CDZ Do the masses know what journalism is?

[OldLady]

you probably can't give examples because you don't actually know of any.

OK, I watched CBS Evening News last night. Lead story was Families Brace for Sudden Deportation, implying that the Trump administration was swooping down to deport entire families solely on the basis of one family member not being a legal resident. No mention was made of criminal activity being the principle criterion, nor that this is a continuation of the previous administration's policy.

Also featured was a report on how well armed ISIS has become and how difficult it will be to evict them from Mosul. This is in obvious contrast to how, just prior to the election, Obama had ISIS on the run and "coalition" forces were sweeping through Mosul with little opposition.

This type of slanted news coverage is on display every night on every major network.

I like the way you used the word "slanted." That's more appropriate than "Fake" or calling reporters "liars."
Try not to take this wrong, but the media is treating illegal immigrants and their situation like abused puppies. The emotional impact sells the story and pulls in viewers more than the drier, more factual reporting on the details you listed above. We NEVER want to defund PBS, the only station left that isn't 100% chasing the $$$.

 

[usmbguest5318]

you probably can't give examples because you don't actually know of any.

This type of slanted news coverage is on display every night on every major network.

I like the way you used the word "slanted." That's more appropriate than "Fake" or calling reporters "liars."
Try not to take this wrong, but the media is treating illegal immigrants and their situation like abused puppies. The emotional impact sells the story and pulls in viewers more than the drier, more factual reporting on the details you listed above. We NEVER want to defund PBS, the only station left that isn't 100% chasing the $$$.[/QUOTE]

Just above I wrote about "every word" mattering and how it's the viewer's responsibility to understand the news they consume. Let me share with you some actual facts regarding what you were told by another member...

• The story's headline is "California immigrant families brace for possibility of sudden deportation." The video presentation of the story is online at the link in the preceding sentence.
• The story was first filed last night at 7:09 pm (EST)
• Here is the actual story content:
  • At 6:45 in the morning, Father John Moretta is already at work.
    
    The Resurrection Church in East Los Angeles has served as a sanctuary, giving legal and spiritual shelter to the Latino immigrant community for more than 90 years.
    
    Now, the church has an urgent mission: advising families on how to prepare for sudden deportation.
    
    The Trump administration’s deportation policy, recent images of homes being raided and a Phoenix mother separated from her family are fueling anger and confusion.
    
    “Oh, people are very, very, very concerned because he was going to make these made orders right away to clean up immigration and immediately to build the wall. Why should a president create such tension for innocent people?” Moretta said.
    
    Just outside Los Angeles at Pomona College, which has a history of welcoming immigrants, undocumented students like 20-year-old Daniella Sada have been shielded from deportation by the Obama administration’s deferred action policy, or DACA, which the Trump White House has discussed changing.
    
    “I can honestly say I’ve never felt so much fear in my life as now,” Sada said.
    
    She and her mother crossed the Mexican border illegally when she was just 1 year old. Her biggest fear is that her mother will be deported, leaving her alone to care for her two younger sisters.
    
    “I feel like it’s inevitable. Just saying when it happens, when ICE comes, when the raids happen and I have to go back to Mexico and I’m detained, this is what you are going to have to do,” Sada said.
    
    Moretta and his congregation are facing those same hardships, relying on faith and prayer to pull them through the frustration.
    
    “Still after all the rhetoric and all the debate we still do not have in congress a comprehensive immigration vote and that is the solution to a lot of these problems,” Moretta said.

The story is about how people feel about and are preparing for the possibility they or people close to them will be deported. Is it slanted to tell that story? Potential deportees also have friends and families who are citizens and legal residents. If they are sensible, people at risk of being deported need to prepare themselves for that happening, and so do their loved ones. The priest and his church are helping them (somehow) with making their preparations. What's the "sudden" aspect? That ICE doesn't make deportation appointments; it shows up and off you go.

