87% of Journalists Tilt left in Elex Funds - Page 4 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #31 of 88 (permalink) Old 06-23-2007, 12:49 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Yes I have. Has Murdoch ordered a bias or is this an opinion of bias on your part?

Now answer my other questions.

B
Murdoch "orders" bias through his hiring practices, much the way Ted Turner did when he first started CNN.

Bias in the news is through the hiring of producers and editors who are like minded with the views that Murdoch wishes to project. This is why you see a similar slant on every media outlet that Murdoch owns, from England to Australia.

When we did our digital library work at Fox in 2000 as they started their "we report, you decide" campaign I was very excited that there would be a news organization that was going to provide both sides of every story, to show the good and bad, to not be as partisan as some of the other stuff that I had been seeing from behind the scenes.

Three months in the control room, and back room of Fox in NYC showed me that they had one interest and "we report, you decide" had nothing to do with it. That three month period is specifically why I have ZERO respect for Foxnews.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 88 (permalink) Old 06-23-2007, 01:13 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
Murdoch "orders" bias through his hiring practices, much the way Ted Turner did when he first started CNN.

Bias in the news is through the hiring of producers and editors who are like minded with the views that Murdoch wishes to project. This is why you see a similar slant on every media outlet that Murdoch owns, from England to Australia.

When we did our digital library work at Fox in 2000 as they started their "we report, you decide" campaign I was very excited that there would be a news organization that was going to provide both sides of every story, to show the good and bad, to not be as partisan as some of the other stuff that I had been seeing from behind the scenes.

Three months in the control room, and back room of Fox in NYC showed me that they had one interest and "we report, you decide" had nothing to do with it. That three month period is specifically why I have ZERO respect for Foxnews.
I didn't know that Murdoch hired people in such low level positions, but I'll take your word for it since whatever you say is obviously unbiased. As I aid to GS: You want to piss on FoxNews? Fine with me and I'll join you: I don't give a damn.

Looking on the list of political contributors to the political parties I notice a rather low number of FoxNews contributions. The stingy bastards can't put their money where their supposed mouths are. But who cares? Piss on'em.

Now tell me about the unbiased reporting from the networks where you have worked. Then we'll link the published independent studies by various academics from different institutions in the USA, Canada and Europe of the broadcast news media in the USA, Canada, and Europe and we'll try to resolve those issues.

B

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thatís what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
post #33 of 88 (permalink) Old 06-23-2007, 01:18 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
In our little America'centric world where we assume that we are the center of the universe I suppose you can argue that it matters which journalists donate to which parties BUT since the Iraq war is covered world wide, with much the same coverage and much the same revelations coming from across the planet, it is hard to attach a simple "who donates what to whom" logic to the coverage.

The Society of Professional Journalists, which is the national organization for Journalists has about 10,000 members if I am not mistaken. If this article says that 145 donate to political parties then it would be very interesting to understand why the author failed to mention the other 9,850 professionals or to include their participation, or lack of it, in his article. So right now we have an article that discusses 1.45% of professional journalists in this country.

We now have two questions. First, the article only mentions American Journalists and any potential slant they might have, yet fails to consider the foreign press which has no affiliation with the American political system yet often draws the same or similar conclusions. And we have an article that only touches on less than 1.5% of the Professional Journalists in America. [www.spj.org]

So just what does this say about coverage?
You dilute the results of a study of local American news media donations to the political parties by adding international reporters into the mix. That's bullshit analysis, my friend and will provide bullshit results. Thank goodness you don't conduct research or provide editorial reviews.

Go read the article and get back to me when you frame a proper argument.

B

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thatís what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
post #34 of 88 (permalink) Old 06-23-2007, 03:03 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,926
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 597 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Don't like FoxNews and don't like Chris Matthews? Fine with me. I'll join you in pissing on their heads and I don't need some strange conspiracy manipulating the news media. My bladder fills just listening to them.

