This article is textbook for what NOT to do when writing a supposedly unbiased article. I have to wonder, did the writer do this or was it the editor? And if it was the writer, why did the editor not fix it before it was posted?
The thing is, I could take this paragraph by paragraph and point out MULTIPLE words, phrases and ways in which a BIAS is shown. How many people that read the article will even notice it?
That’s the difference between journalism and propaganda and it doesn’t have to be intentional, it can just be as sloppy as a slobbering bulldog.
Every body has a bias and in one way or another, yes there was a bias in that article.
I miss that interview perhaps because I seldom watch Fox, LOL one comment said he should have gone O’Reilly. I did watch the interview that O’Reilly and then Senator Obama did and it was much more a civil interview.
On a related subject, people often have what I call “Hearing problems” they already know and expect to hear when it comes to other people they will disagree with.
Fox is often guilt of that and spout what they heard from that Point of view.
Some of the hosts on MSNBC I notice does the same thing, David and Lawrence are the worst offenders there.
A simply word or phrase such as hello can be taken as obnoxious and offensive in the meaning.
Can be taken as insincere if coming from someone you dislike.
I wrote a story about a woman who so suspected men and was a female sexist.
That no matter what was said if it was a male she hear something totally different than what was said.
I understand that everyone has a bias. What I object to is the fact that journalists are supposed to be trained and work hard to elimate their bias from their stories. And the second line of defense is supposed to be the editor. If the editor sees the bias that the writer accidentally missed, the editor is supposed to fix it.
Often there is NO attempt anymore and I am beginning to wonder if they go out of their way to BE BIASED. This story was written by AP which is supposed to be one of the most respected international news sources. If this is the type of shoddy propaganda they are putting out, journalism is dead.
Paula, are all stories carrying the “AP” designation written by AP writers? I thought some were picked up from original sources and added to the AP news wire. I’m probably wrong, but don’t know — thus the question.
This article sounds to me like it was written by someone who was attempting to ‘slant’ the ‘news’ in the direction they wanted. It seemed the Fox interviewer, Bret Baier, didn’t control the conversation to the extent he wanted so was given some help by the writer and editor behind this story.
It probably wouldn’t have mattered what President Obama said. Sides have been picked and truth isn’t being sought, only support for the ‘side’ previously chosen. When you listen to frightened and complaining Republicans the one thing you can count on is their hate for President Obama. They spit out outlandish screaming of all things we should be afraid of with no details and no basis in facts, just fear and hate.
You are absolutely right,. The truth isn’t being sought, just this game of “sides”–and our media is propounding on the problem by encouraging it with propaganda written to support the idea that there are only two sides–republican and democrat, or liberal and conservative, or for Obama or against, etc.
It is little wonder that those who primarily get their news from so-called “mainstream media outlets” parrot this dichotomy that has been constructed and supported by the systems in place.
I remember growing up that my parents always read the paper, Newsweek and Time. I picked up the same habits by the time I was a teenager and thought that made us all well-informed. All it does now is make you part of the problem.
What is interesting is that most of the Republicans’ arguments now are about process, not content. They don’t like the idea of a straight-up-or-down vote in the Senate (which is what budget reconciliation forces) while at the same time demanding a straight up-or-down vote in the House. There are the usual comments about this bill being the start of socialism (which clearly it is not since veterans were given government medical care starting in 1917 and Medicare socialized insurance for seniors in 1965) but it is clearly beginning to dawn on opponents of the bill that at this point the Democrats are going to fight to the death to get this bill through in one form or another. Thus their desperate attempts to stop it at all costs. For both sides, Armageddon is here and now.
A couple of days ago there were two Republicans that said that they liked and supported the individual items in the bill. But objected to it taking over two thousand pages to list it.
Amazing! Not objecting to the contents and agreeing with the contents but objecting to the number of pages!
If you’re not particularly an animal lover, maybe stopping to consider that every person you interact with may be facing difficult times and a smile is a great gift!
Health care reform would reduce our deficit and Republicans know if that happens, their party will not see the White House for years.
You see, Republicans need and want Obama to fail (several prominent Republicans have already stated their desire to see Obama fail).
Republicans don’t like it when the entire country prospers – they prefer to keep the economic classes fighting. Reagan started the war on the middle class and George W. Bush nearly completed the job.