Do you see that as a slanted story? I don't and I don't because he facts reported are 100% accurate and the people interviewed, not the reporter, were expressing their opinion. The reporting in that story -- the parts that aren't the interviewees' commentary -- doesn't seem slanted at all. Are news reporters of the issue supposed to talk only about the government's position on the matter? Should they simply not interview people at risk of being deported or people who have relationships with potential deportees? I don't think so.



And there's another problem. People on USMB, a lot of them, don't accurately retell, depict, etc. the details of the matter they discuss. It often looks like they do so to "grind an axe" rather than to contribute to a mature discussion. That happens more often than not in my observation.

 

[Never3ndr]

Looks to me like you've exempted the media from the shortcomings of "the masses".

Judging from the slipshod and incomprehensibly biased nature of the reportage we've received from them, it would appear that, rather than being exempt, these shortcomings apply to them even more so.

Whereas the masses are simply ignorant, most of the media is malevolent in its efforts to manipulate public opinion. Among other things, the OP conveniently ignores the decisions of the MSM as to what stories they cover and what stories they intentionally ignore (a classic propaganda technique).

I don't actually think of the media as malicious in their intent. They are simply operators in the market we have set up for them. They NEED views / clicks in order to survive. If they do not get airtime or circulation, they are going to go out of business. The best way to do that is to cater to a (hopefully large) specific audience.

Spoiled Americans have shown that they are unwilling to hear things that they do not like...the easy point in case would be Trumpers' refusal to consume media sources from the left (CNN / NYT) even though they may offer a unique perspective not shown in their own media sources. (The reverse is also true where you rarely will find a liberal who regularly consumes Fox News). So, if you air things that people don't agree with, true or not, you are going to lose viewers / clicks. The only way to really get media to change their actions is to somehow change the environment in which they operate. The easiest answer, in my opinion, would be some sort of oversight body...although somebody may be able to create a way to take them out of the free market entirely...although I have no clue how that would work.

I disagree, the "easiest answer" would be to promote more independent sources. Perhaps the government may be needed to bust up some media monopolies, though. Also there should be financial penalties for deliberately publishing falsehoods.

The FCC was already doing that years ago. The AP needs disbanded as well. They are the source of all "news" The networks just take what the AP gives them and puts more spin on it.

I'd disagree with this because now, with the advent of the internet, we do have that diversity of sources. You can access news not only from America, which has to adhere to American rules and regulations, but also sources that are foreign in nature, or from "alternate" news sources that use independent sources (like crowd sourced efforts).

In this environment where we do have more independent bodies we are shown (or at least I have seen studies indicating, and my personal experience agrees with) that most of the population is LESS INFORMED than we were during the 70's when everybody got their news from one of like 3 sources that were readily available.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Looks to me like you've exempted the media from the shortcomings of "the masses".

Judging from the slipshod and incomprehensibly biased nature of the reportage we've received from them, it would appear that, rather than being exempt, these shortcomings apply to them even more so.

Whereas the masses are simply ignorant, most of the media is malevolent in its efforts to manipulate public opinion. Among other things, the OP conveniently ignores the decisions of the MSM as to what stories they cover and what stories they intentionally ignore (a classic propaganda technique).

I don't actually think of the media as malicious in their intent. They are simply operators in the market we have set up for them. They NEED views / clicks in order to survive. If they do not get airtime or circulation, they are going to go out of business. The best way to do that is to cater to a (hopefully large) specific audience.

Spoiled Americans have shown that they are unwilling to hear things that they do not like...the easy point in case would be Trumpers' refusal to consume media sources from the left (CNN / NYT) even though they may offer a unique perspective not shown in their own media sources. (The reverse is also true where you rarely will find a liberal who regularly consumes Fox News). So, if you air things that people don't agree with, true or not, you are going to lose viewers / clicks. The only way to really get media to change their actions is to somehow change the environment in which they operate. The easiest answer, in my opinion, would be some sort of oversight body...although somebody may be able to create a way to take them out of the free market entirely...although I have no clue how that would work.

I disagree, the "easiest answer" would be to promote more independent sources. Perhaps the government may be needed to bust up some media monopolies, though. Also there should be financial penalties for deliberately publishing falsehoods.

