Just one thing: fifty years ago did they even have “accredited journalism schools”? Since that was 1960 maybe they did by then, but still, I’m pretty sure that up until the Seventies at least journalists could come from a variety of backgrounds, and some of the most gifted ones often hadn’t even gone to college. (Full disclosure: one semester in high school — in 1978 I think — I took a journalism course for an English credit. We were taught that the proper way to report the news was in a dispassionate, impersonal tone, and that a reporter’s personal opinion had no place in the story he was telling.)
Ahh but Andrea, you are talking about Reporters. Journalists are too important to be concerned with such minutia as the dispassionate, professional, balanced reporting of the facts.
Mike, looking at the history for that poll, Obama got a nice few day boost from his State of the Union address. I bet if he turned that into a biweekly affair, his poll numbers would be a lot better? After all, Obama just doesn’t get enough exposure. That must be his problem. 😉
Exactly Karl!
His “Strongly Disapprove” now matches his total approval numbers.
If I cared enough to do the research, I bet I’d be fascinated to know which previous presidents have managed that in only their second year in office.
It sounds worse when you say thirteeth month.
As I told Jim before, ignore the day to day noise and look at the trend.
The linked article is interesting, but objective journalism??? No such creature exists. All writers have biases to at least some degree. Some journalists try to show both sides of an issue, but far more often than not each journalist has their own view of each issue. These views may change with time, such as Chicago writer Mike Royko, who used to be virulently anti-gun, until his last few years when he became a fervent supporter of citizen gun ownership. While I will grant that the MSM has become much more liberal since Vietnam, it was going lefty a lot earlier than 50 years ago. Look at the case of Walter Duranty back in the 1920s and 1930s, as just one example.
I’m afraid that her lack of knowledge on the history of journalism weakens her main argument, at least for me. YMMV.
It sounds worse when you say thirteenth month.
Good point — although as of last Saturday it’s now the 14th month.
Don,
I visit a number of websites (including this one) every day, among them that of the Guardian, one of the biggest newspapers in Britain. The Guardian is WAAAAAYYYYYYYY to the left, but their news coverage (as opposed to their opinion pages, which are simply surreal) is fairly good. Yes, there is certainly a point of view, but for straight-out honest news, they have the NYT and WaPo beat cold. Would I trust them as my ONLY source of news…not a chance…but are they a useful and (reasonably) unbiased source of news (not opinion)…probably…
Just one thing: fifty years ago did they even have “accredited journalism schools”? Since that was 1960 maybe they did by then, but still, I’m pretty sure that up until the Seventies at least journalists could come from a variety of backgrounds, and some of the most gifted ones often hadn’t even gone to college. (Full disclosure: one semester in high school — in 1978 I think — I took a journalism course for an English credit. We were taught that the proper way to report the news was in a dispassionate, impersonal tone, and that a reporter’s personal opinion had no place in the story he was telling.)
Funny, I don’t hear Jim touting Rasmussen today.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Ahh but Andrea, you are talking about Reporters. Journalists are too important to be concerned with such minutia as the dispassionate, professional, balanced reporting of the facts.
Mike, looking at the history for that poll, Obama got a nice few day boost from his State of the Union address. I bet if he turned that into a biweekly affair, his poll numbers would be a lot better? After all, Obama just doesn’t get enough exposure. That must be his problem. 😉
Exactly Karl!
His “Strongly Disapprove” now matches his total approval numbers.
If I cared enough to do the research, I bet I’d be fascinated to know which previous presidents have managed that in only their second year in office.
It sounds worse when you say thirteeth month.
As I told Jim before, ignore the day to day noise and look at the trend.
The linked article is interesting, but objective journalism??? No such creature exists. All writers have biases to at least some degree. Some journalists try to show both sides of an issue, but far more often than not each journalist has their own view of each issue. These views may change with time, such as Chicago writer Mike Royko, who used to be virulently anti-gun, until his last few years when he became a fervent supporter of citizen gun ownership. While I will grant that the MSM has become much more liberal since Vietnam, it was going lefty a lot earlier than 50 years ago. Look at the case of Walter Duranty back in the 1920s and 1930s, as just one example.
I’m afraid that her lack of knowledge on the history of journalism weakens her main argument, at least for me. YMMV.
Good point — although as of last Saturday it’s now the 14th month.
Don,
I visit a number of websites (including this one) every day, among them that of the Guardian, one of the biggest newspapers in Britain. The Guardian is WAAAAAYYYYYYYY to the left, but their news coverage (as opposed to their opinion pages, which are simply surreal) is fairly good. Yes, there is certainly a point of view, but for straight-out honest news, they have the NYT and WaPo beat cold. Would I trust them as my ONLY source of news…not a chance…but are they a useful and (reasonably) unbiased source of news (not opinion)…probably…