Sajak takes on M DI BI S

[The Ol' Guy]

I'll agree with you that the theme wasn't original. As someone else who is so sick and tired of formula, carbon-copy conservative radio/tv talk shows (pick a fight, interrupt callers, call them dumb, fade them out, host always wins) - and I'm conservative - I just appreciated the lack of name calling, and knowing one does not have to sell their soul to work in TV/movies. Now if Pat starts turning into a clone of other bashing conservatainers, I'll re-think my praise.

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Mar 22 2005, 02:04 PM\']That comment (as well as your previous one) exhibits far more political bias than Sajak has ever shown.  It's one thing to disagree with a viewpoint.  It's another to dismiss it as invalid merely because it comes from someone who used to work for a TV channel you don't like.

[snapback]79070[/snapback]

[/quote]

In the piece, Sajak makes a point that the New York Times' slogan belies its supposed liberal slant yet ignores Fox News Channel, which claims it is "fair and balanced" and is hardly either. I found that omission ironic in that Sajak was once an employee there. I dismiss the viewpoint, however, because it's a load of hooey, not because Pat wrote it.

I like Pat Sajak. Maybe not as much as that blatant Ted Kennedy lover Wink Martindale, but I like him.

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Mar 22 2005, 11:12 PM\'][quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Mar 22 2005, 02:04 PM\']That comment (as well as your previous one) exhibits far more political bias than Sajak has ever shown.  It's one thing to disagree with a viewpoint.  It's another to dismiss it as invalid merely because it comes from someone who used to work for a TV channel you don't like.

[snapback]79070[/snapback]

[/quote]

In the piece, Sajak makes a point that the New York Times' slogan belies its supposed liberal slant yet ignores Fox News Channel, which claims it is "fair and balanced" and is hardly either. I found that omission ironic in that Sajak was once an employee there. I dismiss the viewpoint, however, because it's a load of hooey, not because Pat wrote it.

[snapback]79111[/snapback]

[/quote]
To you, it's "a load of hooey" because you don't agree with it.  To him, referring to the liberal slant of the New York Times as "supposed," or claiming that Fox News Channel (which IMO does have a rightward slant, albeit one far less pronounced than the NYT's liberal slant) is "hardly" fair and balanced, would be just as ridiculous.

He was paid to give his opinion, not yours.  See how it works now?

 - David
(Fiscal/defense conservative, social moderate/liberal, longtime consumer of news media across the spectrum, and recovering Fox fan)

[DrJWJustice]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Mar 22 2005, 11:12 PM\']In the piece, Sajak makes a point that the New York Times' slogan belies its supposed liberal slant yet ignores Fox News Channel, which claims it is "fair and balanced" and is hardly either. I found that omission ironic in that Sajak was once an employee there. I dismiss the viewpoint, however, because it's a load of hooey, not because Pat wrote it.

I like Pat Sajak. Maybe not as much as that blatant Ted Kennedy lover Wink Martindale, but I like him.

[snapback]79111[/snapback]

[/quote]

You're so damn dense that you're going to be hosting the Scarecrow Awards soon enough.  What's really sad is that you're going to be awarding a bunch of them to yourself.  Let me start off your collection by giving you this one right here (hands him a bunch of straw bundled up with a hat on top).  Chew on that for a while.  Maybe that will keep you busy enough that you won't have time for typing.

[Gromit]

Why do I get the feeling that if the Reuters article had said "a case pitting right-to-life activists against Liberal starvation proponents", Sajak wouldn't have said a thing?

[CarbonCpy]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Mar 22 2005, 11:12 PM\']In the piece, Sajak makes a point that the New York Times' slogan belies its supposed liberal slant yet ignores Fox News Channel, which claims it is "fair and balanced" and is hardly either. I found that omission ironic in that Sajak was once an employee there. I dismiss the viewpoint, however, because it's a load of hooey, not because Pat wrote it.

[snapback]79111[/snapback]

[/quote]

So, the crux of your argument is that because Sajak used to host a fluff celebrity chat show (albeit a very erudite one) on TEH OMG EIVL FOX NEWS!!1!11!one!!, his point is invalid?  Did you even watch his show?

There's the proof, sad as it may be, that it doesn't take a genius to be a successful game show host.

But it takes even less of a genius to POST ABOUT IT ON THE INTERNET.


EDIT:

Why do I get the feeling that if the Reuters article had said "a case pitting right-to-life activists against Liberal starvation proponents", Sajak wouldn't have said a thing?

Throughout this difficult time we have strictly adhered to our 150-year-old tradition of factual, unbiased reporting and upheld our long-standing policy against the use of emotive terms, including the words 'terrorist' or 'freedom fighter'. We do not characterise the subjects of news stories but instead report their actions, identity or background. As a global news organisation, the world relies on our journalists to provide accurate accounts of events as they occur, wherever they occur, so that individuals, organisations and governments can make their own decisions based on the facts.

