It's not Liberal/Cons. journalists but Factual/Erroneous we shd identify

[Stephanie]

I disagree with this categorizing of journalists. All I want from a journalist is the truth, asking hard questions, checking facts instead of printing press releases, etc. Is the reporter working to uncover and present the facts? Or is he slanting the coverage by just repeating the talking points he's handed without examining their veracity.

What do you think?

[Caution]

1. I can certainly add that as a parameter after the fact

I'll be creating the database with a "Political Rating"

once the ratings are in, we can start rating polls for "Factual Reporting" and I'll just add the fields to the db, simple.

[Stephanie]

2. I think that would be advisable, thanks

It's gets to sound a little like a blacklist when you start trying to pin down their political stance. Someone who is a clear advocate is one thing, but someone who is supposed to be an objective reporter doesn't really deserve to be labeled based on our perceptions, unless it is very, very clear where they stand. In my opinion.

[Stephanie]

3. Am I the only one who's not comfortable with this?

What is the point, exactly?

[MissMarple]

4. Rising above the fray with the simple truth. Just the facts, ma'am.

You make an excellent point in separating the partisan from the quantifiable. I think Lou Dobbs is aproximating that, and Jon Stewart, as well. Thanks, Steph.

[rucky]

5. the truth is a good side to be on

I agree 100%

otherwise we'll be going back and forth forever

[K-W]

6. The problem is, the entire conservative movement right now

is based upon the ideas that facts dont matter. It isnt so much about identifying liberals and conservatives, as much as identifying conservative propagandists, those who have subcommed to conservative propaganda and others.

The problem is, with so many conservative propagandists and those suckered by them, we kinda do need some liberal voices out there.

But yes, the ideal would be facts, neutrality and real journalism.

[Stephanie]

7. Yes but our goal should be to sort the propagandists from actual reporters

Not the liberals from the conservatives.

When I see people identifying Terry Moran as a liberal just because he occasionally asks Bush hard questions, I think it is appalling. He is a GOOD journalist. He is trying to get at the truth. That should be what we look at. We can't deduce everybody's leanings. And we really shouldn't. And for the very obvious, such as Rush or Scarborough, what's the point?

[Cleita]

8. Also, I want the talk show hosts who claim they are journalists

hold the pols that they interview over the coals. I have been watching with hard concentration this month and every Republican Senator and Congressman that gets up their spouting bold lies need to have Helen Thomas type questions put to them. If they are Democrats they seem to get a lot of hard questions, so I know the reporters like Wolf Blitzer do know how to ask them. But the liberal media does not make these f**ing prevaricating Republicans back up what they say. Damn it Wolfie, Paula, Bill, Darryl, Gwen and Chris, you know what your job is. For pete's sake do it!

[Stephanie]

9. Even on C-Span

I was shocked the other day when a caller said that the Booker video showed bush being informed of the FIRST plane hitting Tower One. And the weasel HOST said "thank you, caller" when he had to know full well it was just FALSE. But he said NOTHING.

We don't need anything but the FACTS to be presented, and the LIES to be exposed.

[Stephanie]

10. Kerry in his convention speech, and Obama too, decried divisiveness

This is not the way I want us to go.

[Stephanie]

11. Debating this right now C-Span

Great caller on now, complaining that Brian Lamb pits the NY Times against the Wash Times, and Fox against PBS, as if somehow they are equivalent. Lamb's excuse is that RW callers complain all the time about "liberal" NYTimes/PBS. But Brian, that doesn't make it SO.

Why can't we judge these outlets on their VERACITY???

This is where I see a real danger in trying to lable by leanings.

[Maeve]

12. You want journalists to be journalists

But they have become advocates. Yes, I agree with you--my idea of what a journalist is "supposed to be" harks back to the training I had in J-school back in the 70's when the top three rules of journalism were accuracy, accuracy and accuracy. (Get it right, get it straight, get it all is another way my favorite prof put it) I want honest news brokers.

There are several factors that have swung the media away from truth reporting--corporate ownership encourages cutting finacial corners, the all-news channels push for getting it fast over getting it right, and the right-wing assault on the "liberal media" pushes advocacy over fairness. Even "fairness" has come to mean "presenting both sides" despite objective reality that shows one side is based on fact and the other on belief.

There is also the fact that every commentator and columnist wants to claim the cloak of "journalist"--it used to be a respected title.

[Stephanie]

13. Exactly! "Presenting both sides" with no fact-checking is the outrage

What is your opinion of this move here at DU to name journalists and broadcast hosts and try to identify their bias?

*edit* Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=631225

[Maeve]

15. Most broadcast hosts aren't journalists

I think simplifying the issue into "who's biased which way" is a mistake--you need an aditional category for "honest journalists" (or mostly honest--the playing field is tilted to dishonesty and bias, which is why the question is framed as it is).

Example: Chris Matthews is getting praise for going after columnist Malkin. Fair enough--she is a right-wing flak, I've read her work. But he'll go after our side if it looks to his advantage to do so. Is he biased one way or another? Yes, in favor of receiving his salary and maintaining his ego-driven career. Beyond that? :shrug:
I wouldn't trust him.

In today's climate, the ones I call "honest brokers" are more likely to be identified as "liberal" because they are surrounded by unabashed conservatives--the contrast is what you see. (lonly little petunias in the onion patch, to quote a song my mother used to sing)

[H2O Man]

14. Great question ......

There is room for all types of journalism ..... in terms of political journalism, there is (A) reporting, which should be objective; and (B) commentary, which can be subjective. If they are identified as such, I have no problem.

In terms of honesty vs dishonesty, I think most would agree that there is far too much of the dishonesty ..... in fact, that any is too much .... and we see dishonesty in both the reporting and commentary.

What I wish could happen would be that more of the mainstream media allow a wider range of viewpoint. There are, for example, fiscal conservatives who know the bush administration is out of control. There are pro-choice people who want to make birth control available in order to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. There are so many common sense approaches to social problems being advocated by people who are neither democrat or republican, that the public never hears. There are 4th World peoples with insight on the environment that are never heard from.

It's as if the printing press were only used for war comic books.

[lostnfound]

16. Yes and no.

The ones that don't lie but do spin can be just as dangerous.

What gets left out and not said is another dimension. The selection of topics covered is critical. Did we need to have so much coverage of the blue dress? Some of them seemed intent at getting at 'the truth', yet missed the larger truth that there was a witchhunt going on. Or when Novak printed the story about Joe Wilson's wife, the fact that his wife was an undercover spy was accurate, but the real story was that someone in the White House was exposing covert ops just to get revenge. Context really matters.

(Of course, Novak prints a lot of lies, so he's not the best example!!)

We need journalists who don't lie AND don't spin, but we do need journalists with a point of view, because they all have one anyway, so is it visible or invisible? The invisible point-of-view is in some ways more dangerous.

The point of view helps determine the context.