Trusting media to 'get it right' -- Republicans wary

People used to trust the news, but since it has become a business only, that trust has fallen. As a business, it has sought to seek the sensational. None story fodder pieces such as this flag pin garbage, is one more reason people have lost trust.

Are some members of the Tribune Washington bureau looking in the mirror today?

bill r,

It's not just a business, it's Show Business. That's the problem.

Interesting...this topic shows up while I am watching Washington Journal interview editors at USA this morning.

As long as Republicans keep whining that the media isn't fair, the media will continue to spread their lies to hurt Democrats. Let's not forget the months and months the media repeated the lies that John Kerry shot himself in Vietnam and that Al Gore said he invented the internet.

As a nuclear engineer, I can assure you that the news media rarely gets both facts and perspective correct when sensationalism and fear mongering are afoot. In over 30 years of observations, I cannot recall a single instance of accurate reporting when radioactivity and/or nuclear safety issues were being presented. Most times, facts were either absent or just plain wrong. Even if the facts are correct, they are usually presented with an innuendo of unstated risk or coverup on the part of the source of the information. Therefore, I assume the press has the same credibility in presenting issues for which I may not have the expertise to discern bias, ignorance, or incompetence. If they say it's raining, I look out of the window to make sure.

Yes it is truly amazing that the Republics claim the media is to blame when their reporting of the facts don’t follow lock-step with the Republics propaganda machine. The real amazing part is that there are still (according to reports) some 29% of the American public that believe this criminal administration when they make these claims.

The corporate press pursues it's partisan self interest. If you want to see the bias, read a blog like Dailyhowler.com.

As a cyber-blogging veteran news-gathering journalistic correspondent, I am not surprised to see nuclear engineering jump into the fray. However, if I remember my high school biology correctly, isnt it proper science to support your suppositions with fact, in the tradition of Newton and Redi?
You nuclear engineers sometimes seem to display the arrogance of meterologists; "hey we say it is so, and we got a piece of paper or letters after our name that validates it, so ya better believe it."

Let me explain how us crusading journalists differ from you shrill naysayers:
We present conclusions based on what we see as FACTS
We are not afraid to cite poll numbers
We are not afraid to quote what others are saying that agrees with our conclusions
We are certainly willing to cite dates.

I am sorry I have to take you to the editorial woodshed like this, but the hickory switch of factual and integritous communication is the very backbone of one of the Amendments to the Constitution of The United States of America, the one that escapes me for the moment.

And as sure as I am sitting here, I am NOT afraid to use it!

And after you have amended your post, I better not see any references to chemical engineering, unless you are itching for a fist-fight.

Yours sincerely,
Stewy Smoot, TMD

If only all media outlets were like Fox News. They present things in a fair and balanced way. They say so themselves.

John C. Engdahl you have it right. I have seen too many errors of fact to have any confidence in what the commercial news media says. Verify before using any info from there.
Stewy Smoot, TMD, poll numbers do NOT change the laws of nature. Yes you do base conclusions on what YOU see as facts. Only problem is in most cases the so called "cyber-blogging veteran news-gathering journalistic correspondent" would not know a fact if it bit them. May be good writers and have opinions but not thorough and in too many cases have no basic understanding of things beyond so called "journalism. Editorial woodshed, you have to be kidding.

The repugnacans want their propaganda spewed back from the media verbatim. Any mention of the never ending sex scandals and corruption is considered unfair. You would think they would want the fairness doctrine back to ensure they get equal time, afterall the media is heavily biased against them right?

John C. Engdahl, Ph.D.

It's nucular... NU-CU-LAR.

Ah, were it only true that there is a liberal media bias. Truth is, the media ic controlled and programmed by the likes of Murdoch and Redstone. The connies just like to harp on this alleged media bias because the only thing they have left to motivate their fan base is outrage.

Love 'em or hate 'em, the media still enjoy approval ratings the politicos can only dream of.

I 2nd Joe:

Read DailyHowler.com

All most people want is for reporters and editors to speak the truth. We DON'T WANT 'He said, she said' reporting. This is not a question of too liberal or too conservative, but rather, getting facts correct and reporting what is important. As Dr. Engdahl pointed out, whenever we get a remotely controversial topic, the press falls back into this fake 'balanced' reporting. The purpose of reporting is to inform, yet you guys are covering stories about Obama's lapel pin! That isn't too liberal or too conservative: it's too stupid to be news!

After reading other posters remarks, it seems as though there is a general agreement that for example, the piece on Obamas pin was viewed as a non news story. Even though it had many responses to it, it seems as though it was just fodder for consumption that lead to nothing but ranting. My question is..did the reporter feel this was a piece of news, or did he feel this would just draw this kind of reaction.

I've written literally thousands of posts about immigration matters, and a good percentage of those point out lies, misleading statements, and outright propaganda from the mainstream media.

One type of biased report features farmers whining about how they can't find workers. In almost all cases the "reporters" simply act as transcriptionists and don't ask the farmers to support their claims. In fact, I'm only aware of one (1) report that actually tried to verify their claims.

Another type of report supports the DREAM Act, and almost all of those reports follow the same formula. I've even got a whole category full of such "reporting".

The only surprise is that so many people still trust the media; hopefully the percentages of those who trust the media will fall even further in the near future.

"Trusting Media To 'Get It Right' -- Republicans Wary"?

Huh?

The GOoPer's own AM hate radio and they also own their very own cable news outlet (Fixed News Channel).

They're just crying because no one believes their BS swiftboat lies anymore.

I'd like not to have any journalist-anywhere- working with the whitehouse writing stories and pushing a war based on lies.

Even good journalism has some degree of an angle. Just make sure to always have high waders on.

Actually, it's inaccurate to report that Republicans don't trust the media.

Republicans have the utmost faith that the Swamp and the rest of the mainstream media has been, is, and will continue to be the church bulletin of the American left.

Republicans trust the media to be what it is--biased left, and inaccurate.

Speaking of liberal media bias, here's a nice bit in which prominent Beltway reporters admit they'll report the bad news from Iraq, but not the good news. From Howard Kurtz's program:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/07/journalists-tell-howard-kurtz-why-good-news-iraq-shouldn-t-get-report

Bruce:

Which you quoted from a right wing news blog. And upon reading the actual quotes - not the part in bold - they do not show that the reporters would not report good news. They had it right - we have been told so many times by this administration how great things are that it has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Tell me Brucey - why should we believe YOUR sources, but not when Media Matters is cited?

"Republicans have the utmost faith that the Swamp and the rest of the mainstream media has been, is, and will continue to be the church bulletin of the American left."

Posted by: Bruce | October 8, 2007 2:01 PM

Brucey:

If you are getting your news from The Swamp, you are obviously in need of help. The Swamp is for us to COMMENT on the news of the day - it is NOT a news column. We get the views of the Trib writers of these events. Then we all get to comment on those events - even neo-nut jobs like you, Johnny D., Paolo, JD and the rest of your ilk.

The media is currently biased to the left, but this will change, we just need the left to come into power. People are inherently distrustful of power and therefore like to here how evil/stupid/etc those in power are. For years the Reps have been in power, but with a sea change expect to see more hating on the dems.

Also, News isn't news, it's ratings garnering sensationalism.

If there's a problem with the media, it's that they lack the guts to expose republicans for the evil they represent.

The US needs Woodward & Bernstein style reporting again.

Krugman has an interesting take on the topic:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/what-i-hate-about-political-coverage/

The great thing is, readers don't even have to leave this computer screen to see Swamp bias. The Swamp has a special Obama icon on the right side of this screen, proclaiming the "Obama Watch". No other candidate has this icon--not the leading candidates (Giuliani and Clinton), not the candidates who (like Obama) are 33 points down in the latest poll.

And yet Swamp reporters express some surprise that readers view them as biased....

Everybody, even the leftnuts who post comments here, knows that Swamp reporters focus on their favorite party, the Democrats, almost exclusively. The lefties approve of he left-wing biased reporting, while the conservatives want more balance.

Bruce... Are you saying we need a Huckabee watch?

Everybody, even the leftnuts who post comments here, knows that Swamp reporters focus on their favorite party, the Democrats, almost exclusively. The lefties approve of he left-wing biased reporting, while the conservatives want more balance.

Posted by: Bruce | October 8, 2007 6:07 PM

Quit your whining Robot.
All you ever do is cry and spread propaganda.

Huckabee watch. Now there's an idea.

Posted by: Bruce | October 8, 2007 6:07 PM

Mr. Roboto,

The only posters on here who complain about The Swamp are you and Lil Johnny Pizza D'livery boy.

Everybody, even the leftnuts who post comments here, knows that Swamp reporters focus on their favorite party, the Democrats, almost exclusively. The lefties approve of he left-wing biased reporting, while the conservatives want more balance.

Some people live their lives in a constant state of denial.

"The great thing is, readers don't even have to leave this computer screen to see Swamp bias. The Swamp has a special Obama icon on the right side of this screen, proclaiming the "Obama Watch". No other candidate has this icon."

Posted by: Bruce | October 8, 2007 6:07 PM

Bruce didn't you stop to think that Obama is an Illinois Senator, and because of this fact may be of special interest to Tribune readers? You may now go back to drinking the Kool-Aid.

It's funny listening to idiots like anonymous who claim to 'want more balance'.

Oh yeah, the radio airwaves are filled with liberal voices; we have a liberal network just like Faux News; the mainstream media is all owned by George Soros, not GE or Disney; and newspapers are not owned by corporate media giants.

The stupidity burns. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

I got my minor in Journalism at Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism. We were taught to report objectively and to get quotes to ascertain the truth. We were told opinion only belonged on the editorial page but, as I have witnessed over 50 some years the driveby media puts opinions in everything. The liberal Associated Press is just that liberal. I wish we could trust the media again but, the newsrooms are full of Democraats and liberals. Jerry White, Springfield, IL