The FCC was already doing that years ago. The AP needs disbanded as well. They are the source of all "news" The networks just take what the AP gives them and puts more spin on it.

I'd disagree with this because now, with the advent of the internet, we do have that diversity of sources. You can access news not only from America, which has to adhere to American rules and regulations, but also sources that are foreign in nature, or from "alternate" news sources that use independent sources (like crowd sourced efforts).

In this environment where we do have more independent bodies we are shown (or at least I have seen studies indicating, and my personal experience agrees with) that most of the population is LESS INFORMED than we were during the 70's when everybody got their news from one of like 3 sources that were readily available.

Okay, so by your theory, the "big 3" get a free pass on publishing falsehoods? I think not!

The FCC would have hammered them back in the day.

Many people are not tuned into the internet.

It's possible that most of the population is less informed because they have been educated to be less informed. See my signature link. What? No chapter on slanting in the Civics books? What kind of crap is that?

 

[Marion Morrison]

you probably can't give examples because you don't actually know of any.

This type of slanted news coverage is on display every night on every major network.

I like the way you used the word "slanted." That's more appropriate than "Fake" or calling reporters "liars."
Try not to take this wrong, but the media is treating illegal immigrants and their situation like abused puppies. The emotional impact sells the story and pulls in viewers more than the drier, more factual reporting on the details you listed above. We NEVER want to defund PBS, the only station left that isn't 100% chasing the $$$.

Just above I wrote about "every word" mattering and how it's the viewer's responsibility to understand the news they consume. Let me share with you some actual facts regarding what you were told by another member...

• The story's headline is "California immigrant families brace for possibility of sudden deportation." The video presentation of the story is online at the link in the preceding sentence.
• The story was first filed last night at 7:09 pm (EST)
• Here is the actual story content:
  • At 6:45 in the morning, Father John Moretta is already at work.
    
    The Resurrection Church in East Los Angeles has served as a sanctuary, giving legal and spiritual shelter to the Latino immigrant community for more than 90 years.
    
    Now, the church has an urgent mission: advising families on how to prepare for sudden deportation.
    
    The Trump administration’s deportation policy, recent images of homes being raided and a Phoenix mother separated from her family are fueling anger and confusion.
    
    “Oh, people are very, very, very concerned because he was going to make these made orders right away to clean up immigration and immediately to build the wall. Why should a president create such tension for innocent people?” Moretta said.
    
    Just outside Los Angeles at Pomona College, which has a history of welcoming immigrants, undocumented students like 20-year-old Daniella Sada have been shielded from deportation by the Obama administration’s deferred action policy, or DACA, which the Trump White House has discussed changing.
    
    “I can honestly say I’ve never felt so much fear in my life as now,” Sada said.
    
    She and her mother crossed the Mexican border illegally when she was just 1 year old. Her biggest fear is that her mother will be deported, leaving her alone to care for her two younger sisters.
    
    “I feel like it’s inevitable. Just saying when it happens, when ICE comes, when the raids happen and I have to go back to Mexico and I’m detained, this is what you are going to have to do,” Sada said.
    
    Moretta and his congregation are facing those same hardships, relying on faith and prayer to pull them through the frustration.
    
    “Still after all the rhetoric and all the debate we still do not have in congress a comprehensive immigration vote and that is the solution to a lot of these problems,” Moretta said.

The story is about how people feel about and are preparing for the possibility they or people close to them will be deported. Is it slanted to tell that story? Potential deportees also have friends and families who are citizens and legal residents. If they are sensible, people at risk of being deported need to prepare themselves for that happening, and so do their loved ones. The priest and his church are helping them (somehow) with making their preparations. What's the "sudden" aspect? That ICE doesn't make deportation appointments; it shows up and off you go.

Do you see that as a slanted story? I don't and I don't because he facts reported are 100% accurate and the people interviewed, not the reporter, were expressing their opinion. The reporting in that story -- the parts that aren't the interviewees' commentary -- doesn't seem slanted at all. Are news reporters of the issue supposed to talk only about the government's position on the matter? Should they simply not interview people at risk of being deported or people who have relationships with potential deportees? I don't think so.



