talkpolitics | Journalism, Cuomo and reality

Entry tags:

journalism

Journalism, Cuomo and reality

I'm gonna go ahead and do a little crowd-sourcing for my info!

I recently watched a TED-talk about how there is no such thing as objective journalism. (source) He discusses how the history of journalism and how it's always been about selling the most papers and making that money and who gives a fuck if it's true!

Well, OK. So after I watched that, I went ahead and browsed some news headlines. I saw one that caught my eye, primarily, cause it seemed very much at odds with what I would expect. Here's the headline:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo says gun-loving pro-lifers not welcome in New York, right explodes

As a NYer, this seemed very very odd. Gov Cuomo is a pretty shrewd politician and this year he is up for re-election. It's a not private secret that Cuomo might eye the 2016 nod for President, so he totally wants to be a sitting Gov for that--looks better to the voters and all.

So why the hell would Cuomo alienate two big voting blocks in an election year? NYC might be super-liberal, but upstate NY is kinda rednecky. They love their guns and lotta folks hate on abortion. So what gives Herr Gov?

Well, as I read the article (found here source ) it seemed odder and odder, but I mean, it's possible he said such things. So I go ahead and click on the video link that you will see on that website. It's not actually video, just a still picture while some audio plays. This is unfortunate. I must admit here I have not heard Gov. Cuomo make many speeches. None in person and only bits here and there from his State of the State or whatnot. But as I listened to the embeded audio I became more and more skeptical that this voice was the voice of Andrew Cuomo. (The article already lost some credibility when in the first line it said his name was "Gov. Chris Cuomo")

I'm about ready to reject the entire so-called news story. I don't want to believe that they made the entire thing up--but I really don't see much choice. I went and found a video with audio of Cuomo talking (I do know what the guy looks like!) and the voice and cadence don't seem to mesh with the voice of the fellow who is alienating pro-life, pro-gun voters.

I am willing to be wrong.
A) Do any of you think that Cuomo did make such comments? Why?
B) If Cuomo did make such comments, I gotta lose some respect for his political prowess (not that he's my favorite politician, but I did at least think he knew what he was doing, even if I didn't like what he was doing) cause it seems really dumb to make those sorts of statements in an election year. Do any of you see his comments in a different light?
C) Objective journalism might not exist; but we can all agree that news isn't news if its totally false, right? Then it's just fiction? And while journalism may be heavily editorialized it should at least have some grounding in fact, otherwise, it's like Glenn Beck's chalkboard--worthless.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Your analysis of whether or not a journalist is "ideologically biased" seems to take an unusual tack. You seem to judge yourself "impartial" and everyone else by that metric. The farther away the lean from you puts them in your ideological brackets. If they don't lean very far at all, they are likewise "objective."

Not really, no. More about not letting ideology shade their reporting. It's pretty cut and dry.

It's not uncommon, but it leads to silliness, like Jake Tapper being "objective" rather than as he is, stridently conservative

So where's the evidence?

Maybe you should read it again. Remember the part of the book with Jefferson and Hamilton funding different outlets?

I do. The paper Freneau was hired to take care of was designed specifically to counter the existing Gazette of the United States, which, if I remember correctly, was quite favorable to Washington. This is not evidence that money is what influenced Freneau, because Freneau was already on their side. Ideas didn't follow the money, money followed the ideas.

Does ideology 'shading the reporting' make it wrong if the facts are the facts? Some present the facts differently than others, and make different conclusions, but if the source of the reporting is legit, is there really a problem who panders to what corporate overlords?

Does ideology 'shading the reporting' make it wrong if the facts are the facts?

To a point. If the facts are facts but you're ignoring other facts, for example, it's an ideological problem, often unconscious. If the facts are facts, but you're taking a very specific angle on it that ends up misleading the reader or missing a more substantial point, it's an ideological problem, again often unconscious.

The issue I'm talking about, at least, is not the journalists that don't adhere to facts. We should discard them as we would anyone else in that regard. The issue are the journalists who miss the boat, who angle stories a certain way, who don't ask the right questions of the right people.

Who knows the answers to all these things? You?

Anyone can if they put the work in.