B
I'm not entirely sure, but you seem to be missing the point I've been trying drive home, so I'll take one more stab at it. Reporters are not ultimately responsible for content, editorial and management staff is, right up the chain of command to owners. That is not a suggestion of conspiracy, it is a suggestion of responsibility. Again, who ordered the blackballing of Ron Paul? Did Chris Matthews decide this on his own, or was he following instructions? I don't really know the answer, but I think it's an interesting question in regard to the issue you've raised.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #35 of 88 (permalink) Old 06-23-2007, 03:19 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
You dilute the results of a study of local American news media donations to the political parties by adding international reporters into the mix. That's bullshit analysis, my friend and will provide bullshit results. Thank goodness you don't conduct research or provide editorial reviews.

Go read the article and get back to me when you frame a proper argument.

B
I read the article, and the one last month in the Ad Age that preceded it. Sorry you don't like my analysis but it is far from bullshit and if you knew what you were talking about you would know that. SO, to articulate the position in a way you will understand, without diluting the statistical base with anyone outside US Journalists, here are some base numbers to start.

The article written scopes 145 Journalists and their contributions. Broken down that is:

21 Broadcast stations [of which 5 were fox and 1 was MTV]
31 Magazines
62 Newspapers
5 Radio stations/Networks
13 Wire services

In the US alone there are

1200+ Broadcast stations [Source World Radio TV Handbook]
6 Neworks
1500+ Newspapers
2000+ Magazines [actually over 10,000 but I dropped circulations that were below threshold of relevance]
10,000 Commercial Radio Stations [source World Radio TV Handbook]
2,500 Non Commercial Radio Stations [source WRTH]

Lets look at numbers

Broadcast: Now if you assume an average of 50 people at an average TV station, from production and editor to talking head and administrative [some are smaller but larger markets have in the hundreds].

Networks: about 25000 in this industry according to the 2007 NAB

Newspaper: I took my city paper, the Lexington Herald Leader which is in a 53 market and counted only the NEWS, ONLINE and Administrative staff and came up with 150. Obviously the NYT, Washington Post and bigger papers would have many more.

Radio Stations: Most stations have no more than 12-20 on-air talent, equal news, add in a few for production and admin and an average could be considered 35.

Magazines. Counting the masthead of Vanity Fair and US News and World Report [the two on my desk at the moment] I chose an average of 90 folks per magazine.

Wireservices: Insignificant in the big picture as there are only about 10 and they are worldwide so I would not want to dilute the study.

Let’s look at numbers NOW.
1200 Broadcast Stations 60,000
6 Networks 25000
1500 Newspapers 2,000,000
Radio Stations 435,000
Magazines 180000

So, in the pool of journalists, producers, copy editors, news librarians, fashion editors, classical music critics, and section designers that is in the list of 145 there is a BASE of 2.7MILLION American Professional Journalists from which to compare. You are right; I need to correct my original numbers. I think that percentage is .00537%, give or take a bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
You dilute the results of a study of local American news media donations to the political parties by adding international reporters into the mix. That's bullshit analysis, my friend and will provide bullshit results. Thank goodness you don't conduct research or provide editorial reviews.

Go read the article and get back to me when you frame a proper argument.

B
Does that pretty much cover the framing there?

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #36 of 88 (permalink) Old 06-23-2007, 03:28 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar
I'm not entirely sure, but you seem to be missing the point I've been trying drive home, so I'll take one more stab at it. Reporters are not ultimately responsible for content, editorial and management staff is, right up the chain of command to owners. That is not a suggestion of conspiracy, it is a suggestion of responsibility. Again, who ordered the blackballing of Ron Paul? Did Chris Matthews decide this on his own, or was he following instructions? I don't really know the answer, but I think it's an interesting question in regard to the issue you've raised.
You and I have a different definition of blackball.

Concerning why or why not this or that guest is invited to Matthews show, I have no idea and again, don't give a damn. Whatever the rationale it is pretty dumb. Why do I say that? Because Matthews is on the air to make money for MSNBC. Though his is probably one of the few MSNBC shows taht is both competitive and profitable, it has miniscule audience compared to CNN & FoxNews, it's primary competition. Matthews has used the same formula since his first day and has a very stable market share I imagine (else why would MSNBC keep him in the seat?). But MSNBC wont be competitive if all they do is maintain stability.

So I'll bet Matthews' guest list has more to do with potential audience draw than it has to do with the intrinsic value of a story. And Matthews' show is one of the better ones as far as looking at a subject in any kind of depth. In my particular market he is competing with the Daily Show. That's a toughie!