--Stephen Jukes, Reuters, on why they didn't refer to the 9/11 hijackers as 'terrorists.'

Your point is moot because Reuters wouldn't have even run with your idea.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Gromit\' date=\'Mar 23 2005, 12:49 AM\']Why do I get the feeling that if the Reuters article had said "a case pitting right-to-life activists against Liberal starvation proponents", Sajak wouldn't have said a thing?[/quote]
Probably because you're right, he wouldn't have.  As a conservative columnist giving his opinion, he wrote a commentary about what he perceives as bias in the news.  His commentary, featuring his personal bias, is a different thing than actual journalism, and he'd be the first to say so.

On the other hand, Reuters would never say that, so to a larger degree, your question actually supports his point.  You chose the ideologically opposite wording from his example as your hypothetical and no reporter -- not even a FOX News reporter -- would ever report a story that way.  (Pundits don't count, on either side.) Yet his example on the other side of the ideological spectrum actually happened, and he claims it's just one of many examples he's collected over the years.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Mar 23 2005, 12:12 AM\']In the piece, Sajak makes a point that the New York Times' slogan belies its supposed liberal slant yet ignores Fox News Channel, which claims it is "fair and balanced" and is hardly either. I found that omission ironic in that Sajak was once an employee there. I dismiss the viewpoint, however, because it's a load of hooey, not because Pat wrote it. [/quote]
Again, he wasn't writing a personal commentary about conservative media bias, so for the most part FOX News wasn't relevant to his column.  I would imagine there are  liberal writers who could -- and probably do -- write similar pieces about their perception of right-leaning media.

The big-picture good thing about discussions like this is it gets people to realize that there's just no such thing as NO bias.  As Sajak says, most reporters aren't really trying to manipulate a story, but personal frames of reference must play a role, and it's up to a discerning populace (however few of us there are left) to make up our own minds.

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Mar 23 2005, 12:05 PM\']Again, he wasn't writing a personal commentary about conservative media bias, so for the most part FOX News wasn't relevant to his column.  I would imagine there are  liberal writers who could -- and probably do -- write similar pieces about their perception of right-leaning media.

[snapback]79138[/snapback]

[/quote]


Since you make sense--as opposed to those writing about scarecrows and "TEH OMG EIVL FOX NEWS!!1!11!one!!," whatever that means--let me respond.

Sajak's piece is headlined "Slanted Journalism Is Everywhere." That tells me he's decrying media bias in general. The piece is so biased itself, however, it undermines the very point he's making.

The reason reporters refer to Christian Conservatives in stories about the dilemna in Florida is because that's who's leading the fight, and that's how they describe themselves. Pat's Jewish friends at dinner parties may be against it, too, but they're not holding signs on curbs. Really, if the New York Times was as slanted as Pat seems think it is, the Christian Conservatives would be labeled a "reactionary fringe group" or "right-wing kooks." That's the kind of language Fox uses going the other direction. (And to be fair, the kind of language Comedy Central might use on the liberal side.)

It's great Sajak expressed his views. It's our right to say they're wrong.

[DrBear]

OK, I said I didn't want this to turn political; I shoulda known better.

But speaking as a print journalist (resume upon request)...

Bias has been a constant cry among those who are true believers in a cause, whether it be conservatism, liberalism or vegetarianism. Few remember today that Franklin Roosevelt used his "fireside chats," in large part, to get around a newspaper-dominated media that he felt was too conservative and against his anti-Depression reforms and internationalist stance. John F. Kennedy canceled subscriptions to newspapers he thought were too Republican. In general, those who are deeply involved in something have trouble believing that somebody could a. believe something else and b. might actually see what they're doing as wrong, or at least, not in the mainstream.

One of the biggest jokes is conservatives saying "they weren't this tough on Clinton." Had it not been for the press (and yes, I'm including the Drudge Report in this), the whole thing would not have broken open, and Clinton wouldn't have been caught lying.

There is bias on both sides — mostly at the top levels — but I believe that on the whole journalists try to play it down the middle as much as possible. At our paper, we have flaming liberals and raving conservatives putting the paper together, and our basic goal is the same - tell people what happened to the best of our ability. We've been called a tool of the downtown businesses and the "Al-Qaida Chronicle" by the local right-wing talk host after we dared to print commentaries against the position he favors.

So I've heard the charges. All I can tell you is I covered John Kerry three times and George W. Bush twice - that was the number of times they came here - and played it down the middle both times. And I was accused of bias by supporters of each.

Everyone's biased, only in different ways.

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Mar 23 2005, 05:08 PM\']The reason reporters refer to Christian Conservatives in stories about the dilemna in Florida is because that's who's leading the fight, and that's how they describe themselves. Pat's Jewish friends at dinner parties may be against it, too, but they're not holding signs on curbs.