And let’s not forget – Reagam proved deficits don’t matter. If it is okay for the Gipper, it is okay with me – NOT.
“The conservative Democrat dismissed the action by the White House saying, “When I’m drafting right to life language, I don’t call up the nuns.” He says he instead confers with other groups including “leading bishops, Focus on the Family, and The National Right to Life Committee.”
I would like to know why ANY politician is consulting with religious leaders in the drafting of legislative language. Since when do we codify the beliefs of any religion?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…
If there are religious beliefs in our laws, then Congress is making laws that establish the religion that believes them. I wish we still lived in a country that REALLY believed in what the framers wrote in the Constitution.
And I find it particularly interesting that Stupak would consult with MEN rather than WOMEN on the subject of abortion when it is abundantly clear that the responsibility for raising children in this society falls mainly on the shoulders of women. It shouldn’t surprise me because this follows the precedent of every so-called “right to life” group I’ve ever heard of. If that doesn’t prove that anti-abortion activists are SEXIST, nothing does. But the condescension in the tone of his answer speaks volumes for the kind of man Stupak is–a woman hater.
I believe that all these anti-abortion types need to start ponying up some extra dough to take care of all of the poor children that they are foisting on this country.
After all, if poor women, who are the ones least financially able to care for children, are forced to have children because they lack coverage or access to abortion services, then those that are preventing them from accessing or being able to afford those services should take RESPONSIBILITY for the laws that have cornered these women into having children they can’t afford.
The abortion issue is not a black and white issue – in my opinion.
The anti-abortionists seem to think that just because they make abortions illegal, again – that magically no more abortions will be performed.
I agree, Paula, that these very same folks need to pony up and take responsibility – but that just won’t happen in their black and white world.
I am in the middle of this abortion debate – like I think most Americans are currently.
I would like to see the need for less abortions performed.
I would like to see my government’s policies changed to benefit everyone – not just those lucky few wealthy and well-connected persons or corporations to get all the benefits.
I would like to see our country be geared towards strengthening its people and that means strengthening families – no matter what type of family that might be – heterosexual couple, homosexual couple, single or married – I don’t care what type of family it is.
The one thing in life that every human being needs is the feeling of ‘belonging’. And we have way too many Americans who are not in that position.
But as long as we have people who believe that just because there is a law making something illegal – then all is well.
Life is not black and white – there is a lot of gray areas and life is messy. The success of life is how we handle those gray areas.
Unfortunately, alot of those anti-abortionists are church people who go to their golden monuments, give their money (tax free of course) and then they get to feel superior to the ‘other’ person over there – that does not follow the same church routine. These people rarely go out of their social church circle to see how real life can be. They are unwilling to put themselves into that ‘other’ person’s shoes.
I would hope that every woman would want to keep her baby but I know that is not going to happen. And the government has no place to be telling women what to do.
I agree with you on most everything you said, Indy. I think that the root of it is that the government doesn’t have the right to tell women what to do.
I can’t stand to see people suffer. It physically hurts me. I would rather a woman not bring a fetus to term and bring another unwanted child into the world than to have to hear the story of the child’s suffering later. Such childen often die of neglect and abuse; is that preferable to never having been born? So I am pro abortion. Which I wouldn’t have said just three years ago. I would have used the preferred term of Pro Choice.
People have to stop judging the procedure of abortion through religious terms and start seeing it as a medical procedure like joint replacement or heart surgery that increases the quality of life of the person on whom it is being performed and their families’ quality of life and therefore the quality of society. I know to some that sounds cold because we are so used to looking at a fetus as a child–which it is not.
You are so right about the need to belong and feel wanted. I wish EVERY child was treated in such a way that they felt wanted and like they belonged. It is a sad fact that they aren’t. (And an ironic fact that the so-called pro lifers I have known have children that feel the least-loved and wanted of any children I know.)
PrairiePopulistsAndProgressives.net 
This article is textbook for what NOT to do when writing a supposedly unbiased article. I have to wonder, did the writer do this or was it the editor? And if it was the writer, why did the editor not fix it before it was posted?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_fox_news
The thing is, I could take this paragraph by paragraph and point out MULTIPLE words, phrases and ways in which a BIAS is shown. How many people that read the article will even notice it?
