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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (10546)	10/21/1998 4:42:00 PM
From: jbe	Respond to of 67261

You are right about one thing, David. The idea of "impartial" journalism is a relatively new one. But IMO it is a good one, and most newspapers, at any rate, do try to adhere to it. Pefect impartiality (objectivity) is of course impossible, but we should strive towards that ideal. I think that if you will take a mainstream paper like The New York Times, for example, and read ALL the stories about ALL the subjects of the day (not just the Clinton scandal), you may agree that the reporters are at least trying to give you "the straight poop." (I am not just defending my profession here, BTW. I see myself primarily as a historian, who happens, at the moment, to be earning a living covering issues unrelated to contemporary U.S. politics.) jbe

To: DMaA who wrote (10546)	10/21/1998 5:08:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 67261

What's not so fine is their ridiculous and infuriating insistence that all opinion is segregated on the editorial page. Bull. Uh huh. Do you think Zoltan!'s favorite source, the Washington Times, segregates their opinions on the editorial page? Do they admit to bias in what they report on and how they report on it? Do you think the American Spectator admits to any bias in all that Richard Mellon Scaife funded "research"? They eventually found a smidgen of integrity, of course, after being pushed one step too far on the "who killed Vince Foster" front. Do you think the other favorite source here, Drudge, is somehow "objective" in what he reports? I don't much argue this stuff, beyond noting the normal operational definition, people you agree with are objective and people you disagree with are biased. In terms of quality of reporting, though, I think it's fairly odd to reject the NYT as "liberal" and point to the Washington Times as "truthful", or whatever. Whatever bias the NYT might have, they report on most everything, and they haven't been particularly gentle with Clinton either.