Okay, but not you.

If you say so.

I'm just saying you're not quite the unbiased observer you make yourself out to be. Whenever you say someone 'gets it wrong', you usually have nothing to back it up but vague colloquialisms like "missed the boat" and "doesn't pass the smell test."

Well, you're not being honest right now. I have my biases, but my point is that anyone, myself included, is able to look at the facts of something and come to a conclusion.

Whereas you routinely shoot down investigative journalism via guilt-by-association. The number of sources you've hand-waved away is astronomical.

Edited 2014-01-22 08:03 (UTC)

Well, not "waved away," but actually tossed aside for good reason. I'm sorry I have standards.

Having "standards" is not the same as having good standards.

Agreed. Thus my railing against bad sources for information.

Thus your railing against sources that are inconvenient to your preconceived and, as past experience has consistently shown, highly partisan narrative.

Well, when you align your positions with good sources, that tends to happen. Sources that are "inconvenient" also happen to be ones that consistently make things up.

As past experience has shown.

Well, as past experience has shown, no source would ever put a dent in your stone-carved deeply partisan preconceptions, regardless of the nature and essence of said source.

The only true sources are the ones that you approve, because you can't ever be wrong, only everyone else can be wrong - and your only mistake is giving them too much credit. Amirite?

Edited 2014-01-22 20:59 (UTC)

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2014-01-22 21:31 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

luzribeiro.livejournal.com - 2014-01-23 07:01 (UTC) - Expand

"Good reason" normally being where the source is hosted, who wrote it, and of course as I said before, it not passing the 'smell test'.

Are you saying that outlets and reporters that do not have a reputation for accuracy should be accepted anyway?

If that was all you were dismissing... It seems that you've thrown out everything peristaltor(sp?) has ever offered you, and he's not exactly giving you motherjones.net.

I wish he was giving me Moter Jones, at least they have standards. His sources are terrible.

I rest my case. It's actually impossible to find a source that backs up a viewpoint you don't support. Prove me wrong.

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2014-01-24 12:42 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

kylinrouge.livejournal.com - 2014-01-24 21:36 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2014-01-24 22:06 (UTC) - Expand

Not really, no. More about not letting ideology shade their reporting. It's pretty cut and dry.

Really, yes. It's not at all "cut and dry" (sic).

Ideology shades all of us, whether we let it or not. And

kylinrouge asks an important question about facts. As long as the facts are present and interpreted correctly (ie., not twisted horribly to become completely wrong, ala Brit Hume), the reporting should not be dismissed.

So where's the evidence?

I was unaware that I needed to rehash old news any time someone trivially drops a glove. I've got an email into a friend who might have the particular articles that come to mind, so we'll see.

Ideas didn't follow the money, money followed the ideas.

That's how it starts; how much the ideas follow the money, though, quite often depends upon the amount of money at stake. This is beyond obvious, it seems, to anyone with whom I've ever discussed this issue . . . except you. You are, sir, a complete outlier, a money apologist/denier.

As Freneau wrote:

The sun's in the west,
And I am opprest,
With fellows attempting to blacken my muse,
Who hardly have genius to blacken my shoes.

As long as the facts are present and interpreted correctly (ie., not twisted horribly to become completely wrong, ala Brit Hume), the reporting should not be dismissed.

The key words are "present and interpreted correctly." My reply to him details that a bit more.

This is beyond obvious, it seems, to anyone with whom I've ever discussed this issue . . . except you. You are, sir, a complete outlier, a money apologist/denier.

Being governed by evidence has its benefits, I suppose. The claims have never held water.

The issue I'm talking about, at least, is not the journalists that don't adhere to facts. We should discard them as we would anyone else in that regard.

Ah, I'm glad we cleared that up. I expect once I find the article outlining Tapper's mendacity, then you will discard him as quickly as Media Matters.

Right?

As to being governed by evidence, I wonder if you've ever tried the experiment where you tie performance to pay. It's ongoing today, and has quite robust results.

Ah, I'm glad we cleared that up. I expect once I find the article outlining Tapper's mendacity, then you will discard him as quickly as Media Matters.

Right?

Assuming it's true, yes.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only