B

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thatís what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
post #37 of 88 (permalink) Old 06-23-2007, 03:34 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
I read the article, and the one last month in the Ad Age that preceded it. Sorry you don't like my analysis but it is far from bullshit and if you knew what you were talking about you would know that. SO, to articulate the position in a way you will understand, without diluting the statistical base with anyone outside US Journalists, here are some base numbers to start.

The article written scopes 145 Journalists and their contributions. Broken down that is:

21 Broadcast stations [of which 5 were fox and 1 was MTV]
31 Magazines
62 Newspapers
5 Radio stations/Networks
13 Wire services

In the US alone there are

1200+ Broadcast stations [Source World Radio TV Handbook]
6 Neworks
1500+ Newspapers
2000+ Magazines [actually over 10,000 but I dropped circulations that were below threshold of relevance]
10,000 Commercial Radio Stations [source World Radio TV Handbook]
2,500 Non Commercial Radio Stations [source WRTH]

Lets look at numbers

Broadcast: Now if you assume an average of 50 people at an average TV station, from production and editor to talking head and administrative [some are smaller but larger markets have in the hundreds].

Networks: about 25000 in this industry according to the 2007 NAB

Newspaper: I took my city paper, the Lexington Herald Leader which is in a 53 market and counted only the NEWS, ONLINE and Administrative staff and came up with 150. Obviously the NYT, Washington Post and bigger papers would have many more.

Radio Stations: Most stations have no more than 12-20 on-air talent, equal news, add in a few for production and admin and an average could be considered 35.

Magazines. Counting the masthead of Vanity Fair and US News and World Report [the two on my desk at the moment] I chose an average of 90 folks per magazine.

Wireservices: Insignificant in the big picture as there are only about 10 and they are worldwide so I would not want to dilute the study.

Let’s look at numbers NOW.
1200 Broadcast Stations 60,000
6 Networks 25000
1500 Newspapers 2,000,000
Radio Stations 435,000
Magazines 180000

So, in the pool of journalists, producers, copy editors, news librarians, fashion editors, classical music critics, and section designers that is in the list of 145 there is a BASE of 2.7MILLION American Professional Journalists from which to compare. You are right; I need to correct my original numbers. I think that percentage is .00537%, give or take a bit.



Does that pretty much cover the framing there?
Read the article again (I posted the relevant portion for your convenience, below) and learn how and why they limited the search. If you would like to broaden the search, I encourage you to do so without further abusing the original data with your conjecture.

Bot


Not every donor is identified
There appear to be far more than 144 donating journalists, but MSNBC.com limited its search to:

— Federal candidates, PACs and parties in the records of the Federal Election Commission, not the separate state campaign records.
— The period January 2004 through the first quarter of this year.
— Donors in news jobs, not corporate executives or publishers, who are allowed by nearly every news organization to donate.
Campaigns are spotty about reporting the occupation and employer of donors. The law requires only that campaigns make a good-faith effort to request the information from donors.

Our first search of the records used job titles: "editor," "anchor" and so on. Because often no job title is reported, we also searched using the names of news companies. Smaller companies were not checked; for example, we checked only the company names of the 200 largest newspapers, out of more than 1,400 dailies in the nation.

Small donations may not be in the records. Many candidates report only donations of $200 or more. Reporting of smaller donations is optional but is becoming more common with electronic filing of campaign reports to the FEC.

Then, with a list of about 300 apparent journalists, we tried to contact them all. The list published here includes only those who either confirmed that they made the donation or did not respond. Many journalists who changed jobs since the donations were not contacted and are not included here.

The final list represents a tiny percentage of the working journalists in the nation. Daily newspapers alone employ about 60,000 full-time journalists. Approximately 30,000 work in television news jobs and 10,000 in radio news.

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thatís what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
post #38 of 88 (permalink) Old 06-23-2007, 03:59 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Read the article again (I posted the relevant portion for your convenience, below) and learn how and why they limited the search. If you would like to broaden the search, I encourage you to do so without further abusing the original data with your conjecture.

