.

The last point I'll make is don't confuse propaganda with journalism.  A lot of agenda driven people take to the media.  Nowadays blogs are a great example of bias, agenda driven content but it also exists in many media formats, particularly cable TV.  As others have noted, this has gone on long into the past.  Consumers, unfortunately IMO, have to judge not just what is said but who is saying it.  And unfortunately people often mistake what they agree with as unbiased and accurate.

[GooooMarquette]

The last point I'll make is don't confuse propaganda with journalism.  A lot of agenda driven people take to the media.  Nowadays blogs are a great example of bias, agenda driven content but it also exists in many media formats, particularly cable TV.  As others have noted, this has gone on long into the past.  Consumers, unfortunately IMO, have to judge not just what is said but who is saying it.  And unfortunately people often mistake what they agree with as unbiased and accurate.

Agree.  The challenge is that most journalists don't conveniently fall at one end of the spectrum (totally objective) or the other (totally biased).  They fall along a continuum. 

[jficke13]

The thing that makes me angry on a daily basis is the perversion of headlines for the clickbait era.

I would drown myself in a bottle if I had to actually write "You won't believe what happens next" and "5 crazy things, number 3 will SHOCK you" links on a daily basis.

[Lennys Tap]

Above all, reporters/investigative journalists want a good story. No good story without a villain. And it's much easier to look for a villain among the people one (due to his or her biases) already despises. Feels better, somehow more "righteous".

[rocket surgeon]

   many good comments here, especially from those who work or have worked within the industry-thanks

  isn't their a journalistic standard just as there is a standard of care in the healthcare field?  regarding objectivity?  money is the root of all evils...within the field of journalism-7% are registered republicans-just saying...

regardless of whether or not one thinks wiki is real?  full documentation sources are there for all to see.

 

 

[Benny B]

Veey few journalists have exhibited true objectivity in the past 200 years or so.  Everyone has an agenda, whether they realize it or not.

[muwarrior69]

Its so hard to be an objective reporter even in the sports world. I recently wrote an article on Colombia soccer and I found myself going a lot easier on Colombian fans than other writers did in regards to the James death threats, and I dont think i even did it intentionally.

I actually think being an unbiased editor is much easier. I am an editor for a sports news website and I find it rather easy to place articles without my personal bias coming in. Then again, I make zero money from sponsors and such on that website so that may make a slight difference.

Don't editors decide what is news and what is not. It's what they don't tell us that I take issue with. Enlighten me if I am wrong.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Don't editors decide what is news and what is not. It's what they don't tell us that I take issue with. Enlighten me if I am wrong.

Yes and no, with our site everybody writes their own thing and posts it. My biggest job is deciding which stories are headlined and which are thrown in the dregs of the subsections.

I have the power to pull articles if I really want to but I haven't so far in my short tenure. So to answer your question, yes you can choose what goes on the news and as someone earlier said it's generally money based.

[Benny B]

Yes and no, with our site everybody writes their own thing and posts it. My biggest job is deciding which stories are headlined and which are thrown in the dregs of the subsections.

I have the power to pull articles if I really want to but I haven't so far in my short tenure. So to answer your question, yes you can choose what goes on the news and as someone earlier said it's generally money based.

Generally?  How about entirely?

[Badgerhoney]

To assume WikiLeaks is true is very dangerous.  An agenda driven source that operates under a shroud of darkness.  What they leak cannot always be verified by another source.  How much is doctored?  The alleged Clinton-press email could easily be faked.  Secondly, I have a problem with anyone acquiring information illegally, such as hacking.  I will address the rest in a separate post.

Can you point to a time in the 10 years of WikiLeaks that there document dumps have been fake?  There was an attempt the last few days to make that claim, and even Snopes said the accusation was wrong. http://www.snopes.com/newsweek-proves-that-wikileaks-is-leaking-phony-hillary-clinton-emails/

Show us all the times in 10 years where documents turned out to be fake.  Why is it that Wikileaks was all the rage in the Bush years, hailed by the NY Times, but now they are evil?

[Pakuni]

Can you point to a time in the 10 years of WikiLeaks that there document dumps have been fake?  There was an attempt the last few days to make that claim, and even Snopes said the accusation was wrong. http://www.snopes.com/newsweek-proves-that-wikileaks-is-leaking-phony-hillary-clinton-emails/

Show us all the times in 10 years where documents turned out to be fake.  Why is it that Wikileaks was all the rage in the Bush years, hailed by the NY Times, but now they are evil?

