Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
What Part of "Congress Shall Pass No Law" Don't You Understand, Pt. 472
Oh goody, John Fitzjawbone Kerry is holding Senate hearings next week on how to save the lowly American newspaper.
"America's newspapers are struggling to survive and while there will be serious consequences in terms of the lives and financial security of the employees involved, including hundreds at the [Boston] Globe, there will also be serious consequences for our democracy where diversity of opinion and strong debate are paramount," Kerry wrote in a letter sent to union leaders Friday. The union released the letter yesterday.
In his letter, addressed to "the Boston Globe family," Kerry voiced his commitment to the industry and to ensuring that the "vital public service newspapers provide does not disappear."
Note the utter, almost beautiful incongruity of Kerry's next brainfart:
"The increase in media conglomerates has resulted in an increase in agenda-driven reporting and over time, if those of us who value a diversity of opinion and ideas, and are unafraid to be confronted with pointed commentary and analysis, do not act, it is a situation which will only get worse," Kerry wrote.
Yes, if we don't act fast to snuff out agenda-driven reporting, diversity of opinion will be threatened! The fuck?
MNG|4.20.09 @ 11:47AM|#
I think you can lament the erosion in the ethic of journalists trying to be objective and still think Kerry et al.'s approach to the problem is silly, and vice versa. Having a professional press that has norms and standards that at least aim toward objective reporting is a good thing, unless we are all "cultural relativists" now...
MNG|4.20.09 @ 11:51AM|#
"if we don't act fast to snuff out agenda-driven reporting,
diversity of opinion will be threatened! The fuck?"
Matt, to be fair Kerry is probably hanging his idea that diversity
of opinion will be snuffed out on this part of his statement "[t]he
increase in media conglomerates" and if so his statement, while
perhaps wrong as an empirical matter does pass the common sense and
basic logic test...
MNG|4.20.09 @ 11:53AM|#
"If the government says it, it's not biased, it's the
truth."
Not throughout most human experience, but I have to say NPR and PBS
news are probably the closest to the ideal of objectively and
fairly reporting the news.
MNG|4.20.09 @ 11:55AM|#
This morning I listened to the Diane Rehm show on the way in.
The topic was climate change policy and the bias was clearly
demonstrated in her panel:
Margaret Kriz, energy and environment correspondent, National
Journal
David Doniger, policy director of the climate center at the Natural
Resources Defense Council
Roger Martella, attorney in private practice, former general
counsel for EPA during the Bush administration
Bill Kovacs, vice president for environmental policy at the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce
That is, the near absence of bias.
TallDave|4.20.09 @ 11:56AM|#
While we're at it, let's start a national church too. That way, the gov't news can also be The Word of God.
TallDave|4.20.09 @ 11:58AM|#
but I have to say NPR and PBS news are probably the closest
to the ideal of objectively and fairly reporting the
news.
Please slap yourself.
High Every Body|4.20.09 @ 12:02PM|#
I don't know if we should be so quick to dismiss a highly decorated veteran of the North Viatnemese foreign service and Navy.
|4.20.09 @ 12:03PM|#
I think you can lament the erosion in the ethic of
journalists
Erosion? There used to be an ethic for journalists? I think you
have a romanticized view of the past, dude.
The early years of TV journalism on only 3 TV stations created a
false impression of "balanced" journalism. It was a fluke and has
really fucked up many people's impression of how journalism really
is.
|4.20.09 @ 12:03PM|#
Every left-leaner who supports a kind of newspaper bailout comes
at this issue from the same place: papers like The Boston
Globe, The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, etc.
are all diverse, unbiased papers, vital to a functioning free
society. What they fail to acknowledge, first, is that these papers
generally support their (the left-leaner's) worldview and then,
second, that people are not giving up on news; they're giving up on
newspapers.
The bailout champions don't like that we're gathering our
information from many places, now. The public opinion is more
diverse today than it has ever been, and, historically, Democrats
have worked very hard to kill diversity. The left dream is six
billion people who, while looking differently, think exactly the
same, are cared for in exactly the same way, and support, first and
foremost forever, the same golden ideal - society.
|4.20.09 @ 12:04PM|#
But, but, TallDave, they don't yell at their guests so they must
not be biased.
Right?
stuartl|4.20.09 @ 12:04PM|#
Not throughout most human experience, but I have to say NPR
and PBS news are probably the closest to the ideal of objectively
and fairly reporting the news.
Translation -- What they choose to report, they report fairly, most
of the time.
