#objectivity – @diegueno on Tumblr

Last week NBC announced that it had brought in Noah Oppenheim to run the Today Show after its previous chief, Jamie Horowitz, lasted only 10 weeks on the job. With this new hire NBC turns to a familiar name, as Oppenheim had previously been the show’s senior producer from 2005 until 2008. After that he bolted TV to head up development for L.A.-based TV/film production studio Reveille, and then became a screenwriter. When conservative media critics point to the “liberal media,” that often includes morning television like NBC’s Today Show. But here’s an interesting fact that may or may not help change that: Oppenheim has a serious background in conservative media. Before his previous stint with Today, Oppenheim ran the “extraordinarily conservative” Scarborough Country on MSNBC, years before Joe Scarborough became a more centrist-type punching bag for right-wing media. Further adding to Oppenheim’s conservative credentials is a 2004 report from the New York Observer that alleged he left MSNBC (and presumably moved over to NBC daytime) after network bigwigs complained about an article he wrote for the Bush White House’s favorite magazine, The Weekly Standard....

Today Show’s New Chief Has Long Background in Conservative Media | Mediaite

Remember The Today Show before it turned in to a 3rd rate circus? Will people see past the J. Fred Doggs gimmick and find something more honest than Fox and Friends?

Source: mediaite.com

#television #media #journalism #The Today Show #NBC #right wing #bias #objectivity

diegueno

Don't even think about fracking NPR

npr-dont-even-thinkaboutit.org

Most Americans consider NPR an independent media organization, so it might surprise you that one of its biggest corporate sponsors is the American Natural Gas Alliance, a front group that exists only to promote some of the worst energy polluters in America.

The ANGA has been an NPR corporate sponsor for months, using its airtime to promote the misleading ‘think about it’ campaign that is in fact a promotion for the dangerous and destructive drilling process known as fracking.

NPR’s financial dependence on the fracking industry could be fouling its news coverage, just like fracking fouls up our air, water and climate. Fracking puts America on a path toward a bleak energy future, with polluted land, flammable tap water and earthquakes.

Meanwhile, clean, green energy sources like wind and solar can provide 99 percent of our electric, transportation and manufacturing power needs. No fracking required. Even better — every time we choose renewable energy over oil, coal and gas, we reduce emissions, lower the cost of energy and create jobs.

When trusted news outlets like NPR take money from ANGA and repeat their deceptive marketing claptrap — on OUR airwaves — we have to question their objectivity. Sign up here to tell NPR that when it comes to fracking, don’t even think about it.

#fracking #journalism #objectivity #national public radio #American Natural Gas Alliance #ANGA

diegueno

www.4thestate.net

(via LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS: Fact or Fiction?)

Our data does not support the thesis of a liberal media bias as it relates to Election 2012 coverage. If anything, our analysis suggests a media bias towards both Mitt Romney and Republicans. There are multiple data points included in our analysis. In news stories and broadcast transcripts that we analyzed over the last 3 months, newsmakers appearing in the media as partisan Republicans are quoted at a 44% higher rate than partisan Democrats. Additionally, the ratio of positive to negative coverage was 17.1% more critical of Obama than Romney. We processed 717 articles and 15,357 quotes collected between May 1 and July 15, 2012.

#media #journalism #bias #objectivity

diegueno

www.facebook.com

Vidal warned us; still, we let it happen.

Source: facebook.com

#Gore Vidal #United States #journalism #media #objectivity #standards #dissent #fascism

diegueno reblogged

think4yourself-deactivated20181

alcaniglia

The New York Times doesn't get it, but Jay Rosen does

www.nytimes.com

diegueno

alcaniglia:

“One of the senators, John Cornyn of Texas, said he would consider eliminating some tax breaks and corporate subsidies in the context of changes in the tax code, provided there was not an overall increase in taxes”

This does not make any sense. If we are eliminating tax breaks or raising rates, the reason for the change is an overall increase in taxes. The article is written like these Senators are making some big concession (although they point out that such comprehensive reform is not possible before the debt increase is required). They are merely restating their same old position - “no new taxes”.

Jay Rosen gets it

Leave the partisan fights to the guests: sounds great. Until you think about it for a minute. And really, that’s all it takes: about a minute. In a hyper-polarized environment like the one we increasingly have in the U.S. these fights have long since broken the borders of opinion. They now routinely break out over matters of fact. (Example: does cutting Federal tax rates increase revenues to the government?) Leaving partisan fights—over matters of fact—to the guests is a disaster, journalistically. But intervening in those fights takes skill, knowledge… and balls. Because one side could be a lot righter than the other, factually speaking. In other words, you could have a situation where in order to do your duty journalistically, you have to take sides and say, “I’m sorry, Senator, but that simply doesn’t square with what we know.” Soon as you do that, your mantra, “We cover both sides but don’t favor either side” starts working against you. Cognitive dissonance rises. You’re not doing “straight news” any longer. You’re calling foul on the deceiver, raising the question: why did you invite this guy, anyway? You’re taking to heart what Daniel Patrick Moynihan was supposed to have said: You’re entitled to your own opinion. You’re not entitled to your own facts.

Source: brooklynmutt.com

#journalism #neutrality #objectivity