Here you go, Chicos:

There is fake content on Wikileaks. A whistleblower, who asked to remain anonymous, admitted to submitting fabricated documents to Wikileaks to see what it would do. The documents were flagged as potential fakes, but the whistleblower felt that the decision to publish the documents had "an impact on their credibility". When challenged on fake content, Schmitt twists the potential criticism into a positive. "A fake document is a story in itself," he says.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/exposed-wikileaks-secrets

[Pakuni]

It's interesting (legitimately) to see people who don't work in journalism discuss what they think goes on inside the business.
Some good insight, some pretty far off the mark.
I can only speak for my own experience - which, I daresay is greater than 95 percent of the posters here - so I can't address ALL the media. But in my nearly 25 years in the business, working in small, medium and large markets, I can think of only two instances in which someone at any level of the news operation was intentionally biased. One was at a very small publication where a wire editor admitted to having placed a story about his preferred gubernatorial candidate above a story about the other candidate. The stories weren't altered, changed, etc. Just a matter of story placement.
The other was at a larger operation where a non-journalist with influence leaned on the editorial department to endorse a specific candidate. It had nothing to do with political party or issues, it was simply because this person was buddies with someone affiliated with that candidate.
Other than that, in my more than two decades I have never seen any overt and intentional bias. People try to be fair, even when they vehemently disagree with a person or position, and more importantly try to be accurate.

This is not to say people in newsrooms don't have their preferences and biases. They're all human, after all and undoubtedly those biases can seep in, especially if you're not careful. But the notion, propagated largely by the right, that those in media actively and intentionally work in the interests of one side or another simply isn't anywhere close my reality.
There are exceptions, of course (think Fox News, MSNBC, Breitbart) but those outlets are unabashed about their biases and not representative of the vast majority of "news" outlets out there.

As for making money being a critical element in news coverage ... well, duh. These aren't not-for-profit operations. But very rarely does making money = political bias. The way to make money in this business is to generate content the consumer wants. And for all out bit*hing about celebrity journalism, clickbait, etc. ... that's what you people want, and the metrics prove it. Believe me, the vast majority of journalists would rather do think pieces on the importance of preserving aquifers or revealing flaws in school funding formulas, but by and large that's not what the consumers want. And every day we get feedback via readership/viewership data that proves it.

[mu-rara]

Bias is not in what is reported.  It is in what is spiked.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Generally?  How about entirely?

In regards to this comment, my experience:

1) Stations I have worked for have done negative stories on advertising customers.  They were granted no special treatment due to their advertising status, sometimes to the sales department's chagrin.

2) The sales department does appreciate when news worthiness and coverage align, sometimes to the chagrin of the news department.

3) Yes, there is the underlying goal to provide content that will draw viewers.  But I am not aware of any stories being done in exchange for direct compensation.

4) Then there are station sponsored events.  Covering events because the station paid money; often to the chagrin of the assigned news crew.

[Badgerhoney]

Here you go, Chicos:

There is fake content on Wikileaks. A whistleblower, who asked to remain anonymous, admitted to submitting fabricated documents to Wikileaks to see what it would do. The documents were flagged as potential fakes, but the whistleblower felt that the decision to publish the documents had "an impact on their credibility". When challenged on fake content, Schmitt twists the potential criticism into a positive. "A fake document is a story in itself," he says.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/exposed-wikileaks-secrets

I have been called many things in my life.  Shadow, ni**er, blackie, Uncle Tom, and others.  This one is a first.  I will stay away from this area moving forward, and stick to recruiting. MU is a school that I usually cheer for. 

Before I go -

The implication is that Wikileaks alters or fakes the documents.  Nowhere has that happened. What you have provided is a fake document that they released, if true. Garbage in, garbage out, but they did not not alter anything.  Nor have they in the past.

Podesta admitted his emails were hacked.  The same way the DNC was hacked.  Wikileaks put them out there. It caused 2 DNC members to be fired.  Some of the things coming out of the Podesta emails are concerning. The attacks on Catholics, Southerners, Bernie Sanders supporters.  All the examples of the NY Times, Globe, Post, taking orders from the Clinton campaign, even giving them ability to strike parts of stories.  Donna Brazille given debate questions ahead of the debate.  These hacks have a great way of showing people what they truly are, the positions and feelings they really have.

The press spikes stories to protect, or spins up stories to destroy.  Case in point, the press spiked Monica Lewinsky.  NBC had the Trump tape since July, was it not newsworthy then?  Yet they released it for maximum damage.  Someone earlier said 7% of journalists are Republicans.  Over 90% of D.C. journalists vote Democrat. For the same reason liberals gravitate to college faculty, they do the same in the media, and they push their agenda.   http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/media-bias-explained-only-7-of-journalists-identify-as-republicans/

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Even releasing fake leaks dings the credibility of WikiLeaks.  It shows they have no filter.  How does one know what is real and what is fake if they leak fake info?

For the record, I have been against WikiLeaks from the start.  Hacking is illegal and the ends do not justify the means.  Not to mention leaking classified material is dangerous.  WikiLeaks agenda remains unchanged.  It is anti-American, whether Bush or Obama is President.  Assange is using political divisiveness to play us against each other, under a veil of nobility: "exposing the truth".

That is my opinion of WikiLeaks.

Edit: I realized I had typed decisiveness when I meant divisiveness.  Change has been made.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I have been called many things in my life.  Shadow, ni**er, blackie, Uncle Tom, and others.  This one is a first.  I will stay away from this area moving forward, and stick to recruiting. MU is a school that I usually cheer for. 

I just want to say this definitely is my favorite post this week - and may win the offseason for me. 

Someone with '21 posts' and is a 'badger fan who also likes MUBB' equates racial slurs to being called Chicos and boycotts the Superbar.

You can't make this stuff up if you tried.

