Christopher Breece

This is an excerpt from a broadcast paper we had due last week.

The goal of the paper was to get our informal reactions to election night coverage. 

The following is my opinion on certain interview tactics

We need a new game plan.

Thank The Lord.

SpinSpotter and NewsTrust are two media outlets that try to minimize, what they see, as bias in the news media. Lets take a look at the two, and the ways in which they operate to meet their goals.

SpinSpotter is a site comprised of a group of advisors who scan mainstream media articles for bias, whether they be liberal or conservative. In order to make this system work, the viewer must download what are called spinoculars. First, a special type of internet browser is needed for this. The first time I tried to download them, I was told I had to update my FireFox browser. Many people get very annoyed (including myself) when they are told they have to upgrade to get something like this. Once I upgraded, I started to feel better about this item because it seemed pretty promising. I thought it was cool that the team highlights words and phrases that they think are misleading to the public, or provide some sort of media slant.

However.....I wasn't able to find very many articles where Spinspotter had made a remark. In fact the only one I found was this one on CNN.com. The only thing that was highlighted was a little phrases "came out swinging" in regards to Sarah Palin and the RNC, stating that was the "reporters voice."

SpinSpotter seems like a cool idea, but I just don't see how they have enough workers to critique all the major media sources. I went to cnn.com, foxnews.com, msnbc.com, and nytimes.com, and that one article was the only thing that I saw pop up. So, if more main stream articles were critiqued, I could see SpinSpotter being a huge help. I think that not enough people are aware of the different ways the media can be bias. SpinSpotter helps the public spot those biases much easier, and they give you a description of why they selected it.

SpinSpotter has some potential, they just need to make a continued effort to scan more nationally known outlets.

NewsTrust: The good thing about NewsTrust is that it looks at a wide range of both main stream and independent media, and each article gets a starred review. It takes, what they think, are the best articles from particular topics (Politics, US, World, Business, etc.) and put them on their website. They cite who their team consists of, and what their credentials are. Their site is well organized and put together. However, I have one beef with it. Why do we assume these journalists are better then other journalists who work for main stream outlets? Their site is based on what they see as good and bad journalism. Should we trust them in what they say is good versus bad? If I'm an average person why do I trust them more then I trust cnn.com or msnbc.com? Why should I read an article they approve of versus and article on cnn.com that NewsTrust didn't rate. Most people don't have time to browse the web and read multiple articles. Many just read 1 or 2. So how do we pick between NewsTrust and an article that didn't make their list if we are pressed for time?

                   

This morning I turned on the T.V. I had recorded the Sarah Palin, Charlie Gibson interview yesterday so I could watch it this morning. So, as a result, my television was already tuned to ABC. The first image I saw when I looked at the tube was John McCain sitting in the middle of the set of "The View". Now, I don't watch "The View". However, I do know all about the show, all the hosts, and all of their political views because my mom is an avid watcher of the show. So, whenever she and I are in the same room at 11 AM in the morning (this is Eastern Standard Time mind you) there is a good bet the show is on our television.

As I watched a few minutes of the show, I immediately knew what I was going to write about in my wonderful Journalism 501 Homeroom blog, and my thoughts were confirmed later when I watched the Sarah Palin interview (more on that later). The big question in today's world, especially regarding the 2008 Presidential Campaign, has to do with the media's role and how it influences the public. To tell you the truth, I am sick and tired of all the media bias these days....and it goes both ways. Being the awesome, ultra-sensitive, phenomenally objective aspiring journalist that I am, I will give examples that involve both liberal and conservative bias.

It is no secret that a lot of journalists have political bias these days. The saddest thing about it all is that you can see these biases so clearly in any given broadcast. What happened to the days when journalists were just supposed to give the facts and let the public decide? These people may be trying to act like they are neutral, but in many cases they fail miserably

Case number 1:"The View": Now, these ladies aren't typical journalist and each comes on the show to present her own "view" but these views are imminent, and this is just the warm up example to the bias we see in the media. I can count on one hand the number of hours I have spent INTENTLY watching the show in my life. Yet, I know Elizabeth is ultra-conservative, Joy is mostly liberal (but doesn't show it all the time) and very opinionated, Whoopi is off-the-deep end liberal, Barbara is ultra-liberal, and Sherri, well I don't watch the show enough to know Sherri's opinions...she seems kind of quiet to me. I know this just by the way they TALKED to John McCain this morning. Elizabeth was all polite and nodded her head in agreement with everything he said...smiled and laughed when he was funny. She seemed to enjoy his presence. Overall, she was very supportive of him. What does that tell the viewer? Hmm, she's conservative. Barbara debated everything he said. She interrupted him a lot and tried to prove him wrong on many instances. Barbara? Liberal. Whoopi didn't say too much. I think that was her trying not to make a big scene on national television, because we know that she doesn't agree with most conservative opinions.

My point? Anyone could have turned on the TV this morning, never seen "The View", and could tell the political views of most of the hosts on the show.

Case number 2FOX NEWS "Hannity and Colmes". Did it ever cross any body's mind that Hannity is conservative and Colmes is liberal? And I'm not even mad about that aspect of the show. That's the whole point of the show; get some political debate from both sides. There is only one problem for me. I find it impossible to watch it for more than five minutes. Any time a conservative guest comes on the show odds are Colmes is going to try and demoralize the guest and make it seem like he/she doesn't know what they are talking about. Any time a liberal guest comes on? My money is on Hannity not even letting the guest finish a sentence without him butting in and saying he/ she is incorrect.

My Point? Is this the best way for the media world to send out information to the public with who can interrupt who faster?

Case number 3: Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin. The other two cases can be debated because they are shows with journalist who are paid to have a point of view. We cannot make that case with Mr. Gibson. His job is to be as objective as a journalist can be. I am making this case because, in the past, I have known nothing about Charlie Gibson's political views. The only times I've watched him were when he was interviewing some political figure. And he seemed objective and neutral in those interviews. I get almost all my news from cable sources. Its not that I don't like ABC. I have nothing against them. I just have never watched any ABC news shows. As a result of this, I am completely clueless on Charlie's political views. It took me all of ten minutes into the interview to figure out that Charlie had a bit of a liberal slant to him. I could tell this by the tone of his voice toward Sarah Palin. In my opinion, it almost seemed like he was talking down to her. This was most evident in his comment about her having never met any foreign leaders before, and it continued when his facial expressions didn't seem convinced when she said she was ready to become vice-president. It had the "who are you and why do you think you are so important" feel to it. It seemed quite demeaning...like a student in a principles office.

My point with all of this? I think the media already have a chip on their shoulder when presenting political coverage to the public. I think that with all the political bias and slant there is on television, it is hard for the public to get information that can be deemed credible. If a journalist already has a bias point of view, and the public knows this, how are they suppose to believe what any one says?