“No, you don’t correct quotes. Quotes are quotes. They are what they are. Egads.”
The obfuscation here is clear for all to see, and it is the latest example of many that have come before it. Habitual offender.
marie, just to clarify: a reporter shouldn’t change a written quote except to acknowledge an error with [sic]–for example, if a word is misspelled. But in a TV or radio interview, by all means an anchor/host can AND SHOULD challenge things he/she knows to be untrue. On the other hand, the media CAN legally lie, and this has greatly benefitted Fox News.
http://www.dailypaul.com/100623/appellate-court-rules-media-can-legally-lie-under-1st-amendment
I like this statement from the NPR ethics handbook.
But in a TV or radio interview, by all means an anchor/host can challenge things he/she knows to be untrue.
Yes, of course they can do that and bias doesn’t require lying either. Bias these days shows up much more in story selection, or in choosing not to cover something at all. NPR does a lot of this, actually. But it’s not always intentional. Sometimes the decision maker really just thinks something is not that big a deal and something else is more important and others will disagree. CNN will drag out the most ratings friendly story for days and days or a month if it’s a missing plane, maybe. Anyway this is really getting off-topic.
Story selection is something else entirely. Would you agree that Fox News ought to challenge incorrect statements on air as they are occurring, or are you OK with faux apologies later that few people notice?
“No, you don’t correct quotes. Quotes are quotes. They are what they are. Egads.”
Where is the bangs head against wall emoticon when you need it?
Well, I think an interview is much better if the host is fully informed on every nuance of every issue (impossible, of course) and asks as many challenging questions as time permits whatever the topic and whoever the guest and host on any channel. That is not a Fox News issue or even a Fox/MSNBC issue. It happens everywhere, every day.
Also, I agree with Busdriver that calling a historic gathering of world leaders united against terrorism a photo op is a little disparaging and from the MSNBC watching that I managed to do this morning they seem to mostly concur over there, as well.
I don’t think we should be bashing any organs…
I have to admit to follow the debates about Fox News vs the World with some amazement. Perhaps, it would be nice for all of us to have to append a list of “where do we get our news” and “which one we like or not” In a way, I wonder how the critics of either side are able to form an opinion … when they are not tuning in? Do you read the critics in the printed press and then “look” for rebroadcasts? That seems to require a lot of effort!
This is what I mostly do. I get most of “my” news from reading the daily press from Western Europe in their mornings and again in my mornings. I quickly move from Spain to the UK via Paris and Brussels. The order is sports, local news, and then international news. Amazingly, the local press maintains a very active staff that focuses on the news from the US. Many times, the news appears well before it gets the traction in the US at the Times or CNN.
Fwiw, the development in the past week have shown the beauty of the many nuances put on display in the European press. In many ways, it makes the debate about Faux News and whatever pejorative moniker one applies to the CNN/MSNBC like outfits eminently laughable. The many shades of grey painted abroad become simplistic black and white in the US. Not surprising, but still quite pathetic!
If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to see people lock arms in solidarity against terrorism–and in support of press freedom, which is at the core of the incident here–good for you. I for one was not impressed and would rather see ACTION than symbolism. Did these 40 world leaders do anything together besides gather on the street for their little march? Do people really believe all of them are committed to making the world a free, open and peaceful place?
From an interview with author Jeremy Scahill:
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/1/12/circus_of_hypocrisy_jeremy_scahill_on
There’s no accounting for tastes. People who like Fox and Rush like their bias a bit more naked and in-your-face than people who like the New York Times and NPR. This is why not too many people like MSNBC–the people it is trying to cater to are listening to NPR.
And, their hosts are distractingly awful. Ronan Farrow is unwatchable, among others.
I have no idea who Ronan Farrow is–never heard of him.
I don’t think anyone could call Rachel Maddow “distractingly awful.” She could run circles around most other newscasters in terms of her intellect, research, and ability to discuss issues on more than just a superficial level.
Could you not say the same thing about every matter of political protocol and the symbolism associated with it. Does attending one’s funeral abroad become a positive action?
In the end, the participation of the political leaders who were CLOSE to Paris was more or less warranted. For Merkel to decline would have been a faux pas. For the United States, the participation was mostly irrelevant. Nothing to gain, nothing to lose, and nothing to learn or teach. This WH will continue to beat its own drum as it is the only sound it cares for. Perhaps as it should as it is their prerogative. Doing the right thing should be more important than doing what pleases an audience that cannot be pleased. This WH should not be judged about foregoing locking arms in a hypocritical display of solidarity as much as about what they said or … failed to say in the past years on the issue.
Rachel Maddow is not a newscaster. I find her too snarky, personally. Everything is delivered with an underlying aren’t they stupid inference. It get tiring. But, that is a matter of taste I suppose. Ronan Farrow is Mia Farrow and perhaps Frank Sinatra’s son, but nobody knows for sure. He was supposed to be MSNBC’s newest star, but given the ratings it is not working out all that well.
You sure watch a lot of TV news. I avoid most TV news and rely instead on internet news sites or social media.
I also think Rachel Maddow is too snarky, even though I probably agree with her the majority of the time. But I don’t really need that kind of reinforcement, so I don’t bother watching her.
I think most of us don’t need to be lead by the nose and told what to think; thus the poor ratings for MSNBC. Air America suffered the same fate. No listeners.
I often wonder just who are these people who listen to talk radio/fox news/The Blaze (which is really freaking scary stuff) and then I remember that it’s my MIL & FIL. My H has to go through and explain one after another that whatever nonsense they have heard and now believe aren’t true every time he is there. And there have been some whoppers.
My in-laws are so scared and in a panic all the time they will rarely leave the house! We have told them a zillion time to stop watching/listening but it’s like talking to a wall.
I agree that RM can be snarky, and I don’t like it most of the time. But she is smart and does her homework–which is exactly what we were talking about above. It is irresponsible journalism, IMO, to let known inaccurate statements go unchallenged.
I occasionally have to drive around the region and sometimes like to channel surf local radio, just to hear what people are listening to. It’s astonishing how much “fear talk” is being broadcast at any given time–and also how much it tends to overlap with religious programming. No wonder people are so scared all the time, if that’s what they are being indoctrinated with.
Driving around and listening to stuff that will keep me awake, that’s what I use talk radio for. My favorite for that purpose is Alex Jones.
Some of those local radio shock jocks are appalling. I was visiting my brother one time in western NY and riding in his car to dinner… He said, you have to hear this guy! and proceeded to tune into Bob Lonsberry. It is scary the number of people who listen to idiots like this and believe everything they say. Ugh. I can’t quite figure out why my brother listens to this man, as his views are diametrically opposed to Lonsberry’s. I told him to stop it!