That’s the difference between journalism and propaganda and it doesn’t have to be intentional, it can just be as sloppy as a slobbering bulldog.
Every body has a bias and in one way or another, yes there was a bias in that article.
I miss that interview perhaps because I seldom watch Fox, LOL one comment said he should have gone O’Reilly. I did watch the interview that O’Reilly and then Senator Obama did and it was much more a civil interview.
On a related subject, people often have what I call “Hearing problems” they already know and expect to hear when it comes to other people they will disagree with.
Fox is often guilt of that and spout what they heard from that Point of view.
Some of the hosts on MSNBC I notice does the same thing, David and Lawrence are the worst offenders there.
A simply word or phrase such as hello can be taken as obnoxious and offensive in the meaning.
Can be taken as insincere if coming from someone you dislike.
I wrote a story about a woman who so suspected men and was a female sexist.
That no matter what was said if it was a male she hear something totally different than what was said.
I understand that everyone has a bias. What I object to is the fact that journalists are supposed to be trained and work hard to elimate their bias from their stories. And the second line of defense is supposed to be the editor. If the editor sees the bias that the writer accidentally missed, the editor is supposed to fix it.
Often there is NO attempt anymore and I am beginning to wonder if they go out of their way to BE BIASED. This story was written by AP which is supposed to be one of the most respected international news sources. If this is the type of shoddy propaganda they are putting out, journalism is dead.
Paula, are all stories carrying the “AP” designation written by AP writers? I thought some were picked up from original sources and added to the AP news wire. I’m probably wrong, but don’t know — thus the question.
This article sounds to me like it was written by someone who was attempting to ‘slant’ the ‘news’ in the direction they wanted. It seemed the Fox interviewer, Bret Baier, didn’t control the conversation to the extent he wanted so was given some help by the writer and editor behind this story.
Bier used the same tactic as Mathews does, ask the question and as soon as the answer starts to come.
Start babbling and talking over the answer, it is a distraction from the answer and the only thing that the listener hears it the babble.
Then claim that the person did not answer the question.
It probably wouldn’t have mattered what President Obama said. Sides have been picked and truth isn’t being sought, only support for the ‘side’ previously chosen. When you listen to frightened and complaining Republicans the one thing you can count on is their hate for President Obama. They spit out outlandish screaming of all things we should be afraid of with no details and no basis in facts, just fear and hate.
You are absolutely right,. The truth isn’t being sought, just this game of “sides”–and our media is propounding on the problem by encouraging it with propaganda written to support the idea that there are only two sides–republican and democrat, or liberal and conservative, or for Obama or against, etc.
It is little wonder that those who primarily get their news from so-called “mainstream media outlets” parrot this dichotomy that has been constructed and supported by the systems in place.
I remember growing up that my parents always read the paper, Newsweek and Time. I picked up the same habits by the time I was a teenager and thought that made us all well-informed. All it does now is make you part of the problem.
I meant “compounding” on the problem. (sorry –this is what comes of writing too many discovery requests)
A chart listing who’s who with regard to the vote on health-care reform.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/16/us/politics/20100316-health-care-dems.html?hp
What is interesting is that most of the Republicans’ arguments now are about process, not content. They don’t like the idea of a straight-up-or-down vote in the Senate (which is what budget reconciliation forces) while at the same time demanding a straight up-or-down vote in the House. There are the usual comments about this bill being the start of socialism (which clearly it is not since veterans were given government medical care starting in 1917 and Medicare socialized insurance for seniors in 1965) but it is clearly beginning to dawn on opponents of the bill that at this point the Democrats are going to fight to the death to get this bill through in one form or another. Thus their desperate attempts to stop it at all costs. For both sides, Armageddon is here and now.
A couple of days ago there were two Republicans that said that they liked and supported the individual items in the bill. But objected to it taking over two thousand pages to list it.
Amazing! Not objecting to the contents and agreeing with the contents but objecting to the number of pages!
For animal lovers —
If you’re not particularly an animal lover, maybe stopping to consider that every person you interact with may be facing difficult times and a smile is a great gift!
What a wonderful way to deliver that lesson! Thanks, fnord!!
It IS always good to remember that people besides ourselves are also facing difficult times.
CBO: Health bill would reduce deficit by $138B
Analysts say the legislation would cut the federal deficit by more than $138 billion over the next decade and $1.2 trillion 10 years after that.