And there's another problem. People on USMB, a lot of them, don't accurately retell, depict, etc. the details of the matter they discuss. It often looks like they do so to "grind an axe" rather than to contribute to a mature discussion. That happens more often than not in my observation.[/QUOTE]


Congratulations, you probably got an A in English.
However, for all your walls of text ( even though they are coherent and well-formed)

You make no point whatsoever.

Oh by the way, yes it is obviously a slanted story.

Any 7th grader should be able to realize that.

 

[OldLady]

I do see it as slanted, the way I define "slanted," anyway, which means the facts are 100% accurately reported but the writer has chosen only certain parts of the situation to mention. This is one of those emotional impact stories, which is fine in itself, but it doesn't mention the fact that these adults chose to sneak into this country illegally (or overstayed their visas by many years). If they are being "hunted" by ICE they also have either other criminal convictions or they already have a deportation order in place, which they have ignored. Those are the people ICE is targeting right now.
I have nothing against human interest stories. I agree with you that as such, it was accurately reported. The people buying the Trump rationale are using their terms incorrectly, as you point out in your OP. One more thing: When a network reports almost exclusively using "human interest" stories like the above or inviting in "consultants" to discuss the immigration policies in a negative way, it IS providing a biased view to the viewing public. I don't know if CBS does, but I do know CNN does. I watch them anyway because sometimes it is just too hard to stomach FOX and if I want my news at 4 p.m., there's not much of an option.

Knowing me, I've probably entirely missed your point, Xelor. But rest assured that I don't take seriously a lot of what jwoodie says. My comment to him was the most positive thing I could think of to start my reply, in hopes he might at least read it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Knowing me, I've probably entirely missed your point, Xelor.

No, you didn't.

I do see it as slanted, the way I define "slanted," anyway, which means the facts are 100% accurately reported but the writer has chosen only certain parts of the situation to mention.

Yes, okay, as a human interest story, the slant is toward the humanitarian side of the matter. We both know that's the underlying raison d'etre of a human interest story. So, yes, there is that slant. I see slant as a thing to gripe about when it is present where it shouldn't be -- pure "hard" news and pure investigative reporting.

I don't have my own definition of "slant" in news and reporting. I use the relevant (to this discussion/thread topic) one in Merriam-Webster: "to interpret or present in line with a special interest; especially : to maliciously or dishonestly distort or falsify."

As I wrote, yes, the story has the human interest slant. I don't see malice, dishonesty or falsification in the story; thus I'm not going to call it "fake news," rail about the fact that as human interest piece it tells the story of the humans affected by the change in immigration/deportation policy, or deride its reporter or the network for presenting it. The story is what it is, a human interest piece, and I see it as that. In viewing that particular story, my duty, if you will, as a viewer is not "bitch and moan" about the story itself and that it was published, but rather to decide whether the human interest aspects of the matter under discussion -- what to do about illegal immigrants -- are more important to me than are the non-human interest aspects of it.

When a network reports almost exclusively using "human interest" stories like the above or inviting in "consultants" to discuss [issues] in a negative way, it IS providing a biased view to the viewing public. I don't know if CBS does, but I do know CNN does.

Note: I edited your remark to keep the conversation general; I don't intend this to be a discussion about any specific issue.

If the human interest side, or the non-human interest side, is the only side a network reports, yes, but do the "majors" really do that? Before you answer, consider this....Take a political topic, for this example and hopefully not at the peril of the thread topic, I'll go with illegal immigration. There are a few angles to cover: legal, economic, and human. (One could say the politics of the matter, but the politics surround the issue, but they aren't the issue itself.)

What is there to say about them?