John Kerry|4.20.09 @ 12:05PM|#
When I was a young man in the national news service, I was illegally sent into Cambodia to do some fact-checking, and not only did I have to fly coach, there was not a single latte available! This incident was seared, seared into my memory.
|4.20.09 @ 12:06PM|#
Solana nailed it.
Matt, please tell me Kerry didn't see the soccer ball coming and
got beamed right between the eyes.
|4.20.09 @ 12:07PM|#
Any viewpoint that conflicts with mine is agenda driven reporting and a threat to diversity. Such views, therefore, must be eliminated from the national discourse in the name of diversity.
High Every Body|4.20.09 @ 12:08PM|#
John Kerry | April 20, 2009, 12:05pm |,
Was that around Christmas? Did you hear President Nixon on the
radio?
SpongePaul|4.20.09 @ 12:09PM|#
"The increase in media conglomerates has resulted in an increase
in agenda-driven reporting and over time, if those of us who value
a diversity of opinion and ideas, and are unafraid to be confronted
with pointed commentary and analysis, do not act, it is a situation
which will only get worse," Kerry wrote
_____________________________________
Trying to make sense of this statment just killed a few brain
cells, i felt em pop inside my head, i am dumber now for trying to
decifer Kerry.
TallDave|4.20.09 @ 12:09PM|#
Actually, this could be fun. Just imagine what will happen when, say, Newsmax applies for a federal subsidy.
stuartl|4.20.09 @ 12:15PM|#
Erosion? There used to be an ethic for journalists? I think
you have a romanticized view of the past, dude.
Are you saying the phrase "yellow journalism" isn't new?
|4.20.09 @ 12:15PM|#
I wonder if Senator Kerry has seen this:
Supporters of Boston Globe unions that have been told to make millions of dollars in concessions or watch the New York Times Co. close the Massachusetts paper are planning a rally for April 24 at Faneuil Hall.
The event, organized in part by the unions, will likely include local politicians and other backers of organized labor.
The theme is that the Globe is a Boston institution to be preserved, not a New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT) investment to be shut down, said one activist familiar with planning for the event.
The Globe, like other big city daily newspapers, has been hemorrhaging money.
Meanwhile, the Boston Business Journal reported in its Friday edition that analysts say Globe assets, especially its land in Dorchester and Billerica, may be worth more than the paper itself. For more information, see Globe assets.
Whirling, whirling....
|4.20.09 @ 12:16PM|#
"Actually, this could be fun. Just imagine what will happen
when, say, Newsmax applies for a federal subsidy."
Newsmax, fox News, Reason, National Review, the Wall Street
Journal, City Journal and other such non-dirverse publications will
be forced to accept federal bailout money, prevented from paying
back such money, and then forced to give the soon to be created
"news diversity bureau" controling equity and total control over
all content so that it will be properly diverse and free from any
undesireable agendas.
John Kerry|4.20.09 @ 12:20PM|#
I remember it well. I was watching Halley's Comet and hearing
the Cubs win the World Series on the radio, when the game was
interrupted by President Reagan ordering us to bomb Russia. After
assassinating Hitler, I hunkered down and wept over the
senselessness of it all.
Sadly, soon there will be no comets or baseball or Russians or
hunkering, because if a tree falls in the forest and no one reports
it, it didn't really happen.
US News Czar|4.20.09 @ 12:20PM|#
"Newsmax, fox News, Reason, National Review, the Wall Street
Journal, City Journal and other such non-dirverse publications will
be forced to accept federal bailout money, prevented from paying
back such money, and then forced to give the soon to be created
"news diversity bureau" controling equity and total control over
all content so that it will be properly diverse and free from any
undesireable agendas."
You're living in a fantasy world, kid.
|4.20.09 @ 12:31PM|#
John Kerry,
So, was it your "I killed Hitler" medal you through over the fence
of Churchill's country estate, or that one that Gandhi gave
you?
JB|4.20.09 @ 12:34PM|#
Democrats are retarded. It's time to start aborting the retarded clumps of cells.
|4.20.09 @ 12:37PM|#
Here's
an idea: get rid of the idiotic rule that, grandfathered and
waivered situations aside, an individual or company is not allowed
to own both a daily newspaper and broadcast outlets in the same
market.
Kevin
MNG|4.20.09 @ 12:57PM|#
I think the NPR/PBS are so biased meme is complete bullshit.
They go out of their way to tell both sides of every story and seem
very fair about it.
I first came to know the ideas of Milton Friedman through the PBS
special he did, and first got to know William F Buckley's thought
from those debates he had on PBS all the time. They are extremely
fair and balanced.