[mu03eng]

I just want to say this definitely is my favorite post this week - and may win the offseason for me. 

Someone with '21 posts' and is a 'badger fan who also likes MUBB' equates racial slurs to being called Chicos and boycotts the Superbar.

You can't make this stuff up if you tried.

I almost regret skipping on this thread......almost

[Pakuni]

I have been called many things in my life.  Shadow, ni**er, blackie, Uncle Tom, and others.  This one is a first.  I will stay away from this area moving forward, and stick to recruiting. MU is a school that I usually cheer for. 

Before I go -

The implication is that Wikileaks alters or fakes the documents.  Nowhere has that happened. What you have provided is a fake document that they released, if true. Garbage in, garbage out, but they did not not alter anything.  Nor have they in the past.

Methinks he doth protest too much.
Anyhow, you asked "Can you point to a time in the 10 years of WikiLeaks that there document dumps have been fake?"

It took me all of three seconds on the Google machine to find a case in which WikiLeaks has posted fake documents.
So .... you're welcome.

[Benny B]

In regards to this comment, my experience:
3) Yes, there is the underlying goal to provide content that will draw viewers.

Forget who the sponsors are and focus on this... you can't make money in news unless you draw eyeballs.  So journalists put the stories out there that draw the attention of viewers.

That's why we don't see the stories about kittens and bunnies playing together.  Viewers want dumpster fires, so that's what journalists either look for, and for those times when they can't find one, they carry matches in their pocket.

[brandx]

That's why we don't see the stories about kittens and bunnies playing together. 

Zuckerberg owns all the copyrights on those, anyway.

[MU82]

I'm not sure why people think the media isn't reporting the Wikileaks stuff.

My local paper in Charlotte reports on the revelations daily. CNN covers them. Bloomberg is covering them. Goodness knows Fox News is covering them. I'm quite certain the debate moderator will mention them next week, probably more than once.

I think for many the question is "Why are Trump's problems, bombast, personality disorders, etc, receiving the bigger headlines and priority placement in newspaper and TV coverage?"

I like to think the reason is pretty obvious. People can't get enough Trump, and haven't been able to for a year-plus now.

A video of a major-party presidential candidate bragging about committing sexual assault? The candidate's own party abandoning him like rats on a burning ship? The candidate going to a scorched-earth campaign, trashing his own party leaders and tripling down on sexual allegations against his opponent's spouse? Numerous women saying they were abused by the candidate, followed by the candidate's personal attacks against the accuser, including one in which he said the alleged victim wasn't good-looking enough for him to assault. Numerous women saying the candidate walked in on them when they were naked while preparing for a beauty pageant, which the candidate also had boasted about?

And the media not giving greater coverage to Wikileaks somehow "proves" their bias?

Whether you are a media outlet, a restaurant owner or a furniture maker, you give the customer what he or she wants.

[dgies9156]

I spent 10 years in the Media both in trade and daily journalism. My daily journalism was at newspapers, one in a small city and one in a mid-sized Metro. Long ago I got an MBA and said I wanted a "real" paycheck.

Here are some my thoughts and experiences.

1) At the small city daily, our editors once came to us and told us to run a K*Mart press release because "they are a good advertiser..." It was K*Mart's 25th anniversary, so we ran a headline, "Let the Blue Light Special Shine It's Ever Loving Light..." We got so much of this, we became disillusioned when we saw the city editor coming. Total and complete BS!

2) We had a publisher at the mid-sized Metro who bought the paper, among other reasons, to be assured of getting into the city's snooty country club. He regularly ordered stories tilted in one direction to his liking and, of course, it was done.

3) When Foster Winans traded on the Wall Street Journal's "Heard on the Street" info, it went after Mr. Winan's sexual orientation, knowing that would infuriate most WSJ readers at the time.

4) There's always a local tilt to stories. Imagine what would happen in Atlanta if the surgeon general suddenly declared Coca Cola caused cancer and Alzheimers. Or in Moline if Deere tractors were determined to be unsafe.

5) For years the Milwaukee Journal was the biggest cheerleader for the state of Wisconsin. It's as if the Journal could never understand why a manufacturer or business owner would locate in, say, Alabama or Tennessee, instead of Wisconsin. When Saturn located in Spring Hill, I think there must have been a significant portion of the Journal executive suite that could never understand why GM didn't double down in Wisconsin.

In the 38 years since I left Marquette's Journalism School, the quality of newspaper reporting has dropped due to the economic realities of the newspaper business. That's not going to change. Television, especially in Chicago, takes the position, "If it Bleeds, It Leads." It's ironic here that the America's most chipper anchorwoman, the Lovely Allison on Channel 5, regularly is reading stories about blood and guts on the streets of Chicago. Yes, I know, there's lots of blood and guts here and it makes for compelling video, but there's things others than shooting happening here. You would never know it from the media!

[HouWarrior]

I just read this on Wiki Leaks so it must be true.

Chicos appeared here for awhile as HoopaLoop...
and then, more recently he got really tricky and  tried to create a totally new, totally different on line character to throw us off the scent ....the secret memo proved it...
Chicos is now Badgerhoney

[Benny B]

I just read this on Wiki Leaks so it must be true.

