Posted on 09/27/2003 3:17:40 AM PDT by Timesink
Web posted Friday, September 26, 2003 Neuharth Panel Asks: 'Is Media Fair?'
BY RANDY DOCKENDORF
P&D Regional Editor
VERMILLION -- Are the media fair and accurate?
Well, fairness, like beauty, becomes pretty subjective, a panel of the nation's top journalists said Thursday night at the University of South Dakota.
The event, titled "Is the Free Press A Fair Press?," concluded a two-day celebration of the $5 million renovation of the Al Neuharth Media Center on the USD campus. Neuharth was on hand for the event, which was broadcast live on South Dakota Public Television.
Neuharth, a 1950 USD graduate, founded USA TODAY, the nation's largest daily newspaper. He also founded the Freedom Forum, dedicated to free speech, press and spirit.
USD President Jim Abbott, who welcomed the audience, jokingly referred to the frenzy of activities surrounding Neuharth's return to campus.
"I am president of the University of South Dakota, but after today's festivities, it could be called the University of Neuharth," Abbott said.
Thursday's panelists featured the following past Neuharth Award winners: Louis Boccardi, the former chief executive officer, and Tom Curley, the chief executive officer, of the Associated Press; Robert MacNeil, former host of "The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour"; John Siegenthaler, founder of the First Amendment Center; and Judy Woodruff, anchor for the Cable News Network.
In keeping with the symposium's theme, the panelists were asked about the perception -- particularly among politicians -- that the media are unfair.
"Fairness is in the eye of the beholder and whose ox is gored," MacNeil said.
Politicians often feel the media are unfair because of the adversarial relationship between the two sides, Boccardi said. "The media casts a skeptical eye on government, and neither side is completely happy," he said.
Reporting also becomes a creature of the times, Woodruff said, noting the extraordinary events polarizing the nation.
"We had the presidential election of 2000, where we agonized for 38 days over the recount. There was disagreement over how it was reported," she said. "Then after 9/11, we pulled together in the aftermath. Now, we see the country pulling apart on Iraq."
News organizations also need to do a better job explaining what they do and make corrections when needed, Woodruff said. "I think you gain credibility when you tell people that you made a mistake," she said.
But even with a reporter's best efforts, both sides often won't be satisfied with controversial stories, Siegenthaler said. "The perception becomes so deep, so hostile, that there's no way to make it fair," he said.
The debate over media bias is reflected in the Fox News channel's motto of "fair and balanced," the panel said.
MacNeil criticized the motto as misleading. "The Fox claim is a con on the public ... The network is blatantly unbalanced," he said, adding that the network has used patriotism to promote the right wing and Bush administration.
Woodruff added that the motto should be unnecessary for any news organization. "Fox is concerned about its news reputation. At CNN, we don't need to use those terms," she said.
While journalists are often accused of having a liberal bias, "most media are owned by Republican conservatives, so there is a healthy balance and tension" within the news operation, Curley said.
Woodruff added that the public often perceives the media of unfairly "piling on" political figures.
"We are like a dog with a bone and won't let go," she said. "It's better for the country if we sit back, take a breath and see what we are doing in a more rational approach."
Curley pointed to the "massive competition" which has intensified the demand to get the story first. The media also struggles with giving depth to many issues, he said.
An audience member said the media has unfairly invaded the personal lives of politicians, driving many people away from public service.
"We're not going to turn the clock back. The tough questions have to be asked of political figures," Woodruff said. Public officials are scrutinized not only by media but by disclosure laws, confirmation hearings and other aspects of the political arena, she said.
But the media also creates a feeding frenzy, MacNeil said. He pointed to the mixture of horror and titillation found in coverage of President Clinton's lying and sexual activity.
"The media enjoyed it like it was the greatest plunge into depravity that ever happened," MacNeil said.
Sen. George McGovern, who was in the audience, asked the panelists about the definition of "patriotism" and the increasing unpopularity of those who spoke out against the Iraq war.
The current national fervor has fueled the national divide, Woodruff said, noting the "deep attacks" felt by Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., when he criticized President Bush heading into the Iraq war.
The panel talked about the emphasis on corporate profits and reaching niche markets, particularly a younger audience.
In his closing remarks, Neuharth said the symposium marked a historic evening.
"I doubt ever before that we have had this many nationally-distinguished journalists on one campus at one time to share their thoughts," he said.
Neuharth said he hoped the building which bears his name will likewise turn out such outstanding journalists in the future.
"I hope and expect, with the new facilities and programs, that more well-trained journalists in both print and broadcast will leave USD," he said.
No, the comment doesn't fly. I can vouch for it at the network level from personal experience, and so can mhking. The corporate suits try to spike an average of a single story every two to three YEARS (invariably something bad about the company itself), and even then, if they succeed at all, they succeed only at their own news organization. Every other outlet will still happily carry the bad/embarrassing news. (Anyone here really think Time Warner would go out of its way to stop CNN from reporting something that makes Disney look bad? They're archrivals; Time Warner HATES Disney!)
On the other hand, the vast majority of the reporters, producers, editors, etc., are all partisan Democrats, and it affects every story they work on every single day.
There's a reason the conservative Media Research Center puts out 1500-word reports every day listing example after example of direct liberal bias, while the liberal Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting only puts out one press release every three weeks or so.
The easy way to success being to go along and get along, journalists have adopted a system for avoiding unnecessary contention for the status of "objective journalist." Adherence to this code by journalists means that it is sensible to speak of "journalism" as an entity, an Estatblishment.
It is of the nature of an Establishment that, like the mafia, it "doesn't exist"--but you'd better not cross it! The journalistic Establishment coheres in the following code:
The objectivity of anyone who adheres to the party line that journalists are objective is never challenged by any other member of journalism Establishment.If a Bernard Goldberg does write a Bias, he does not cease being a journalist--he is an unperson who never was a journalist.
If you want the worst reporting from Iraq, almost invariably with an anti-administration bent, just check the AP.
That's right Judy. CNN no longer has a reputation for delivering accurate news. Only the New York Times has a worse reputation these days.
as opposed to true conservatives.
Woodruff is full of used food.
CNN is so concerned with their reputation that it ain't funny.
They know they look like sh*t, and that consumers are calling them on it. That's why the bad-mouthing of FNC all the time.
All these folks are upset that any "independent" voice would stray from the "journalistic ideal" that these morons all are hammered with in J-school. And when Fox took the model and turned it on it's ear and people responded, all hell broke loose.
CNN and the others are looking over their shoulders when they walk, now. They know the writing is on the wall.
Using that paradigm, anything besides communism appears to be "extreme" right wing. The way they so smugly sit there and state it like gospel makes my blood boil. It evaporates when I hear people who watch that crap agree with them out of ignorance.
Journalistic Rules for Ideological Objectivity:Rule 1: Never allow criticism of the objectivity of a journalist.See also, my #6 . . .Rule 2: Never allow the sacred honorific, "objective journalist," to be applied to anyone of the left or of the right.
Rule 3: Never allow a specific, real existing human to be described as "left."
Yes, Judy Woodruff, a news organization shouldn't have to label itself "fair and balanced", it's a damn shame. Fox has ridden that hoss to the top of the ratings by being "fair and balanced". CNN has sunk, because patriotic Americans know CNN as the Commie News Network or the Clinton News Network. We know America haters when we see them.
Well, of course, almost no one sees them at CNN anymore, because almost no one watches it anymore.
I did flip over and watched a couple minutes of Paula Zahn with Anderson Cooper. They had some General on and asked him if the media was reporting fairly, the Iraq Battle aftermath. The General mealy-mouthed about news being in the eye of the beholder, with that nonsense, I flipped back to Fox, since the commercial was probably over.
Woodruff added that the motto should be unnecessary for any news organization. "Fox is concerned about its news reputation. At CNN, we don't need to use those terms," she said.
Routine pablum of members of an Establishment (see my #6) pecking at a "pretender" to membership . . . whileWhile journalists are often accused of having a liberal bias, "most media are owned by Republican conservatives, so there is a healthy balance and tension" within the news operation, Curley said.
. . . denying that the Establishment even exists.
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.