The New York Times has gone beyond “drew criticism” and has actually said “is sure to draw criticism” and “is sure to revive criticism that …” Literally declaring in advance what the result of their reporting will be, not waiting for any actual response from anyone, and yet another example of something they never, ever do with information that could be damaging to Republicans.
But then again, we’ve always known that Both Sides doesn’t really mean Both Sides.
IMO there's an unwritten parenthetical in those statements that goes something like this: " . . . is sure to draw criticism (from you hypercritical liberal types who think we should be the Democratic Party's press office)."
I particularly like the distinction between anonymously cited facts and anonymously cited opinions. The first can be checked, at least when time passes after a source says "X is considering." Eventually we will know what X decided--or X can deny he is considering the issue. Anonymously cited opinions just tell us someone thinks something--a not unusual event, unless X really is brain-dead or at least brain-worm eaten.
I think the reporting on the Gaza protests are a maddening example of use of "people in the know." We are left with the impression that all protestors are antisemitic because "some students" have reported antisemitic incidents. What incidents? What happened? Who did it? Was it really antisemitic or just interpreted that way? There have been few concrete examples.
Reporting on the Gaza protests has been driving me nuts. The accompanying photos also seem to focus often on a older-than-college-age guy wearing a kuffiyeh. And of course a photo of someone yelling is more dramatic than a group of students sitting in a circle discussing something. Hmm -- maybe there's a corollary to "if it bleeds, it leads"? How about "if it yells, it sells"?
And of course the photo of someone yelling identifies that person, so what they were yelling and whether it should be met with arrest/expulsion can be investigated. It looks like most of those are not being thus investigated. One has been, sort of--so far the only report on the "monkey motion" counter-protestor at Ol'Miss is that his fraternity has expelled him.
"When a news organization’s reporting is making a politician or party look bad, the news outlet often jumps at the chance to overplay anything that makes the other side look bad so the news org appears unbiased. Republicans benefit from this since they’re more corrupt these days."
"It’s possible the campaign did multiple polls and shared only the one that made the candidate look good. My best advice to consumers of political news is this: Ignore the horse-race polls. When the people on TV start talking about polls, go make yourself a sandwich."
I’m happy to admit that I don’t put any effort whatsoever into performative neutrality. Media on the right has skewed everything, if moderate, and the left try to screw neutral, the right will prevail at the expense of the American experiment. Plus they are flat wrong about 95% of the time.
Totally agree. Another thing that vexes me, is when reporters refer to “experts”. By whose standards are they experts? Why should we trust their opinions?
I ask all journalism schools incorporate this into their Journalism 101 classes. Existing 'fact checker
organizations can adopt these yardsticks. I would modify the 12 reasons into 10, so it corresponds with the Ten Commandments for dealing with political news coverage in today's messy media,
It drives me crazy when people working for government institutions -- whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers -- insist on being described as a "spokesperson" without their name being used.
Thank you for pointing these out. Hopefully I won't see these too much in my media consumption. Although, it'll probably be like a version of the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon where I'll see them everywhere now...
"Polls say" should HAVE to be accompanied by the information:
Who developed the poll?
What were the questions on the poll, and HOW were they ASKED?
How and 'where' was the poll distributed?
What do OTHER polls say?
I've been selected for a political poll twice in my life...I refused to participate in either of them...Here's a metric for when a poll is either poorly put together via incompetence vs deliberately:
If you feel the need to add information or caveats to a 'yes/no question on a poll, you're PROBABLY being used for nefarious purposes
The New York Times has gone beyond “drew criticism” and has actually said “is sure to draw criticism” and “is sure to revive criticism that …” Literally declaring in advance what the result of their reporting will be, not waiting for any actual response from anyone, and yet another example of something they never, ever do with information that could be damaging to Republicans.
But then again, we’ve always known that Both Sides doesn’t really mean Both Sides.
Well stated.
IMO there's an unwritten parenthetical in those statements that goes something like this: " . . . is sure to draw criticism (from you hypercritical liberal types who think we should be the Democratic Party's press office)."
Zactly...And it's not us liberal's fault that the truth has a liberal bias
I particularly like the distinction between anonymously cited facts and anonymously cited opinions. The first can be checked, at least when time passes after a source says "X is considering." Eventually we will know what X decided--or X can deny he is considering the issue. Anonymously cited opinions just tell us someone thinks something--a not unusual event, unless X really is brain-dead or at least brain-worm eaten.
I think the reporting on the Gaza protests are a maddening example of use of "people in the know." We are left with the impression that all protestors are antisemitic because "some students" have reported antisemitic incidents. What incidents? What happened? Who did it? Was it really antisemitic or just interpreted that way? There have been few concrete examples.
Reporting on the Gaza protests has been driving me nuts. The accompanying photos also seem to focus often on a older-than-college-age guy wearing a kuffiyeh. And of course a photo of someone yelling is more dramatic than a group of students sitting in a circle discussing something. Hmm -- maybe there's a corollary to "if it bleeds, it leads"? How about "if it yells, it sells"?
And of course the photo of someone yelling identifies that person, so what they were yelling and whether it should be met with arrest/expulsion can be investigated. It looks like most of those are not being thus investigated. One has been, sort of--so far the only report on the "monkey motion" counter-protestor at Ol'Miss is that his fraternity has expelled him.
Two major ones:
"When a news organization’s reporting is making a politician or party look bad, the news outlet often jumps at the chance to overplay anything that makes the other side look bad so the news org appears unbiased. Republicans benefit from this since they’re more corrupt these days."
"It’s possible the campaign did multiple polls and shared only the one that made the candidate look good. My best advice to consumers of political news is this: Ignore the horse-race polls. When the people on TV start talking about polls, go make yourself a sandwich."
Thank you for this.
I’m happy to admit that I don’t put any effort whatsoever into performative neutrality. Media on the right has skewed everything, if moderate, and the left try to screw neutral, the right will prevail at the expense of the American experiment. Plus they are flat wrong about 95% of the time.
"performative neutrality."
^^^^
bingo
Totally agree. Another thing that vexes me, is when reporters refer to “experts”. By whose standards are they experts? Why should we trust their opinions?
I ask all journalism schools incorporate this into their Journalism 101 classes. Existing 'fact checker
organizations can adopt these yardsticks. I would modify the 12 reasons into 10, so it corresponds with the Ten Commandments for dealing with political news coverage in today's messy media,
Add to anonymous point: Using the name of an organization as a source but keeping members’ names anonymous.
It drives me crazy when people working for government institutions -- whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers -- insist on being described as a "spokesperson" without their name being used.
Thank you for pointing these out. Hopefully I won't see these too much in my media consumption. Although, it'll probably be like a version of the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon where I'll see them everywhere now...
"12. It’s OK to say no to polls"
hand's down my fave pick of the litter...
"Some people are saying" simply ISN'T 'news'
"Polls say" should HAVE to be accompanied by the information:
Who developed the poll?
What were the questions on the poll, and HOW were they ASKED?
How and 'where' was the poll distributed?
What do OTHER polls say?
I've been selected for a political poll twice in my life...I refused to participate in either of them...Here's a metric for when a poll is either poorly put together via incompetence vs deliberately:
If you feel the need to add information or caveats to a 'yes/no question on a poll, you're PROBABLY being used for nefarious purposes