They don't report the news from a relentless libertarian
perspective, so yes I guess if you think that is bias, then they
are biased.
KG|4.20.09 @ 1:09PM|#
We shouldn't be bailing companies out, in any industry. We should be using the Sherman Anti-trust Act to break up the companies that are too big to fail.
Gilbert Martin|4.20.09 @ 1:12PM|#
"I don't know if we should be so quick to dismiss a highly
decorated veteran of the North Viatnemese foreign service and
Navy."
LOL
That one wins the thread!
libertarian democrat|4.20.09 @ 1:14PM|#
I agree with MNG. I don't really enjoy NPR, but I heard a good
piece about global warming (which seems believable to me) that had
a major portion of the time talking about reasons it might not
exist or might be overblown. I'm not sure who the scientists or
whatever were, but it was really good.
Their music selection often sucks, though.
|4.20.09 @ 1:40PM|#
After assassinating Hitler, I hunkered down and wept over
the senselessness of it all.
Back from 1936 Berlin; incapacitated John Kerry before he could
pull his little stunt. John Kerry, as you are a new member, please
read IATT Bulletin 1147 regarding the killing of Hitler before your
next excursion. Failure to do so may result in your expulsion per
Bylaw 223.
Paul|4.20.09 @ 1:48PM|#
but I have to say NPR and PBS news are probably the closest
to the ideal of objectively and fairly reporting the
news.
No, they're not. And I say that as a nearly exclusive NPR listener.
They're a good news services, they do good reporting, but
objectivity is not their strongest point.
Too often, objectivity is conflated with 'truthful reporting'. The
two have little to do with eachother. NPR did a year-long segment
(yes, a year) called "Climate Connections". It wasn't particularly
objective. Lot of folksy observations 'bout how thangs sure are
a'diffrn't than when I uh'got into th'farmin' bidness...
|4.20.09 @ 1:52PM|#
The bias I hear on NPR is the tone of voice used by the
interviewer (you can tell their opinion in how they ask a question)
and the questions they ask. They are smugly progressive. Their tone
is much softer and more subtle than Fox News, but it's there if you
listen closely.
Avoidance is also a tool for any news agency. By not discussing
something at all, it won't exist if the audience only listens to
them. Fox News and NPR are both guilty of this.
Paul|4.20.09 @ 2:02PM|#
Objectivity often isn't how the story is reported, or how both
sides are shown or not shown, but the mere selection of the story
itself. Why does this news organization think this story
is news, vs. what another organization thinks is news.
What a media organization reports on say, the Obama
administration is often just as important as if something
gets reported.
Paul|4.20.09 @ 2:06PM|#
I just posted something on another thread which would do well
here:
from the local NPR affiliate: http://www.kuow.org/program.php?id=17358
Three weeks ago, Seattle rolled out some major recycling changes. Now, we know recycling is good for the environment, but how good is it for your relationship? A therapist in Seattle says couples here tend to bicker about recycling more than you might expect. KUOW's Liz Jones takes a highly unscientific look at the "I dos" and "I don'ts" of recycling couples. And we check how Seattle's new recycling rules factor into the debate.
Objective? I think not.
*Sometimes* recyling is good, sometimes it's bad, some of it
scientists aren't even sure about.
|4.20.09 @ 2:07PM|#
They go out of their way to tell both sides of every story
and seem very fair about it.
Yes, yes, because there are only two sides to every story, which is
why we're all posting on Reason. Which of the two political
philosophies do they cater to, again? I can't seem to
remember...
Paul|4.20.09 @ 2:17PM|#
Which of the two political philosophies do they cater to,
again? I can't seem to remember...
1. Free markets
2. Free minds
Paul|4.20.09 @ 2:20PM|#
One last area that really gets under my skin about NPR is the near blind faith in government. NPR is critical of an administration, but almost never critical at the institution of government itself. The answer to every problem is always institutional. What can the government do/regulate/legislate to fix said "crisis".
|4.20.09 @ 2:28PM|#
One last area that really gets under my skin about NPR is
the near blind faith in government. NPR is critical of an
administration, but almost never critical at the institution of
government itself. The answer to every problem is always
institutional. What can the government do/regulate/legislate to fix
said "crisis".
Right. All that you/we are really saying is that NPR has an opinion
about news. No person can help but have one. In telling the news an
editor has to subscribe to a news-telling philosophy of some kind.
Democrats who believe their establishment cheerleaders are unbiased
fall into two categories (mostly): liars and fools.
