Posted on 01/12/2008 12:57:16 PM PST by moneyrunner
Televangelist Pat Robertson is considering buying The Virginian-Pilot, a newspaper he has criticized for its coverage of his activities. Norfolk-based Landmark Communications Inc. announced last week that it was evaluating whether to sell its assets, including The Weather Channel and the Pilot, its flagship newspaper. Robertson said in a statement to the paper Thursday that he is considering a potential bid. He said owning the newspaper would help provide internships for journalism students at Regent University, a school he founded in Virginia Beach. Robertson, founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network, has said the newspaper has characterized him unfairly.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessweek.com ...
Here's how the Pilot itself reports it:
Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson, who has sharply criticized The Virginian-Pilot in the past, is considering making a bid to buy the newspaper, an associate said Thursday.
Notice how the writer, Philip Walzer, characterizes the controversies surrounding Robertson and the Pilot. Apparently the Pilot was just standing around doing nothing, minding its own business and Robertson jumps up and “sharply criticized” the Pilot. In that phrase you have an outstanding example of media bias. With that phrase the paper has made itself the injured party.
The fact is that the Virginian Pilot has initiated all the personal and business attacks against Pat Robertson. All Pat has done is responded to the Pilot's attacks. How dare he?
Read the other commentary here.
It would be nice if he would buy the weather channel too . He could then tell us which sin is producing the currant weather punishment
I think you’re imagining things. It’s quite obvious to me that Robertson has criticized the paper because of things it’s written about him, not because Robertson just “jumps up” out of nowhere. Tell us how you think it should have been phrased to make it more neutral.
No question there have been times when Robertson had a point, but I think there also have been times when this liberal paper has gone easy on Robertson, especially some of the nutball statements he’s made.
one dinosaur eats another
“Televangelist Pat Robertson is considering buying The Virginian-Pilot, a newspaper he has criticized for its coverage of his activities.”
And please tell us exactly what’s wrong with this lede. If you read the Norfolk newspaper story it goes into a lot more detail.
>>It would be nice if he would buy the weather channel too . He could then tell us which sin is producing the currant weather punishment<<
Speculation is that the Weather Channel by itself will sell for $5 billion or more. Its also not clear Landmark is/will sell the newspaper separately.
But Pat is not your every day televangelist - he has good business sense and contacts.
He couldn’t make the Weather Channel much worse than it is right now. The first thing he should do if fire that flaming idiot, Dr. Heidi Cullen.
| DAY | Conditions | God's Temper | Focal sin | Percent Chance of Rapture |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monday |  |
 |
Pride | 12% |
| Tuesday |  |
 |
Sloth | 13% |
| Wednesday |  |
 |
Blowjobs | 13% |
| Thursday |  |
 |
Homos | 13% |
| Friday |  |
|
Porno | 13% |
| Saturday |  |
 |
Not giving Pat Robertson money | 18% |
| Rest Day | |
|
Blasphemy | 0% |
“Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson, who The Virginian-Pilot has sharply criticized in the past, is considering making a bid to buy the newspaper, an associate said Thursday”
If the Pilot then wanted to add that Robertson has written letters to the editor defending himself, that would be perfectly legitimate. But by making Robertson the aggressor, the Pilot distorts the truth.
This is exactly the method that Patterico discussed in this article.
I still don’t see it. The article seems balanced.
Funny!
The fact is that two religious organizations run two of the country's leading newspapers. And neither religion is "mainstream" but they papers are much better than the Pilot.
Good point. “Attacked” is preferred by the Drive-by-meida.
That’s funny.
The CSM and Washington Times?
Liberal bias takes many forms. When the alleged bias is the omission or distortion of critical facts, demonstrating the bias is a more straightforward project. But there is a more subtle and far more pervasive bias that is harder to explain to skeptics: a bias based on the wording of a piece. This sort of bias manifests itself in the tone, the word usage, and the perspective of a piece. I am going to attempt to explain this sort of bias today, by showing some of the devices used.
Today the Washington Post prints one of those articles that drive conservatives like me crazy. The article, a front-page news analysis titled Kerry Put On Defensive About Iraq, just drips with sympathy for Kerry. But I don’t find any clear misstatements of fact in the piece. The bias is in the way it’s worded, starting with the very first paragraph:
Over the past week, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have thrown Sen. John F. Kerry on the defensive with a daily assault designed to tarnish his credentials as a possible commander in chief. But the orchestrated attacks also revealed the president’s vulnerabilities on the issue that continues to shape the presidential campaign as much as any other.
I chuckled when I read the part about the “orchestrated attacks.” It reminded me of the survey that one web site did of all the times Dan Rather had used the phrase “carefully orchestrated leak.” You will not be surprised to learn that Rather always used the phrase to refer to alleged leaks by Republicans. Republicans are apparently the masters of “orchestration,” whether you’re talking leaks or attacks.
You see, whenever one candidate criticizes another, there are two ways to characterize what’s happening. If you think the criticism may be valid, you will refer to the criticism passively, and discuss the “mounting criticism” of the candidate being criticized. But if you don’t like the criticism, then you will refer to the criticism as an “attack.” You will consistently phrase the description of the criticism in the active voice, as in: “Cheney attacked Kerry over the issue of . . .” Rather than saying that the parties voicing the criticism have “pointed out” their opponent’s misstatements, you will say they “seized on” those misstatements.
If you don't see that the paper is portraying Robertson as the attacker and the paper as the attackee, I don't know how I can make it any clearer.
Respectfully.
Exactly.
Interesting. Is Robertson still working as Giuliani’s foreign policy adviser?
In case anyone wonders, I am not a big fan of Pat Robertson. His brand of Christianity is not mine and I think he does damage to the image of Christians. But if it’s a fight between Robertson and the people who are currently in charge of the Virginian Pilot, I’ll hold Robertson’s coat any day of the week.
The businesses that Robertson has been involved in locally have been successful, starting with the 700 Club and ending with the Family Channel. The Founders’ Inn is a very good inn, restaurant and conference center. Regent University has over 4000 students including an accredited law school. Robertson has poured most of his personal fortune from the sale of the Family Channel into support of these enterprises and he is a major area employer.
I believe that if he bought the Pilot it would be a better paper.
That’s because there isn’t any joke. ;-)
LOL!!
Cool, liberal media has ruled too long!
The VP rag usually portrays Bush as a buffoon with a pointed head and ears, in their editorial cartoons. They have a liberal slant imo.
The Virginian Pilot is my local rag. They are a very poor excuse for a paper.
I take it back. That assumes that papers are generally better. That is not the case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.