State of journalism

[SomeDanGuy]

I know, I know, people complain about the bias of press all the time. But this is a little snipet in the area of Jon Stewart's outrage - the lack of journalism among journalists.

I am exquisitely tired of hearing about Terri Shiavo too, but I promise this is only tangentially related to that. On CNN tonight I saw the interview Dr. William Hammesfahr who said that he examied Terri and that she is not really in a coma and could make a recovery. Ok, fine. So the reporter asks the person on the other side "With all these doctors differing in opinion, how can the judges be so certain she's really in a persistant vegitative state?"

Here's the answer: Credibility and the lack of background checking by the news teams. I went to Dr. Hammesfahr's website to check him out and learned that he was nominated for a Nobel Prize in 1999. Pretty impressive. ....until you go to the Nobel Prize nominations database and find that he's not listed. Why is that? Well, it turns out that he was 'nominated' by a US Congressman who doesn't even have the power to nominate people. That would be like if one of you decided to 'nominate' me for the Nobel Prize and then I went around putting that on my CV.

Obviously, this guy has severe credibility issues and should not have even been interviewed. I found that out in 5 minutes; why can't a major news service realize that?

I don't care WHAT side people are arguing on, but if you're going to invite opposing experts on your show to have a debate, at least make sure they're credible. It's just disgusting how all 'news' has turned into letting each side of the debate yell at each other rather than trying to find the FACTS behind things.

Arrrrgggh! I need a Friday night distraction.

[Ginevra]

It does seem that media of late is going more the way of the National Enquirer and The Star. Wasn't non-research one of the reasons that Dan Rather retired over?

[Vater Araignee]

Quick question

If I had a TV show and I wanted to keep my show then why would I want people that truly are creditable.

Would it not make more sense to have superficial credibility?

Don't get me wrong I'm just playing devils advocate.

I don't like shows like that because they only book morons for the opposing side

[SomeDanGuy]

Well you're right in that superficial credibility seems to be just as good as the real stuff these days and is easier and cheaper to come by, so yes, that seems like a good way to go. I just hope that some time soon people get fed up with this and start demanding more. (Not hold my breath for that, unfortunately)

Yeah, CBS got in trouble for not doing enough research. At least that was exposed; I worry about how much we're being told that is never revealed to be inaccurate

[Vater Araignee]

99.2343237655%

[phee]

It is also not just television that is the problem...

[Daniel]

I'm with you. Has anyone watched the "Outfoxed" documentary? It is focused on Fox news, but a lot of what it discusses could be pointed at any of the major news sources. The statistics are frightening.

Personally, I hate major news sources, and find they are hugely loaded with major misinformation. The Schiavo case in general could be used to show how the major news systems are fuck-ups.

[phee]

Pretty Much

[SomeDanGuy]

Anyone know of any "less filtered" but still credible news sources online?

[Daniel]

Anyone know of any "less filtered" but still credible news sources online?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I tend to go to subject specific stuff. Here are things I read that are interesting to me. They aren't all necessarily without bias, but at least you get alternative perspectives, and different information:

http://www.citizen.org/

http://www.downhillbattle.org/

http://slashdot.org

I have more bookmarks at home, but I watch these religiously. I do watch a number of legal blogs... people who scrutinize state and/or federal laws. They tend to be without bias, and are focused specifically on court cases and specific legal language, etc. Fantastic sources of information.

[Daniel]

Also, it is worth noting that I actually get most of my leads to information and current happenings via blogs, message boards and livejournal. Most message boards I post on are loaded with very informed people with a lot of information resources. While these people are almost 95% biased, because there is a lot of debate and "sides", you get access to a wealth of information, and are able to snif out the truth and details in situations. I bet I get leads to the best information this way.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Oldschool , "Try to be unbiased, try to do as much research and fact checking as possible" type invesitagive journalsim is usually said to be currently on a downswing , and has been bemoand fairly often. Being replaced by Screaming Rabid Proponent A Vs. Screaming Rabid Opponent B type shows, or very heavily biased (to one agenda or another) political spin type reporting.

Usually profits are what is most often pointed to as a reason for this shift. Is cheaper and easier to make a show or an article that is "engaging" to the largest audience if you have lots of tension and "action". Limiting tension is often a byproduct of calm , reasoned , fact-checked, middle-of-the-road journalism. Trying to have an tension filled , well ballanced and fact checked article or show takes a lot more work than throwing two rabid dogs in a cage and filming it / reporting it. :unhappy: The Medium Is The Message Part CXXVIIII.

Its not nessisarly a new thing , in the early days of journalism in america , from what ive read at least it was often far more "biased" as an industry than it is today.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

>edited out