[snapback]79170[/snapback]

[/quote]
The question Pat is asking is this: why does the New York Times see fit to label conservatives as conservative, but not to label liberals as liberal?  Contrary to your claim, I haven't seen any of the folks holding signs that label themselves as conservative -- they label themselves as Christians.  Yes, many of them are conservative, just as many of the folks on the other side of the issue are liberal, yet the Times sees fit to assign political motives only to the conservatives (never mind that many liberal Democrats voted for the Schiavo legislation as well).  And it's not as though the Times doesn't do this on a regular basis; both the right-leaning Heritage Foundation and the left-leaning Brookings Institution are think tanks, yet the Times routinely labels the former as "conservative" or "right-wing" while rarely if ever calling the latter "liberal" or "left-wing."

Really, if the New York Times was as slanted as Pat seems think it is, the Christian Conservatives would be labeled a "reactionary fringe group" or "right-wing kooks." That's the kind of language Fox uses going the other direction. (And to be fair, the kind of language Comedy Central might use on the liberal side.)

Really?  Please cite an example of a Fox News reporter (not a pundit) calling liberals "left-wing kooks" in a story.

That notwithstanding, bias can be evident in what's not said as well as in what's said.  That's the point Pat made and that you don't see.

It's great Sajak expressed his views. It's our right to say they're wrong.

And it's my right to say that just like the Times, you see bias only in those who disagree with you.

[DrJWJustice]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Mar 23 2005, 05:08 PM\']Since you make sense--as opposed to those writing about scarecrows and "TEH OMG EIVL FOX NEWS!!1!11!one!!," whatever that means--let me respond.
[/quote]

Let me paint thee a mental picture here, which might be difficult since thou obviously doest not have a brain.   Surely thou hast seen The Wizard of OZ at some point in thine miserable life.  In said film, there was a creature encountered by Dorothy and Toto called The Scarecrow. He did want something from the Wizard, and that something was a brain. Hence, the inspiration behind the Scarecrow Award.

If thou still canst not figure it out, thou art beyond hope.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Mar 23 2005, 06:08 PM\'] Really, if the New York Times was as slanted as Pat seems think it is, the Christian Conservatives would be labeled a "reactionary fringe group" or "right-wing kooks." That's the kind of language Fox uses going the other direction. (And to be fair, the kind of language Comedy Central might use on the liberal side.)[/quote]
I would argue your first point by saying Pat's opinion piece was about the subtle bias that he believes is common in journalism.  Your second statement is simply factually incorrect, though I'm guessing you don't watch much FOX News to know.  As for the third, Jon Stewart and his gang tend to put their personal liberal biases aside and try very hard to be equal-opportunity bashers.  Stewart would also remind you, as he did Tucker Carlson, that he follows a show where puppets make crank phone calls, so bringing him into any discussion about serious journalism is a little iffy.

[Neumms]

Matt, when he throws around the word "slanted," Pat's hardly making a subtle point. You're right, I don't watch Fox, although I've heard enough to believe it's not without at least some vitriol. And I agree about Stewart--I was trying in vain to find something on Fox's level.

Let me defer to the well-made point from our practicing journalist. Oh, and add that the Scarecrow Award bit was really, really witty.

[quote name=\'DrBear\' date=\'Mar 23 2005, 05:45 PM\']There is bias on both sides — mostly at the top levels — but I believe that on the whole journalists try to play it down the middle as much as possible. At our paper, we have flaming liberals and raving conservatives putting the paper together, and our basic goal is the same - tell people what happened to the best of our ability.

[snapback]79177[/snapback]

[/quote]

[dzinkin]

I'm not Matt, but I can't let this go unchallenged...

[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Mar 23 2005, 11:07 PM\']Matt, when he throws around the word "slanted," Pat's hardly making a subtle point. You're right, I don't watch Fox, although I've heard enough to believe it's not without at least some vitriol.

[snapback]79209[/snapback]

[/quote]
Let's see... you're claiming that a news outlet is slanted, based not on anything from the channel itself but from what others, who have their own slant, have said about it?  I heard from one conservative outlet that Al Franken does nothing on his radio show but rant about Bill O'Reilly and express envy at O'Reilly's success.  Then I actually listened to Franken's show, and found that most of it consists of Franken's take on the news of the day and interviews with guests on various issues; pokes at O'Reilly are but a small part of it.  It's not really my cup of tea, true, but it's also not what I'd heard it was -- and I'd never have known that if I hadn't listened for myself.

You would do well to watch Fox News for a bit, if for no other reason than to know what you're discussing.

And I agree about Stewart--I was trying in vain to find something on Fox's level.

You mean, you were trying to find something on what someone else claimed was Fox's level.

As for DrBear's comment...

There is bias on both sides — mostly at the top levels — but I believe that on the whole journalists try to play it down the middle as much as possible.

The key word is "try."  Some succeed, like Brit Hume at Fox and Tim Russert at NBC; others don't do quite as well.