Chicos appeared here for awhile as HoopaLoop...
and then, more recently he got really tricky and  tried to create a totally new, totally different on line character to throw us off the scent ....the secret memo proved it...
Chicos is now Badgerhoney

Well, unlike Wikileaks, Scoop has the Ye Olde IP Tracker that will confirm the source... so until Rocky comes back with his analysis, I think we have to question everything.

[rocket surgeon]

Don't editors decide what is news and what is not. It's what they don't tell us that I take issue with. Enlighten me if I am wrong.

BINGO!!  UN-reported stories is a form of bias.  one cannot form an opinion on something they haven't heard about

[brandx]

I spent 10 years in the Media both in trade and daily journalism. My daily journalism was at newspapers, one in a small city and one in a mid-sized Metro. Long ago I got an MBA and said I wanted a "real" paycheck.

Here are some my thoughts and experiences.

1) At the small city daily, our editors once came to us and told us to run a K*Mart press release because "they are a good advertiser..." It was K*Mart's 25th anniversary, so we ran a headline, "Let the Blue Light Special Shine It's Ever Loving Light..." We got so much of this, we became disillusioned when we saw the city editor coming. Total and complete BS!

2) We had a publisher at the mid-sized Metro who bought the paper, among other reasons, to be assured of getting into the city's snooty country club. He regularly ordered stories tilted in one direction to his liking and, of course, it was done.

3) When Foster Winans traded on the Wall Street Journal's "Heard on the Street" info, it went after Mr. Winan's sexual orientation, knowing that would infuriate most WSJ readers at the time.

4) There's always a local tilt to stories. Imagine what would happen in Atlanta if the surgeon general suddenly declared Coca Cola caused cancer and Alzheimers. Or in Moline if Deere tractors were determined to be unsafe.

5) For years the Milwaukee Journal was the biggest cheerleader for the state of Wisconsin. It's as if the Journal could never understand why a manufacturer or business owner would locate in, say, Alabama or Tennessee, instead of Wisconsin. When Saturn located in Spring Hill, I think there must have been a significant portion of the Journal executive suite that could never understand why GM didn't double down in Wisconsin.

In the 38 years since I left Marquette's Journalism School, the quality of newspaper reporting has dropped due to the economic realities of the newspaper business. That's not going to change. Television, especially in Chicago, takes the position, "If it Bleeds, It Leads." It's ironic here that the America's most chipper anchorwoman, the Lovely Allison on Channel 5, regularly is reading stories about blood and guts on the streets of Chicago. Yes, I know, there's lots of blood and guts here and it makes for compelling video, but there's things others than shooting happening here. You would never know it from the media!

I think, with your experiences, you verified much of what 82 said. Most of the "slanting" is pretty harmless (like the K-Mart thing) although readers really should be informed when a news story is about a paying customer to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interests.

I stand by my earlier statement that most news is pretty straight forward. To many people don't know the difference between news and the Opinion pages. They assume - usually wrongly - that because the Editorial Board has a certain slant on the news, that all reporters are ordered to structure their articles in a certain way.

And again, I am talking about newspapers - not TV News.

[dgies9156]

I stand by my earlier statement that most news is pretty straight forward. To many people don't know the difference between news and the Opinion pages. They assume - usually wrongly - that because the Editorial Board has a certain slant on the news, that all reporters are ordered to structure their articles in a certain way.

Brandx, my biggest problem is that as we work through the Presidential election season, the media is setting the agenda. Do they elect a President? No, but their choice of what and how they cover things influences how voters see things.

I would love to know, for example, how Hillary Clinton and the Donald would prioritize their agenda once elected. I'd love for interpretive reporting on critical issues -- such as the economy, the environment, energy and national security to occur. Professor Jim Arnold taught Interpretative (J-194 for all you class buffs) in the Journalism College, but this reporting has gone the way of fins on cars, wide ties and lapels and typewriters. I simply does not exist often.

If this level of reporting existed at daily newspapers -- and it can be very expensive -- nobody would read it.

Every now and then, the MJS does great work covering environmental issues related to the Great Lakes, but that is way the exception rather than the rule. Most of the time, it's the same "he said-she said" crap that allowed Joe McCarthy to go nuts in the 1950s. Oh yeah, and celebrity news. And the Packers, ad nasueum.

You really ought to read the book Biased by Bernard Goldberg. Mr. Goldberg is a former CBS News correspondent and I think his book would change your mind.

[MU82]

4) There's always a local tilt to stories. Imagine what would happen in Atlanta if the surgeon general suddenly declared Coca Cola caused cancer and Alzheimers. Or in Moline if Deere tractors were determined to be unsafe.

Here in Charlotte, we are in the middle of a big scandal involving Wells Fargo, one of our biggest employers. I believe the Observer has done an excellent job covering it. Its reporters have delivered the news, and its editorial board has taken an aggressive stance admonishing the company hierarchy.

[manny31]

Even releasing fake leaks dings the credibility of WikiLeaks.  It shows they have no filter.  How does one know what is real and what is fake if they leak fake info?