• Legal -- The law is what it is. News outlets certainly can report it. In the Internet age is there a need for them to do so? I Googled "what are the legal statutes about immigration" and the first result takes me straight to the place I need to go to find every federal law there is pertaining to (illegal) immigration. Even not knowing the details of the law pertaining to the immigration process, I know there's a legal and illegal way to get into the country. As goes any issue that has some law pertaining to it, Google does just fine for getting one to the right place. There's thus, IMO, not much value to news networks didactically reporting on legal statutes.
  
  If one desires to understand and know about certain legal nuances -- precedent, interpretation, exceptions, jurisdiction, etc. -- one may have to work a little harder, and they may even be hard to find. Maybe there's at times some value in news organizations presenting those details. I can think of instances in which they do. In the "email-gate" coverage, for example, the importance of mens rea was very clearly explained by Jeff Toobin on CNN. I don't know what other networks had to say about it, but I do know that not knowing much about it, got on Google and started looking for legal discussions about it and how it's been applied in past cases having similar circumstances to "email-gate."
  
  The news did exactly what it's supposed to do. It informed me of something I didn't know about and it told me that thing about which I didn't know is legally relevant to the "email-gate" matter. From there, the burden is mine to dig a little deeper. We all, as citizens concerned about our country, our system of jurisprudence and its equitable application, etc. had the same duty. After all, one has to know that a news program, even written news, is nearly never going to go into the full details. One has to be very naive to think that all that's worth knowing will show up in a news article/program.
• Economic -- Economic principles and laws, like statutes, are what they are. Similarly, there're scores of excellent economic resources on the Internet that explain all one could possibly want to know about how the laws of supply and demand, and the related principles and concepts interact. Like the legal aspect, it's hard to say there's a need for news outlets to report this information.
  
  Sticking with the illegal immigration issue, one might Google economic theory, gather the data and perform one's own analysis, but most folks probably lack the tools or skills to do so. What most people should be able to do is abstractly consider illegal immigration's economic impact in light of economic theory, but I have my doubts about whether they will. Willing or not, the tools needed exist and they aren't hard to find or hard to use.
  
  For example, here's one: The Economics of Immigration. If one took an econ class focused on immigration, the economic policy matters along with the analysis and measurement techniques used in that document is what one'd be taught and expected to perform, but since it's already been done in the document, one need only read the document. There are two downsides to the document: (1) one can't read the abstract or skip to the conclusion to obtain the information needed to fully understand the nature and scope of the economics of immigration, and (2) after reading it, one must apply its principles to illegal immigration. Additionally, the information isn't new, thus not news. It's just information.
  
  Lastly, one can Google the analysis offered by others. Doing that obviates one's need to connect the dots, and reporting on the analysis of individuals and groups who have connected the dots is something news organizations do. On the matter of illegal immigration, among the better economic analyses I've come by is, despite it's silly title, this one: The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration.
  
  The problem with news organizations reporting on economic matters is that their options both stink. They can report very dry and didactic content such as that found in the first linked document, or they can report the analysis of others such as that found in the second linked document. If they choose the former approach, few people will watch and then use the information. If news outlets choose the latter, people may watch, but if they don't know the information found in the first linked document (or worse, don't know basic (AP econ) economic theory) and they don't like what the analysis presented implies or states, they'll declare the news organization biased.
  
  The principles of economics aren't biased, they just are what they are. In applying them to a given situation, the way they play out will result in there being winners and losers. There's little for an individual to do but determine in which group one, barring one's altering something about one's circumstances, will land. Journalists can't tell one what needs to be altered or in which group one is.
  
  So what are they to say or do? Seems to me no matter what they do/say, given so many people's "shoot the messenger" mentality, they are screwed. I can understand why they don't much deal with it.
  
• Human Interest -- This is where the legal and economic elements come together. Right? It's where the impact, who wins and who loses, is found. The human interest side is where the measurements from the economic analysis are borne out. Accordingly, it's a legitimate story to tell.
  
  Most human interest stories tell the tale of the losers, the underdogs. That's the American way, isn't it? The story of American independence from England -- immigration to the colonies, our Revolution and solidifying the revolt's gains in the War of 1812 -- is the story of the dreams, yearnings and triumph of the underdog. