<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Big Media Blogosphere</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.enlightenedredneck.com/2009/01/08/the-big-media-blogosphere/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.enlightenedredneck.com/2009/01/08/the-big-media-blogosphere/</link>
	<description>West Virginian By Birth, Redneck By Choice</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:50:49 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: The Enlightened Redneck &#187; Joe The War Correspondent? Bad Idea</title>
		<link>http://www.enlightenedredneck.com/2009/01/08/the-big-media-blogosphere/#comment-127</link>
		<dc:creator>The Enlightened Redneck &#187; Joe The War Correspondent? Bad Idea</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 04:56:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.enlightenedredneck.com/?p=537#comment-127</guid>
		<description>[...] hate even more seeing new media innovators like PJTV follow their lousy lead. As I said yesterday, everything new media is old again.  addthis_url = [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] hate even more seeing new media innovators like PJTV follow their lousy lead. As I said yesterday, everything new media is old again.  addthis_url = [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danny Glover</title>
		<link>http://www.enlightenedredneck.com/2009/01/08/the-big-media-blogosphere/#comment-124</link>
		<dc:creator>Danny Glover</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:28:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.enlightenedredneck.com/?p=537#comment-124</guid>
		<description>I could dedicate an entire book to answering that question myself, Tom. :))) The short answer is yes, I see philosophical slants by news organizations all the time.

The slant is usually subtle -- the stories journalists choose to report and the ones they choose to ignore, the loaded adjectives they use in their writing, the leading headlines they write, the way information is organized in a story, etc. I stumbled upon an excellent dissertation years ago that demonstrated such biases by analyzing coverage of gun rights vs. gun control in major publications and wrote an essay on that study.

My conclusion back then: "Media bias is both real and subtle, and it often goes undetected by both readers and those of us who engage in it. So let this be a warning to the masses. You should be as skeptical, if not cynical, of us journalists as we are of you when you accuse us, rightly or wrongly, of taking sides."

My perspective changed drastically this year, both because I had a job at the Media Research Center where I was more exposed to the bias that exists (have you ever noticed that Democrats are rarely identified in news reports about their scandals but Republicans always are, and high in the story) and because I saw so many of my journalistic colleagues worshiping at the altar of Barack Obama. One former colleague went to work for his campaign -- not long after conducting a friendly interview with him.

If you're an Obama fan, I don't say that to offend. He's my president now, too, and I hope he succeeds. I offer that not so much as a political statement but as an analysis of the current pitiful state of my profession. Voters saw the same bias I did, according to polls; they just didn't care about it because they liked Obama.

What I wish people would realize is that they like Obama in part because of the largely positive coverage he received compared with his rivals in both the Democratic primary and the general election. Media coverage shapes the way people think, whether they realize it or not.

There are more outlets now and that certainly brings some balance to the situation. The Internet has helped tremendously, too, because anyone can be a reporter if he/she wants to be. But the problem is that most people still tend to get their news from the major outlets, where bias can be a serious problem. Or they only watch one channel or read one paper, so they aren't getting the balanced news diet they need.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I could dedicate an entire book to answering that question myself, Tom. :))) The short answer is yes, I see philosophical slants by news organizations all the time.</p>
<p>The slant is usually subtle &#8212; the stories journalists choose to report and the ones they choose to ignore, the loaded adjectives they use in their writing, the leading headlines they write, the way information is organized in a story, etc. I stumbled upon an excellent dissertation years ago that demonstrated such biases by analyzing coverage of gun rights vs. gun control in major publications and wrote an essay on that study.</p>
<p>My conclusion back then: &#8220;Media bias is both real and subtle, and it often goes undetected by both readers and those of us who engage in it. So let this be a warning to the masses. You should be as skeptical, if not cynical, of us journalists as we are of you when you accuse us, rightly or wrongly, of taking sides.&#8221;</p>
<p>My perspective changed drastically this year, both because I had a job at the Media Research Center where I was more exposed to the bias that exists (have you ever noticed that Democrats are rarely identified in news reports about their scandals but Republicans always are, and high in the story) and because I saw so many of my journalistic colleagues worshiping at the altar of Barack Obama. One former colleague went to work for his campaign &#8212; not long after conducting a friendly interview with him.</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re an Obama fan, I don&#8217;t say that to offend. He&#8217;s my president now, too, and I hope he succeeds. I offer that not so much as a political statement but as an analysis of the current pitiful state of my profession. Voters saw the same bias I did, according to polls; they just didn&#8217;t care about it because they liked Obama.</p>
<p>What I wish people would realize is that they like Obama in part because of the largely positive coverage he received compared with his rivals in both the Democratic primary and the general election. Media coverage shapes the way people think, whether they realize it or not.</p>
<p>There are more outlets now and that certainly brings some balance to the situation. The Internet has helped tremendously, too, because anyone can be a reporter if he/she wants to be. But the problem is that most people still tend to get their news from the major outlets, where bias can be a serious problem. Or they only watch one channel or read one paper, so they aren&#8217;t getting the balanced news diet they need.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Shepherd</title>
		<link>http://www.enlightenedredneck.com/2009/01/08/the-big-media-blogosphere/#comment-122</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Shepherd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:57:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.enlightenedredneck.com/?p=537#comment-122</guid>
		<description>Danny, you seem to be in the thick of the journalism business.  From your perspective, do you see strong slants by news organizations in support or against different political philosophies?  Bernard Goldberg seemed to through a rock in the hornets nest a while back with his book about CBS.  Do you see it thorughout the industry as slanting one way or the other or are there enough outlets now that it's "balanced"?  Just wanting an insider's opinion....if you can share it without getting in hot water yourself, though the Danny Glover I remember from school days would grin at stiring the pot. :D</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Danny, you seem to be in the thick of the journalism business.  From your perspective, do you see strong slants by news organizations in support or against different political philosophies?  Bernard Goldberg seemed to through a rock in the hornets nest a while back with his book about CBS.  Do you see it thorughout the industry as slanting one way or the other or are there enough outlets now that it&#8217;s &#8220;balanced&#8221;?  Just wanting an insider&#8217;s opinion&#8230;.if you can share it without getting in hot water yourself, though the Danny Glover I remember from school days would grin at stiring the pot. :D</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Big Media Blogosphere - Redhot - RedState</title>
		<link>http://www.enlightenedredneck.com/2009/01/08/the-big-media-blogosphere/#comment-121</link>
		<dc:creator>The Big Media Blogosphere - Redhot - RedState</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:44:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.enlightenedredneck.com/?p=537#comment-121</guid>
		<description>[...] post from Danny Glover on blogs and media.  His intro: Personal Democracy Forum has released its list of top political blogs for 2009, and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] post from Danny Glover on blogs and media.  His intro: Personal Democracy Forum has released its list of top political blogs for 2009, and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
