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 : THE STARR REPORT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (1371)	9/22/1998 7:39:00 AM
From: mrknowitall	Respond to of 1533

Johnathan, aren't you curious as to why the press hasn't been the driving force behind all of the discoveries about the Clinton White House? You underestimate the cunning of those who play the bloodsport of "sourcing." Here's how it works, in time-honored (but ethically bankrupt) Washington media circles: A reporter lives and dies from sources. You don't have to be a politician or a reporter to understand that what makes a reporter "upwardly mobile" in the business is the uniqueness and position of the sources he or she can draw upon. Those sources are gleaned from the ranks by the degree of secrecy they are willing to share. While this may seem to just be the way things work, imagine what you do if you just don't have the sources to give a story what they call "legs." There you are, giving it all you've got and the editors just don't think there is enough fire under the smoke. The other part of the story is that editors decide how long, and how often a given piece will run. It's nothing new. Whatever sells the news. That's their job. If they don't think people care, or they think people care more about something else, the reporter's piece keeps moving down the pyramid from the "top story." Check out "All the President's Men" to see a very glamorous view of "investigative reporting." The real underbelly is in the bars and restaurants around the beltway. Quid pro quo - "this for that." When there is no Quid or quo handy, what politically-oriented practitioners of advocacy journalism sometimes have to do is make "sources" up or simply find one on their database with a "intellectual" title to lend credibility. Dr. So-and-so's study at Yada yada Unversity indicates . . ." Here's how most of it shows up: "Sources (at/in/around/close to/among)indicate ______________." "Most _____________'s think the ______________ will _____________." "While some _____________ say ____________, those closest to _____________ are _____________." These are "I didn't say it - they dids" that reporters use to shield themselves from making it look like their own opinion. The other nuance, particularly in electronic journalism, is the "reportator." We no longer get facts, we get commentary, and we always get it at the very end of a piece. The "helmet of hair" at the studio always wraps the piece by asking the reporter on the other end of the link some question (always prepared in advance) and the reportator on the other end gets to expound with opinion. Why at the end? Impact. People remember the headlines and ends of stories. It is subtle. It is a craft with number of professionals as well as a heard mentality. You need to see the tent-camps that get set up near a breaking story to understand the shark feeding-frenzy process. And then there's those leaks. Everything leaks, and in most cases it's simply a matter of when the reporters use them. Little bits of information are the currency of the economy of journalism. You want prestige among the inteligentsia? You want to be introduced to the power-players up the food chain? You want dirt on your opponent (more likely, your boss's boss's boss's opponent)? Quid pro quo. The phones in DC ring 24 hours a day with this stuff. So, when you find out that the key players (editors) and most of the reporters voted for Democrats, are you surprised by what you see and hear? Don't be. Mr. K.

To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (1371)	9/22/1998 11:16:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1533

the bias of the reporting, what is shown on the news and what is emphasized and de-emphasized shows a conservative, not a liberal bias. This really boils down to how conservatives view liberals and how liberals view conservatives. I happen to agree that most of the press is quite liberal. But let me bring up one example. How many of the mainstream media do you find being supportive of the religious right, as compared to how many are supportive of religious liberalism? Look, for example, at abortion (most of the media is in favor of it), gay rights (stories about gay rights supporters or supportive demonstrations almost always get good press coverage, or at least not negative coverage; stories about hostility to the gay rights agenda or demonstrations against gay rights almost always get negative publicity); affirmative action/racial preferences (when is the last time you saw the Washington Post, NYT, etc. use the term racial preferences in favor of affirmative action?). In almost all cases, the conservative Christian position is put down and the liberal Christian position is favored. The Montana Freeman are looked on negatively by the press; the Chicago 7 were given very positive coverage (I know that was a while ago, but if the same issues arose today I believe the bias would be the same.) Which generally get more favorable treatment in the press, corporate executives or community activitists? Where environmentalism and development rights mix, which side gets more sympathetic mainstream press coverage? I could go on, but this is an argument of perception, not of facts, so neither "side" will ever admit that the other might be right.