Russell Baker: 'American press has the blues'

Russell Baker hasn't read todays Pew Poll which says 64 percent of people who read papers and go on the internet think the media has a liberal bias and that the reporters don't care about the people they report about. Also some 59 percent also think the media is biased. These are people not regularly on the internet which the Pew Poll says are not as smart as internet users.
This is way different than in the 80's when pwople respected journalists. As a guy who has a jornalism background I believe the poll.There are way too many journalists who write a DNC playbook constantly.But, according to Gallup the President is now in the 40 percentile range which is a backlash to Hil and Obama are sure fired winners that the driveby media have been spinning for the last 2 years. Also, the Dem Congress is over since they have had over 600 hearings into Bush activities but only have the mininum wage bill to show as far as legislation is concerned all the rest they passed will be vetoed by W. Right on W! Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Russell Baker typifies what is wrong with the old media. Pompous. Wrapped up in his own self-importance. Out of touch. Clueless.

He can't seem to figure out why people who know reporter's political contributions go 9-1 Democrat, and know the reporters union endorsed John Kerry in 2004, might actually think reporters are politically biased.

An as Baker slams the internet for spreading rumors, it never occurs to Baker to think "Physician, heal thyself".

It's ironic-- and sad-- that Jerry White's stupid posting is the result of Baker's contention of what has happened to the press over the past 20 years.

Bruce Whinerdyce,

Unlike you, Russell Baker probably knows which side won the American civil war.

Here's a poll on the Wingnut candidates in Iowa for you, Mr. Whinerdyce,

Some very interesting news from a poll of Republican voters recently done by the University of Iowa.

Romney topped the poll with 26.9 percent of respondents saying they intend to support him at the January caucus. He is up 10 points since the last University of Iowa poll in late March. Giuliani was well behind at 11.3 percent, down 9 points, while McCain fell an astonishing 17.7 points to 3.2 percent, putting him in sixth place...

Perhaps most surprising of all, BARACK OBAMA actually finished third as the preferred general election candidate of registered REPUBLICANS, at 6.7 percent, behind Romney (21.8 percent), and Giuliani (10 percent), but ahead of Thompson (5.2 percent) and McCain (1.8 percent).

RNC Bruce,

Do you have any idea what point you are trying to make?

Assuming for the sake of discussion you are correct about reporters contributing 9-1 "D." So what? Other than you don't like it, what is the problem? What is your point?

Is it that reporters shouldn't be allowed to participate in our democracy? Is it that more Republicans should get into journalism?

Engage your brain before you copy/paste RNC/Faux News talking points.

In Russell Baker's dream world, the mainstream media is never biased and always accurate. As the Pew poll proves, few outside the newsrooms take those claims seriously.

Has Russell Baker ever heard of the Times' own Jayson Blair? Janet malcolm? Does Rathergate and Mary Mapes ring a bell? How about TNR's Stephen Glass, or the latest mainstream media fraud, Scott Thomas Beauchamp?

Just today there was an admission of how inaccurate Baker's mainstream media can be:

"News agency Reuters has been forced to admit that footage it released last week purportedly showing Russian submersibles on the seabed of the North Pole actually came from the movie Titanic.

The images were reproduced around the world - including by the Guardian and Guardian Unlimited - alongside the story of Russia planting its flag below the North Pole on Thursday last week.

But it has now emerged that the footage actually showed two Finnish-made Mir submersibles that were employed on location filming at the scene of the wreck of the RMS Titanic ship in the north Atlantic some 10 years ago.

This footage was used in sequences in James Cameron’s 1997 blockbuster about the 1912 disaster.

The deception was only revealed after a 13-year-old Finnish schoolboy contacted a local newspaper to tell them the images looked identical to those used in the movie." (UK Guardian)

Reuters and the Guardian, caught by a 13 year old. In the old days, the days Russell Baker is nostalgic for, the media could get away with such deceptions. It can't anymore.

"Assuming for the sake of discussion you are correct about reporters contributing 9-1 "D." So what? Other than you don't like it, what is the problem? What is your point?"

The point is, Americans want balanced reporting. They are not getting it from guys like Baker or papers like the NYT.

Comments from the left-leaning blow hards here show they are just as out of touch.

Americans are voting with their wallets and not buying that crap anymore.

Comments from Baker that Americans are too stupid not to be fooled by the evil talk radio will win him no readers, and makes him sound like a whiney, petulant child.

"It has lost too much public respect"

Because people see the print media, like the NYT, as left wing.

Good riddance.

"Assuming for the sake of discussion you are correct about reporters contributing 9-1 "D." So what? Other than you don't like it, what is the problem? What is your point?"

The point is, Americans want balanced reporting. They are not getting it from guys like Baker or papers like the NYT.

Comments from the left-leaning blow hards here show they are just as out of touch.

Americans are voting with their wallets and not buying that crap anymore.

Comments from Baker that Americans are too stupid not to be fooled by the evil talk radio will win him no readers, and makes him sound like a whiney, petulant child.

"It has lost too much public respect"

Because people see the print media, like the NYT, as left wing.

Good riddance.

Posted by: Americans want balanced news | August 10, 2007 1:21 PM

The above little Wingnut sounds like he gets all of his "Fair & Balanced" info from Sean Pansey and Bill-O on Fixed News Channel.

And what is "balanced reporting?"

If one reporter says they observed that the sky is blue and the grass is green there should be an opposing story or paragraph that states the opposite?

Puleeeze!

"HITLERS MANIFEST LIVES"

THE NEWSPAPER DEMISE IS THE SAME AS IN 1941 WHEN HITLER TOOK OVER THE MEDIA WITH IMMIGRATION, ENFORCEMENT, ISOLATION OF THE PEOPLE OF A NATION.

WE ARE EXPERIENCING THE SAME THING. WE ARE A TIRED NATION, WE ARE TIRED NATION OF SECULAR LAWS. WE ARE EXPERIENCING MASS DEPRESSION REGARDING THE HYSTERIA OF ONE INCIDENT OR ONE LOSS OR ONE KIDNAPPING OR ONE MISSING PERSONS.

THE PRESSURES OF EDUCATION AND THE PRESSURES OF NOT EDUCATING THE MASSES. THE NON EDUCATION OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, THE DIFFERENCES OF GOVERNMENT BRANCHES ARE NOT TAUGHT AT ALL.

WE ARE WATCHING OUR LIVES THROUGH THE FRONT WINDOW, AS THE KITCHEN WINDOW IS GONE.

THE MEDIA IS FED BY MONETARY CONGLOMERATES THAT COULD CARE LESS ABOUT AMERICA. BOTTOM LINE.

I love all the liberals on this board attack Fox News. At least Fox news has a debate. They bring in people from both sides and let them argue it out. It may sound stupid because all they ever do is say their guy is correct even if they bashed the other side when it did the same exact thing. Its like the whole special interests. Obama/Edwards pretend they do not take special interest money but in reality they do. They just hide it thru bundles. What is the ACILU. THAT IS SPECIAL INTERESTS. Dick Durbin never had a problem with the news until Fox News came around showing the other side. When all news groups were liberal he didn't mind it. Now that the right has somewhat of a voice in FOx they have a problem with it. The reason why liberal talk radio fails is because the netwrok news channels are already giving you the liberal side of it. Reporters like Baker just hate that people are calling them out on their biases. Just read the swamp and you will see how biased reporters can be. The swamp reporters go to great lengths to try and spin every Obama negative into a positive. Sometimes it seems like they are a direct outlet of his campaign. They had stories bashing Guliani and some of his business interests, but never mentioned one word about Rezko/Obama's fake blind trust/ or the fact that Obama lied about his ties to Rezko just being as another donor. It has been preoven that Obama used his influence as a state rep to help Rezko land state and city deals, and that he hired Rezko's partners son to work for his campaign directly.

Russell Baker has to know, having worked for the New York Times, that his forecast diminution of the Times and other newspapers, is a self-inflicted wound. And the NYT is the primary assailant. As such, the Times has taken other American newspapers down with it, particularly those which used the NYT news service and its later admitted-to inaccuracies.

Liberal media bias?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26506376@N00/442463656/

"The above little Wingnut sounds like he gets all of his "Fair & Balanced" info from Sean Pansey and Bill-O on Fixed News Channel."

Both of the shows you mentioned aren't 'news' shows, They're talk/opinion shows.

Too bad you can't tell the difference.

If people aren't buying the crap the NYT puts out, where are they getting their news?

What 'news' outlets, print or TV news, have the highest ratings?

If people aren't buying papers, it isn't because of Fox News.

"If one reporter says they observed that the sky is blue and the grass is green there should be an opposing story or paragraph that states the opposite?

Puleeeze!"

Pure genius.

That's why Dems are so smart on all the issues.

They get right down to the important issues.

They know grass is green and the sky is blue.