For the record, I have been against WikiLeaks from the start.  Hacking is illegal and the ends do not justify the means.  Not to mention leaking classified material is dangerous.  WikiLeaks agenda remains unchanged.  It is anti-American, whether Bush or Obama is President.  Assange is using political decisiveness to play us against each other, under a veil of nobility: "exposing the truth".

That is my opinion of WikiLeaks.

I don't know where to begin with this. I love the irony here but we have to keep to the question of objectivity. If we can extrapolate a bit let's consider Wiki to be the internet equivalent of "deep throat" during the Watergate years does that resonate with people? I truly think the lack of objectivity or admission to a certain level of bias is a disservice to all. I know there are guide lines and requirements regarding disclosure of ownership for folks that appear on TV discussing  financial instruments. How about reporter divulge their voting history when reporting on election related stories?  I would question your assertion that wiki is un American if the leaks serve as a check against our government telling untruths in an unbiased fashion. I unstand that we all have a bias but if the press could trend toward an unbiased narrative the world would be a better slightly better and more civil place.

[rocket surgeon]

Brandx, my biggest problem is that as we work through the Presidential election season, the media is setting the agenda. Do they elect a President? No, but their choice of what and how they cover things influences how voters see things.

I would love to know, for example, how Hillary Clinton and the Donald would prioritize their agenda once elected. I'd love for interpretive reporting on critical issues -- such as the economy, the environment, energy and national security to occur. Professor Jim Arnold taught Interpretative (J-194 for all you class buffs) in the Journalism College, but this reporting has gone the way of fins on cars, wide ties and lapels and typewriters. I simply does not exist often.

If this level of reporting existed at daily newspapers -- and it can be very expensive -- nobody would read it.

Every now and then, the MJS does great work covering environmental issues related to the Great Lakes, but that is way the exception rather than the rule. Most of the time, it's the same "he said-she said" crap that allowed Joe McCarthy to go nuts in the 1950s. Oh yeah, and celebrity news. And the Packers, ad nasueum.

You really ought to read the book Biased by Bernard Goldberg. Mr. Goldberg is a former CBS News correspondent and I think his book would change your mind.

Bernie goldberg's book is a fantastic read!!  This, from a guy who worked within the "system" until a funny thing happened...his conscious got the better of him.  He couldn't take it anymore.  Good book about what really goes on in "mainstream" media

[muwarrior69]

Bernie goldberg's book is a fantastic read!!  This, from a guy who worked within the "system" until a funny thing happened...his conscious got the better of him.  He couldn't take it anymore.  Good book about what really goes on in "mainstream" media

[MU82]

I don't know where to begin with this. I love the irony here but we have to keep to the question of objectivity. If we can extrapolate a bit let's consider Wiki to be the internet equivalent of "deep throat" during the Watergate years does that resonate with people? I truly think the lack of objectivity or admission to a certain level of bias is a disservice to all. I know there are guide lines and requirements regarding disclosure of ownership for folks that appear on TV discussing  financial instruments. How about reporter divulge their voting history when reporting on election related stories?  I would question your assertion that wiki is un American if the leaks serve as a check against our government telling untruths in an unbiased fashion. I unstand that we all have a bias but if the press could trend toward an unbiased narrative the world would be a better slightly better and more civil place.

I do think Wikileaks is performing a service. However, as Lazar said, hacking IS illegal. What illegal acts did Woodward, Bernstein and "Deep Throat" perpetrate?

[real chili 83]

I've enjoyed this thread.

ND sucks

[Badgerhoney]

I just want to say this definitely is my favorite post this week - and may win the offseason for me. 

Someone with '21 posts' and is a 'badger fan who also likes MUBB' equates racial slurs to being called Chicos and boycotts the Superbar.

You can't make this stuff up if you tried.

OK, I will respond.  I joined your board in the Summer to talk recruiting.  Never came to this part of your board until two weeks ago on a thread about the Milwaukee Bucks.  As a conservative man of color, the remarks from the Bucks President touch me perhaps a bit differently than you.

I'm not equating racial slurs to being called a Chicos, but also am not 100% on what his intent was.  I said it was the first time that one has been thrown my way.  In providing some background to my race last week, it was a mystery what that moniker is supposed to mean.  Was it a racial attack as if I'm Hispanic? 

[Badgerhoney]

I do think Wikileaks is performing a service. However, as Lazar said, hacking IS illegal. What illegal acts did Woodward, Bernstein and "Deep Throat" perpetrate?

They contacted grand jurors against Judge John Sirca's lawful orders not to.  In Sirca's memoir (To Set The Record Straight) he said he would have sent both to jail had they obtained information from a grand juror.  What Sirca didn't know, Bernstein and Woodward did just that.   Bernstein admitted in a memo to Ben Bradlee that "Maybe they’ll send us to jail after all".

http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/618/watergate-and-the-washington-post-questionable-tactics-in-service-to-democracy

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/30/bob_woodwards_desperate_damage_control/



You know what else is illegal?  Publishing someone's tax returns, as the NY Times did recently on Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/02/the-new-york-times-risked-legal-trouble-to-publish-donald-trumps-tax-return/

[GGGG]

The wikileaks stuff shows just a bunch of backroom political maneuvering.  While it most definitely paints Hillary & Co in a bad light, I think everyone realizes that crap happens.  If wikileaks were so inclined, you would see emails from Reince saying things like "Holy sh*t...what are we going to do about Trump!!"