Maybe that is the problem David?
Health care reform would reduce our deficit and Republicans know if that happens, their party will not see the White House for years.
You see, Republicans need and want Obama to fail (several prominent Republicans have already stated their desire to see Obama fail).
Republicans don’t like it when the entire country prospers – they prefer to keep the economic classes fighting. Reagan started the war on the middle class and George W. Bush nearly completed the job.
And let’s not forget – Reagam proved deficits don’t matter. If it is okay for the Gipper, it is okay with me – NOT.
http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/17/rep-stupak-dismisses-letter-from-nuns/
“The conservative Democrat dismissed the action by the White House saying, “When I’m drafting right to life language, I don’t call up the nuns.” He says he instead confers with other groups including “leading bishops, Focus on the Family, and The National Right to Life Committee.”
I would like to know why ANY politician is consulting with religious leaders in the drafting of legislative language. Since when do we codify the beliefs of any religion?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…
If there are religious beliefs in our laws, then Congress is making laws that establish the religion that believes them. I wish we still lived in a country that REALLY believed in what the framers wrote in the Constitution.
And I find it particularly interesting that Stupak would consult with MEN rather than WOMEN on the subject of abortion when it is abundantly clear that the responsibility for raising children in this society falls mainly on the shoulders of women. It shouldn’t surprise me because this follows the precedent of every so-called “right to life” group I’ve ever heard of. If that doesn’t prove that anti-abortion activists are SEXIST, nothing does. But the condescension in the tone of his answer speaks volumes for the kind of man Stupak is–a woman hater.
I believe that all these anti-abortion types need to start ponying up some extra dough to take care of all of the poor children that they are foisting on this country.
After all, if poor women, who are the ones least financially able to care for children, are forced to have children because they lack coverage or access to abortion services, then those that are preventing them from accessing or being able to afford those services should take RESPONSIBILITY for the laws that have cornered these women into having children they can’t afford.
The abortion issue is not a black and white issue – in my opinion.
The anti-abortionists seem to think that just because they make abortions illegal, again – that magically no more abortions will be performed.
I agree, Paula, that these very same folks need to pony up and take responsibility – but that just won’t happen in their black and white world.
I am in the middle of this abortion debate – like I think most Americans are currently.
I would like to see the need for less abortions performed.
I would like to see my government’s policies changed to benefit everyone – not just those lucky few wealthy and well-connected persons or corporations to get all the benefits.
I would like to see our country be geared towards strengthening its people and that means strengthening families – no matter what type of family that might be – heterosexual couple, homosexual couple, single or married – I don’t care what type of family it is.
The one thing in life that every human being needs is the feeling of ‘belonging’. And we have way too many Americans who are not in that position.
But as long as we have people who believe that just because there is a law making something illegal – then all is well.
Life is not black and white – there is a lot of gray areas and life is messy. The success of life is how we handle those gray areas.
Unfortunately, alot of those anti-abortionists are church people who go to their golden monuments, give their money (tax free of course) and then they get to feel superior to the ‘other’ person over there – that does not follow the same church routine. These people rarely go out of their social church circle to see how real life can be. They are unwilling to put themselves into that ‘other’ person’s shoes.
I would hope that every woman would want to keep her baby but I know that is not going to happen. And the government has no place to be telling women what to do.
I agree with you on most everything you said, Indy. I think that the root of it is that the government doesn’t have the right to tell women what to do.
I can’t stand to see people suffer. It physically hurts me. I would rather a woman not bring a fetus to term and bring another unwanted child into the world than to have to hear the story of the child’s suffering later. Such childen often die of neglect and abuse; is that preferable to never having been born? So I am pro abortion. Which I wouldn’t have said just three years ago. I would have used the preferred term of Pro Choice.
People have to stop judging the procedure of abortion through religious terms and start seeing it as a medical procedure like joint replacement or heart surgery that increases the quality of life of the person on whom it is being performed and their families’ quality of life and therefore the quality of society. I know to some that sounds cold because we are so used to looking at a fetus as a child–which it is not.
You are so right about the need to belong and feel wanted. I wish EVERY child was treated in such a way that they felt wanted and like they belonged. It is a sad fact that they aren’t. (And an ironic fact that the so-called pro lifers I have known have children that feel the least-loved and wanted of any children I know.)