Opinions are not the problem, here; the problem is our government
endorsing opinions.
Biff|4.20.09 @ 2:40PM|#
"Avoidance is also a tool for any news agency. By not discussing
something at all, it won't exist if the audience only listens to
them. Fox News and NPR are both guilty of this."
I would contend that PBS's The News Hour is as objective as you'll
ever get. Sure, Jim Lehrer has a clear bias, which he demonstrates
by way of editorial control and also by the questions he asks, but
the rest of the staff is great. Ray Suarez is fantasitic. So is
Judy Woodruff. And EVERYONE talks to them.
|4.20.09 @ 2:54PM|#
but I have to say NPR and PBS news are probably the
closest to the ideal of objectively and fairly reporting the
news.
Isn't there a font for sarcasm?
OMG You mean this wasn;t sarcastic !!
Ok Ok - Friedman / Buckley - but that was YEARS ago !! When was it?
60's Here it is ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfdRpyfEmBE
|4.20.09 @ 2:59PM|#
And Buckley was broadcast because he was erudite and snobbish to which NYC libs could relate, plus he had no audience !!
|4.20.09 @ 3:07PM|#
"The bias I hear on NPR is the tone of voice used by the
interviewer (you can tell their opinion in how they ask a question)
and the questions they ask."
On election night in 2004, I went to bed before the thing was
decided. When I got up the next moring and turned on morning
edition, I knew immediately who had one the election by the tone of
the anchors. Taken literally their words did not reveal that Bush
had won. But, the tone of the broadcast you would have thought all
of their puppies were clubbed to death on national TV.
Promoter Extraordinaire Don Ki|4.20.09 @ 3:19PM|#
"But, the tone of the broadcast you would have thought all of
their puppies were clubbed to death on national TV."
Only on Pay-Per-View.
MNG|4.20.09 @ 3:31PM|#
"Taken literally their words did not reveal that Bush had won.
But, the tone of the broadcast"
"Their tone is much softer and more subtle than Fox News, but it's
there if you listen closely."
Of if you have the special Liberal Bias Dectecting Ear Piece they
sell in the back of National Review, beside the exploding welfare
check and the X-Ray glasses...
It's just hilarious for you guys to assert that NPR and PBS are
radically biased and pointing to the subtle tone of voice and such.
They regularly have major conservative and libertarian and of
course liberal thinkers on DAILY. Every day. They give them all a
chance to talk at length. There's very little "set-ups" of the
speakers. The hosts seem to strive mightily to be fair (I'm
thinking the guy who does Talk of the Nation or the guy does On
Point for classic examples). Even the ones who are clearly very
liberal and ignorant of other philosophies, like Terry Gros,
regularly have major conservative thinkers on the show and give
them plenty of time and respect to say what they are
thinking.
"NPR is critical of an administration, but almost never critical at
the institution of government itself. The answer to every problem
is always institutional. What can the government
do/regulate/legislate to fix said "crisis"."
WTF? Just last week Reason had this post about the VA strong-arming
this reporter.
The reporter was from NPR doofus. They do critical reporting and
investigating on government all the time.
But it's clear how little you listen to what you are mad about, or
how strangely you listen to it. Do you mean to say that Carl Castle
or Jim Lehrer, when he is reading the headlines, stops and suddenly
pontificates on how great government is and calls for more
regulation? WTF?
MNG|4.20.09 @ 3:33PM|#
"No person can help but have one. In telling the news an editor
has to subscribe to a news-telling philosophy of some kind."
The wonderful world of cultural relativism! Hey, objectivity is
impossible, truth is just interpretation, let's just have a
thousand narratives, there is no difference between Jim Lehrer and
Bill O'Reilly, they are both just telling their story...
|4.20.09 @ 4:25PM|#
The wonderful world of cultural relativism! Hey, objectivity
is impossible, truth is just interpretation, let's just have a
thousand narratives, there is no difference between Jim Lehrer and
Bill O'Reilly, they are both just telling their story...
The wonderful world of straw men! You can't respond to my point,
because I'm right and you know it, so you make a new one up for me
and respond to that.
I didn't say that truth is just interpretation, my point was that
to tell a story you must have an interpretation. No news source can
possibly cover every bit of news on this planet in a given day.
Some things (actually, the vast majority of things) have to be left
out. Likewise, this is how stories are written. Not every bit of
information can be included, so a writer must decide what is
relevant and what is not. To have an opinion on relevance, you must
have an opinion. Storytelling isn't Science. It isn't testable.
This is not to say that you can't, as a reporter, include testable
facts and statistics in your story, but which do you
include?
There's a difference between saying NPR/PBS/BBC report from a
specific point of view (which is what I'm saying and you're poorly
taking issue with) and saying that they are all equivalent to
Rachel Maddow and company.
Every news story is observed and interpreted.
The government should not be funding any speech entity whatsoever
to interpret facts and provide "news."
g4m3th30ry|4.20.09 @ 5:10PM|#
MNG -
Cultural relativism and people understanding different truths about
the role of government are not the same thing.
For instance - there are some liberal thinkers who are open and
honest that giving health care to all is a requirement for a good
society even if some end up with lower standards of service.
Obviously they have made a value judgment to which I'd never
subscribe, but what they believe should happen and what I believe
should happen are our truths.
Nothing relativistic about it.
PS: You completely jumped over someone's opinion by declaring NPR
went after the VA. As the original poster said - yes, the routinely
go after the government, however their default mode of fixing these
problems is more government. They don't attack the institution of
government itself, only the results of which they don't agree.
|4.20.09 @ 5:44PM|#
We should be using the Sherman Anti-trust Act to break up
the companies that are too big to fail.
No need. They will fail on their own, if we only let them. They
aren't really "too big to fail." What they are, is too
well-connected to be allowed to fail.
economist|4.20.09 @ 8:36PM|#
"Lot of folksy observations 'bout how thangs sure are a'diffrn't
than when I uh'got into th'farmin' bidness..."
If there's one thing I detest more than elitists who love the smell
of their own farts, it's elitists trying to act folksy and just
making fools of themselves.
economist|4.20.09 @ 8:40PM|#
"*Sometimes* recyling is good, sometimes it's bad, some of it
scientists aren't even sure about."
Generally, since it's expensive because of the energy inputs
required, I'll say that by supporting non-commercially viable
recycling the environmentalists are shooting themselves in the
foot, cause-wise.
TallDave|4.20.09 @ 8:41PM|#
I think the NPR/PBS are so biased meme is complete bullshit.
They go out of their way to tell both sides of every story and seem
very fair about it.
Bill Moyers did that? Really Let's try to be serious
here.
No one is perfectly objective, no one is perfectly neutral. The
best we do is be honest about our biases. If you polled NPR staff,
you'd probably find them 9:1 for Democrats. That doesn't make them
bad people or dishonest, but it does color their judgement a
certain way.
MJ|4.20.09 @ 9:12PM|#
"The increase in media conglomerates has..."
The head of the Boston Globe family is the New York Times
corporation. What diversity of opinion are you looking to save in
the Globe, Senator?
MJ|4.20.09 @ 9:17PM|#
"I first came to know the ideas of Milton Friedman through the
PBS special he did, and first got to know William F Buckley's
thought from those debates he had on PBS all the time. They are
extremely fair and balanced.
So, as long as commentators like Juan Williams are around, you have
no basis for complaining about Fox, right?
|4.21.09 @ 2:14AM|#
ME: So, you're sayong our newspapers must be saved?
KERRY: Absoutely.
ME: How are we going to do that?
KERRY: Well, a modest subsidy...
ME: So, let me get this straight. Newspaper are failing because no
one wants the product, right?
KERRY: Well, I don't think...
ME: I don't want the product, so I don't buy it. So the seller of
the product starts to fail, right?
KERRY: Well, it's more complicated...
ME: So, in order to save the product seller, you take my money and
give it to the seller.
KERRY: That's...
ME: Essentially, the newspapers get my money whether I buy their
products or not. And this will save our democracy. Is that your
position?
KERRY: (motions to security to have me removed)
Substitute automobile or house for newspaper in the above. Repeat.
Patiently await Second American Revolution or complete, abject
poverty.
B|4.21.09 @ 11:36PM|#
Mentioning the Boston Globe and diversity of opinion in the same fucking sentence should be enough to get you run out of town on a rail.
B|4.21.09 @ 11:41PM|#
"...but I have to say NPR and PBS news are probably the closest
to the ideal of objectively and fairly reporting the.."
It is amazing that anyone who actually believes what is written
above is smart enough to put together a sentence. Anyone who thinks
PBS and NPR, especially, are non-biased has either been living in a
cave or is the most clueless fucking person in the United
States.
B|4.21.09 @ 11:44PM|#
"think the NPR/PBS are so biased meme is complete bullshit. They
go out of their way to tell both sides of every story and seem very
fair about it."
And I think you are an ignorant fucking jackass.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245