But a major party political candidate on camera bragging about sexual assault and then having people come forward saying "yeah that happened to me," is a news story.  And yeah if Bill Clinton were running for the first time today, instead of 1992, I think the same type of stuff would be reported.  There is no way that Bill would have survived.  There is no way that Clarence Thomas would have survived either.

[GGGG]

You know what else is illegal?  Publishing someone's tax returns, as the NY Times did recently on Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/02/the-new-york-times-risked-legal-trouble-to-publish-donald-trumps-tax-return/

How do you know it was unauthorized?

[Golden Avalanche]

In my life, "mainstream" has always meant that which is indulged by the many. Going on that, I always get a chuckle that somehow the most watched 24 hour news network is never considered part of the "mainstream" media.

[GGGG]

As I said...

Norman Ornstein
‏@NormOrnstein
What we are seeing with Wikileaks is routine communications in any/every campaign hyped to max BECAUSE they are leaks! Press gut check pls

[HouWarrior]

OK, I will respond.  I joined your board in the Summer to talk recruiting.  Never came to this part of your board until two weeks ago on a thread about the Milwaukee Bucks.  As a conservative man of color, the remarks from the Bucks President touch me perhaps a bit differently than you.

I'm not equating racial slurs to being called a Chicos, but also am not 100% on what his intent was.  I said it was the first time that one has been thrown my way.  In providing some background to my race last week, it was a mystery what that moniker is supposed to mean.  Was it a racial attack as if I'm Hispanic?

Wow

This will be embarrassing for us and you.

This board has a history of postings and posters of which you are ignorant .

Here.... You owe Pakuni an apology.

Chicos has nothing to do with "hispanic" and not in your wildest imagination does the term have any racial insult...

...."Chicos" instead refers to a currently banned long time poster here who had the screen name of Chicos Bail Bonds (think movie Bad News Bears). Calling anyone here a Chicos is simply analogizing the poster's content to something Chicos typically might say or post.

Get it?

 BTW Chicos is a middle aged white guy living in California

Many of us here might not like being called a Chicos (because we'd connect the connotation to his postings and attitude)...so we actually thought you were expressing a way over the top insult and hurt in someone referring to you as a Chicos....we are embarrassed for thinking you knew who Chicos was and were just being over the top.

Now...where you will be embarrassed is....
 in recognizing no one was insulting you racially...
that you saw prejudice where it did not exist ...
and you went off on Pakuni unfairly.

We have enough misunderstandings and acting from ignorance already.

Lets reboot. I am sorry for for our misunderstandings of your post, but please ....for your part...
let Pakuni know of your misunderstanding of racial insult where none was remotely intended.

[Badgerhoney]

Now...where you will be embarrassed is....
 in recognizing no one was insulting you racially...
that you saw prejudice where it did not exist ...
and you went off on Pakuni unfairly.

We have enough misunderstandings and acting from ignorance already.

Lets reboot. I am sorry for for our misunderstandings of your post, but please ....for your part...
let Pakuni know of your misunderstanding of racial insult where none was remotely intended.

This is why I asked in the form of a question what the implication was.  When I originally made my statement, this Pakuni person said I protest too much, rather than address it. 

Let us reboot then, it was a misunderstanding.   Heading to CR for the game.  Go Badgers.

[Badgerhoney]

As I said...

Norman Ornstein
‏@NormOrnstein
What we are seeing with Wikileaks is routine communications in any/every campaign hyped to max BECAUSE they are leaks! Press gut check pls

Norm Ornstein is a liberal who supports Hillary. Of course he is going to say this. He is no different than David Brooks. Labeled as conservative, yet never supporting a conservative position of any kind.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/04/norman_ornstein_is_playing_the_part_of_a_conservative_.html

The communications are much more than that.  Including coercion with Gloria Alred and others to make up sexual assault stories against Trump. True feelings about minority groups. Having a public position and a private position. Clinton Foundation fraud.  There are still 20,000 or more emails still to come out.  Every day it is eye opening, but the media want their girl to win.

The proof is in the pudding. If the GOP candidate had these types of leaks coming out, the media could not contain themselves from running them 24/7 and Ornstein would say they disclose the real feelings of the candidate and party. 

[brandx]

Brandx, my biggest problem is that as we work through the Presidential election season, the media is setting the agenda. Do they elect a President? No, but their choice of what and how they cover things influences how voters see things.

I would love to know, for example, how Hillary Clinton and the Donald would prioritize their agenda once elected. I'd love for interpretive reporting on critical issues -- such as the economy, the environment, energy and national security to occur. Professor Jim Arnold taught Interpretative (J-194 for all you class buffs) in the Journalism College, but this reporting has gone the way of fins on cars, wide ties and lapels and typewriters. I simply does not exist often.

If this level of reporting existed at daily newspapers -- and it can be very expensive -- nobody would read it.

Every now and then, the MJS does great work covering environmental issues related to the Great Lakes, but that is way the exception rather than the rule. Most of the time, it's the same "he said-she said" crap that allowed Joe McCarthy to go nuts in the 1950s. Oh yeah, and celebrity news. And the Packers, ad nasueum.

You really ought to read the book Biased by Bernard Goldberg. Mr. Goldberg is a former CBS News correspondent and I think his book would change your mind.

I think I mostly agree with you.

I would love more substantive news on policy and plans for the future by both candidates. But we have to keep in mind why we are not getting that.

It is because of one candidate who just wants to throw bombs. He did it to those in his own party and now is doing it to the opposing party. Sadly, these crazy rantings and braggings of assaulting women are news. Sadly it is nothing new in American Politics. Sadly, it now lasts for 2 years rather than a few months.

I am not a fan of Goldberg. I have not read the book, but have read many, many columns he has written. He writes about bias from a completely biased position. As a matter of fact, I have a cousin I call Bernard in "honor" of this man. One more guy who claims he was once a liberal. But my cousin is exactly the same now that he claims to be on the opposite side. He saw every issue as black & white then and still does. I see Goldberg the same way

[GGGG]

The proof is in the pudding. If the GOP candidate had these types of leaks coming out, the media could not contain themselves from running them 24/7 and Ornstein would say they disclose the real feelings of the candidate and party. 

Sure.

[dgies9156]

I think I mostly agree with you. I would love more substantive news on policy and plans for the future by both candidates. But we have to keep in mind why we are not getting that.

It is because of one candidate who just wants to throw bombs.

Respectfully -- Wrong.

Go back four years and see if Romney/Obama coverage was a substantive and objective look at the issues facing the country between 2012 and 2016. It wasn't because the media has trouble getting into the detail on the economy, environment, energy and national security. It requires thought and time -- something more and more reporters don't have and the country doesn't one.

Go back eight years and all you read about is a horserace and the possibility of a black president.

Plus, you are not getting a story about the economy above the fold on Page 1. That is a HUGE deal to reporters!  Al Neuharth, oh he of Gannett fame, once chided his editors because a cheerleader with large breasts was featured below the fold in USA Today. The public would rather read and look at busty cheerleaders than a concise and fair discussion of, say, global warming.

It's too bad because the biggest problem we have in this country right now is a 2.2 percent GDP growth rate during the past four years. If the economy is to deal with the 75 million Millennials plus the Xers and late Baby Boomers who are underemployed, 2.2 percent isn't going to get us there. The Democrats, on this score, know they have a huge problem that isn't being talked about and the Donald, despite his bombast, has no clue.

As a final thought, the sad thing about the media is it is falling for both sides' campaign tactics. I know they have to cover what the candidates say, but perhaps the reason Hillary is talking about Donald's intimate life and Donald is talking about Bill's misbehavior is that to do otherwise would open up discussion on something neither of them have a clue! That the sorrow of where we are right now.

[forgetful]

Respectfully -- Wrong.

Go back four years and see if Romney/Obama coverage was a substantive and objective look at the issues facing the country between 2012 and 2016. It wasn't because the media has trouble getting into the detail on the economy, environment, energy and national security. It requires thought and time -- something more and more reporters don't have and the country doesn't one.

Go back eight years and all you read about is a horserace and the possibility of a black president.

Plus, you are not getting a story about the economy above the fold on Page 1. That is a HUGE deal to reporters!  Al Neuharth, oh he of Gannett fame, once chided his editors because a cheerleader with large breasts was featured below the fold in USA Today. The public would rather read and look at busty cheerleaders than a concise and fair discussion of, say, global warming.

It's too bad because the biggest problem we have in this country right now is a 2.2 percent GDP growth rate during the past four years. If the economy is to deal with the 75 million Millennials plus the Xers and late Baby Boomers who are underemployed, 2.2 percent isn't going to get us there. The Democrats, on this score, know they have a huge problem that isn't being talked about and the Donald, despite his bombast, has no clue.

As a final thought, the sad thing about the media is it is falling for both sides' campaign tactics. I know they have to cover what the candidates say, but perhaps the reason Hillary is talking about Donald's intimate life and Donald is talking about Bill's misbehavior is that to do otherwise would open up discussion on something neither of them have a clue! That the sorrow of where we are right now.

I think you are missing a large reason for the lack of articles on the issues.  With the rise of the internet, candidates can thoroughly outline all elements of their stance on "issues" on the internet.  Go to their websites and you will find that info.  That mitigates the importance or reporting on these issues as it is readily available from other sources. 

Now if you were referring to why they don't report on the ramifications of these issues, I think the answer is also easy.  It is impossible to do so without implicit bias.  Such reporting would require going to experts in each field.  If you do that, which do you go to, the ones that support the policies of candidate X or candidate Y; or do you provide both so that there is no general conclusion to your article.  Either way the article then lacks a definitive story that doesn't deviate from the politicians own website info.

Essentially, too much info available from way more sources. 

[brandx]

Respectfully -- Wrong.

Go back four years and see if Romney/Obama coverage was a substantive and objective look at the issues facing the country between 2012 and 2016. It wasn't because the media has trouble getting into the detail on the economy, environment, energy and national security. It requires thought and time -- something more and more reporters don't have and the country doesn't one.

Go back eight years and all you read about is a horserace and the possibility of a black president.

Plus, you are not getting a story about the economy above the fold on Page 1. That is a HUGE deal to reporters!  Al Neuharth, oh he of Gannett fame, once chided his editors because a cheerleader with large breasts was featured below the fold in USA Today. The public would rather read and look at busty cheerleaders than a concise and fair discussion of, say, global warming.

It's too bad because the biggest problem we have in this country right now is a 2.2 percent GDP growth rate during the past four years. If the economy is to deal with the 75 million Millennials plus the Xers and late Baby Boomers who are underemployed, 2.2 percent isn't going to get us there. The Democrats, on this score, know they have a huge problem that isn't being talked about and the Donald, despite his bombast, has no clue.

As a final thought, the sad thing about the media is it is falling for both sides' campaign tactics. I know they have to cover what the candidates say, but perhaps the reason Hillary is talking about Donald's intimate life and Donald is talking about Bill's misbehavior is that to do otherwise would open up discussion on something neither of them have a clue! That the sorrow of where we are right now.

dgies, I still think I am agreeing with you. No, we aren't getting enough stories about the meat and potatoes of politics. But, where we differ is how much the media is at fault.

It is the biggest news in the world when one candidate declares himself to be a sexual predator bordering on pedophilia.

It is the biggest news when one candidate declares that, if he loses, the election is a fraud.

It is the biggest news when one candidate denigrates the appearance of women every day.

It is the biggest news when one candidate declares our entire government and most of our major institutions are a fraud.

It is the biggest news when he declares that our president is a fraud and not really our president.

These are just a few of the reasons that we don't get the in depth articles that we should be getting. It is simply because there is bigger news that doesn't just affect this election, but rather the history of this country going forward.

[Pakuni]

For the record, unlike some, I won't demand apologies over perceived slights from pseudonymic strangers with whom I argue over the internet.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

On the topic of fake WikiLeaks:

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

This backs some points that I made early.  WikiLeaks "evidence" can be easily faked, they have no filter, and they will leak falsehoods.  Some leaks may be true but when stories like this come up, I have to question both their content and agenda.  I still believe that agenda is anti-American.  That remains consistent whether Bush II or Obama is in power, or in regards to this election.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I also wanted to point out an error in one of my posts from earlier in the thread.  I posted "Assange is using political decisiveness to play us against each other, under a veil of nobility: 'exposing the truth'."

It should have been " Assange is using political divisiveness to play us against each other, under a veil of nobility: 'exposing the truth'."

That wrong word drastically changed the meaning of my post.  I blame my editor.

[Badgerhoney]

In my life, "mainstream" has always meant that which is indulged by the many. Going on that, I always get a chuckle that somehow the most watched 24 hour news network is never considered part of the "mainstream" media.

That network is mainstream and will host a presidential debate in two days. If it wasn't mainstream, it would not be hosting the debate.

No, we aren't getting enough stories about the meat and potatoes of politics. But, where we differ is how much the media is at fault.

It is the biggest news in the world when one candidate declares himself to be a sexual predator bordering on pedophilia.

It is the biggest news when one candidate declares that, if he loses, the election is a fraud.

It is the biggest news when one candidate denigrates the appearance of women every day.

It is the biggest news when one candidate declares our entire government and most of our major institutions are a fraud.

It is the biggest news when he declares that our president is a fraud and not really our president.

These are just a few of the reasons that we don't get the in depth articles that we should be getting. It is simply because there is bigger news that doesn't just affect this election, but rather the history of this country going forward.

Clinton campaign felt Obama used fraud in Colorado to rig an election.  Why is it when Trump brings it up it is a problem, but not Clinton?  http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/15/emails-clinton-allies-believe-the-obama-forces-committed-voter-fraud-in-08/

Clinton's operatives started Obama a Muslim and not from the US long before Trump ever brought it up.   http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/leaked-emails-show-hillary-obama-muslim-2008-campaign/

Bill Clinton denigrated women all the time, as did Hillary for calling them whores and tramps. Not believing their stories   We're supposed to believe women that come forward now against Trump (even as their stories fall apart), but supposed to not believe all the women that came forward against Bill Clinton while Hillary demonized them?


The power of the media to spike stories or ignore them, while putting others on the front page is enormous.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Bye Chicos, way to ruin a perfectly fine thread.

[Badgerhoney]

On the topic of fake WikiLeaks:

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

This backs some points that I made early.  WikiLeaks "evidence" can be easily faked, they have no filter, and they will leak falsehoods.  Some leaks may be true but when stories like this come up, I have to question both their content and agenda.  I still believe that agenda is anti-American.  That remains consistent whether Bush II or Obama is in power, or in regards to this election.

Clinton campaign hasn't claimed any of them are false.  Even admitting through surrogates (Paul Begala and others) that they are legitimate.  Some of the content in these emails are terrible, and if a Republican campaign had those emails they would be destroyed forever in their career, not lionized as a presidential candidate.

[rocky_warrior]

OK.  This was a decent thread that mostly (not wholly) avoided politics.  But time to shut it down.