So it's not a problem that journalists split 9-1 in favor of the Democrats? Let me put it this way: Newsrooms have complained for years that racial and ethnic minorities are underrepresented in American newsrooms.
For instance, according to the last survey conducted by
the American Society of Newspaper Editors, only 13.62 percent of reporters were "minorities." And the ASNE thinks that's a problem. In the words of David Zeeck, ASNE president:
“We have to remember that diversity isn’t just about numbers, it’s about making our news reports better. Diverse staffs lead to better journalism.”
Now, I would venture to say that if such statements are true of such variants as skin color and cultural heritage, they should also apply to ideology. Since the nation obviously doesn't split 9-1 in favor of Democrats, then it should be obvious why it would be in the best interests of the press to find a way to diversify the ideological constitution of newsrooms, just as it is in their best interests to diversify racially and culturally. It should not be about politics; it should be about a quality product that is relevant to all readers.

Both of the shows you mentioned aren't 'news' shows, They're talk/opinion shows.

Too bad you can't tell the difference.

If people aren't buying the crap the NYT puts out, where are they getting their news?

What 'news' outlets, print or TV news, have the highest ratings?

If people aren't buying papers, it isn't because of Fox News.

Posted by: Americans want balanced news | August 10, 2007 2:54 PM

Really?
Then why don't they call it Fox Opinion Channel?

Manufactured news stories about the successes in Iraq and White House plants throwing softballs to W, and you fools cry about a liberal media.

How would a liberal media have allowed us to even get close to war with Iraq?

There is NOT a liberal media in this country. It is sensationalistic, not liberal.

Try BBC.

Bubba, how did the Leftist BBC allow England to enter the war?
Bernard Goldberg, a Democrat wrote his book "Bias" 10 years ago as an insider at CBS. He had over two decades experience.
Talk radio and Fox only filled a void.

It seems to me that the response to Russell Backer's column and this blog confirms it's content. The response by Bruce and White, two radical right and perhaps financed commentators is confirmation enough.

whatnow,

The same way the non-liberal media in this country did, they cowered to the war-mongers. I'm not claiming the BBC is leftist, just nowhere near the sensationalistic Hollywood watch ratings whores that represent the MM in this country. I remember watching a BBC report just prior to the war where they couldn't find a single supporter of the war in downtown London after interviewing people the entire day. Most polls in England put public support for it around 25%. Meanwhile, the MM in this country had retired generals standing on giant maps discussing how big the bombs were going to be.

There are some equally interesting books by Eric Alterman and Noam Chomsky about the liberal media myth in this country. I would argue that Rush Limbaugh and Fox aren't filling a void based on intent. Most of the arguments about the so-called liberal media in this country are pretty baseless ie: most reporters consider themselves liberal, contribute to the DNC or are somehow related to a Dem politician. None of which has anything to do with what they report. It's more of a problem for a lot of people to come to grips with something they may not believe in even though that something is factually proven to be true. Conversely, if Fox or Rush stumble upon the truth and it is unflattering to the left, good for them. I would, however, question the intent. I don't think the MM here is intentionally trying to constantly dig up dirt on the right wing. But when they do, and it's proven to be true, it's cast off as liberal media bias.

My biggest concern is the fact that we have an administration that has been extremely secretive, has manipulated the media at every turn and has proven to be untrustworthy. As long as this precedent has been set, I can only hope that some day we actually have a liberal media.

“Really?
Then why don't they call it Fox Opinion Channel?”

Posted by John E

Probably the same reason it isn’t called the Fox Financial Channel even though they have financial shows, or the Fox Legal Channel, even though they have shows discussing legal issues, or Fox Entertainment Channel, even though they have shows on Hollywood crap.

Or maybe it’s the same reason CNN calls itself Cable NEWS Network when they have the same types of shows.

Amazing how that works, isn’t it, Forrest?

Get with D. Zook and you two brainiacs can figure out why grass is green and the sky is blue.

Sounds like RB never heard of Dylan's "Times they are a-changin'."

The times have changed and you better get used to it.

Standards? We don't need no stinkin' "standards."

Bubba, interesting straw man. What is chosen to be news also tells a story.
BTW I chose leftist because Liberals are no longer liberal.

whatnow,

There is nothing straw man about my position. Everything I mentioned above could be supported by a cursory study of the rantings of Bruce, John D or others on the subject. Fortunately, I have better things to do than re-read and re-post their nonsense.

It is possible that mainstream liberalism has lost its roots. But no more than today's conservatives are virtually unrecognizable by their predecessors.