Bot


Not every donor is identified
There appear to be far more than 144 donating journalists, but MSNBC.com limited its search to:

— Federal candidates, PACs and parties in the records of the Federal Election Commission, not the separate state campaign records.
— The period January 2004 through the first quarter of this year.
— Donors in news jobs, not corporate executives or publishers, who are allowed by nearly every news organization to donate.
Campaigns are spotty about reporting the occupation and employer of donors. The law requires only that campaigns make a good-faith effort to request the information from donors.

Our first search of the records used job titles: "editor," "anchor" and so on. Because often no job title is reported, we also searched using the names of news companies. Smaller companies were not checked; for example, we checked only the company names of the 200 largest newspapers, out of more than 1,400 dailies in the nation.

Small donations may not be in the records. Many candidates report only donations of $200 or more. Reporting of smaller donations is optional but is becoming more common with electronic filing of campaign reports to the FEC.

Then, with a list of about 300 apparent journalists, we tried to contact them all. The list published here includes only those who either confirmed that they made the donation or did not respond. Many journalists who changed jobs since the donations were not contacted and are not included here.

The final list represents a tiny percentage of the working journalists in the nation. Daily newspapers alone employ about 60,000 full-time journalists. Approximately 30,000 work in television news jobs and 10,000 in radio news.
I am trying to determine your point. The article, in its round about way suggests that they only found 145 names out of the over 100,000 in their limited sample set [yet they used the sexy 9:1 ratio headline to grab attention]. They appeared to not make effort to talk to any of the 99+% to get their views on the subject yet felt that this very limited sub-set was worthy of a story.

At least they had the balls to point out that part of their sample were "Many of the donating journalists cover topics far from politics: food, fashion, sports."

So if 1/100 of 1% of a group gives money to political candidates how does that, in any way corrupt a profession? I don't like it but it is legal. Neither you nor I can make a determination as to their intent or bias.

As for "abuse the purity of the original survey with conjecture", the original writer of the article, and his editor abused his survey sufficiently to render it meaningless.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #39 of 88 (permalink) Old 06-23-2007, 04:44 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,259
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 498 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Having read the list and the comments from the MSNBC article, I think the broader point is this. It's a remarkably blatant show of disregard for propriety of a JOURNALIST to make ANY contribution to a political candidate or cause.

I think it's naive to presume that this list is in any way comprehensive. It's very likely that an uncomfortably large number of journalists make such contributions, and do so unabashedly - with or without regard to matters of policy by their employers. The reason this is likely is because, by nature, these people have a far deeper familiarity with political entities than the average person. Contributions by these people are probably very rarely solicited, and if so, they're probably all to happy to give to the causes or candidates that resonate with them as people (again, fatally ignorant of their duties and obligations as journalists).

I don't think it's prudent to exclude "fashion" editors, etc. from this list, bcause the possibility exists that those people at some point in their careers may cover a story or an event that has direct or indirect political ties (e.g. an immigration march, etc).

Journalistic integrity exists only so long as the public is confident that the journalists are OBSERVERS, not PARTICIPANTS, in the development and events of the nation - small and large. That as many people as MSNBC has identified as making thse contributions - and with an attitude that varies from the defiant "So what" to guilty "Oh shit I've been caught" - is nauseating. NAUSEATING. This is not a matter that we the people should treat lightly.
Qubes is offline  
post #40 of 88 (permalink) Old 06-23-2007, 05:17 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,926
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 597 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
Having read the list and the comments from the MSNBC article, I think the broader point is this. It's a remarkably blatant show of disregard for propriety of a JOURNALIST to make ANY contribution to a political candidate or cause.
So it's unethical for a film critic to contribute to his local congressman?

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Army to slow repairs as Congress weighs funds Jakarta Expat Off-Topic 0 04-17-2007 06:36 AM
    Journalists have no morality, PM's wife tells students - DR are you a jounalist? Jakarta Expat Off-Topic 6 11-26-2006 05:13 PM
    Journalists Wanna-B's Posting BS on BW offroadwarrior Off-Topic 22 04-29-2006 06:36 PM
    Moonies knee-deep in faith-based funds under Bush plan GeeS Off-Topic 4 10-05-2004 09:12 AM
    '03 E-class wins Automobile Journalists Association of Canada award... Drew W211 E-Class 0 11-27-2002 12:30 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome