Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (20569)	12/20/2003 5:19:29 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793914

"Some Washingtonians grieve Skins victory". Good analogy, Mike. And they don't know they are doing it. They think they are just presenting "both sides." I watched a little of the Network news tonight, that I have not seen in years. They were talking about the good economic news, and every other sentence was knocking it. I thought, "they really think that is the fair way to do it."

To: greenspirit who wrote (20569)	12/20/2003 5:51:55 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

Excellent analogy Mike! ______________________________________________ <font size=4>Study Finds Networks Overwhelmingly Negative Toward Bush on Iraq In picking up on the CyberAlert item about how ABC News has avoided reporting its poll finding of a jump in Bush’s approval rating following the capture of Saddam Hussein, FNC’s Brit Hume also noted a new study from another media analysis group which found that negative evaluations of President Bush in Iraq stories on the broadcast network evening newscasts have soared since May. Hume reported in his “Grapevine” segment on the December 17 Special Report with Brit Hume on FNC: “A new study indicates that positive evaluations of President Bush on the network evening news have dropped from 56 percent, during the Iraq war, to 32 percent after the end to major operations was announced. The study, conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, shows that CBS News was the toughest on President Bush after major operations ended, with 77 percent negative evaluations, followed by ABC with 67 percent negative evaluations. “This, as another group, the Media Research Center, is accusing ABC of burying one of its polls -- which as we told you earlier this week -- showed President Bush’s job approval on Iraq rose ten percentage points after Saddam’s capture. ABC News, the center says, only referenced the poll for a few brief seconds with a small graphic Monday morning and that was it.” <font size=3> Indeed, the December 17 CyberAlert relayed: ABC’s World News Tonight still hasn’t reported how, in the wake of the capture of Saddam Hussein, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that President Bush’s approval level overall rose four points with a ten point jump in approval for how he’s handling the situation in Iraq, but on Tuesday night Dan Rather found a few seconds to relay how a new CBS News/New York Times poll discovered a six point hike in Bush’s approval level.... As the December 16 CyberAlert noted, NBC showcased on Monday’s NBC Nightly News its survey finding that after Hussein’s capture Bush’s approval rating jumped by six points while his margin over Howard Dean expanded from 12 to 21 points. But though Monday’s Washington Post featured the results of the ABC News/Washington Post survey conducted on Sunday afternoon and evening, Peter Jennings didn’t utter a word about it on Monday night and he didn’t catch up on Tuesday. The only hint as to the good news for Bush in the ABC poll came in a small graphic on screen for a few seconds on Monday’s Good Morning America as Claire Shipman tried to diminish the impact of catching Hussein. She highlighted how “ABC News has a new poll out today that shows most Americans don't believe Saddam's capture means the job is done there” as she warned that if “if the situation isn't stabilized,” the capture of Hussein “is not going to seem decisive for this administration." As she was saying that, GMA put up a picture of a bearded Hussein which filled three-fourths the screen with the left-hand fourth showing a graphic citing a single poll number from an “ABC News/Washington Post poll” on “President Bush's Approval Rating,” listing it at 58 percent after Saddam's capture compared with 48 percent in mid-November. In fact, the numbers were for approval of how Bush is handling the situation in Iraq. mediaresearch.org

To: greenspirit who wrote (20569)	12/20/2003 11:45:45 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

Karen, the bias is in the focus. It's not about the millions celebrating his capture in Iraq, it's about the small percentage who are demonstrated against it, or about those who feel bad that he was captured. I went back and read it again. It seems like good reporting to me. Yes, the lead in was the demonstrators. Perhaps they could have lead with the guy with the shoe. Personally, I think it's more effective to end with the shoe since it's such an uplifting story. In any case, it's typical of reporters to lead with what gives them good visuals. You know the saying "if it bleeds, it leads." That's the default. It's hard to find bias when they're following standard procedure. If they deviated from standard procedure to focus on something negative, your point would be stronger. I gather from your response that you don't question the accuracy of what was reported. It seems to me that the story in this is not those who are protesting or those who are cheering but in how conflicted most Iraqis must be. That that's the story they are telling. I found it interesting and thoughtful. If they just reported solely that Iraqis are thrilled to be rid of this madman, yes, that would be true, but it would also be shallow and not particularly informative or insightful. They're supposed to be newsmen, not cheerleaders. And we're supposed to learn from what they report, not just be left fat, dumb, and happy. In the context of reporting in general, I take your point, but I think that you're reaching on this particular incident. Re your analogy, they didn't just report on the sad Dallas fans. They reported on how conflicted Redskins fans were that, while they won, the Dallas quarterback's career was ended when he was sacked by both ends simultaneously or that the Dallas quarterback, a future hall of famer, was sacked twenty times and knocked unconscious five times in what was his final game before retirement. Decent Redskins fans would have mixed feelings about either of those scenarios. And that would make a better job of reporting than the horn honking and fire crackers.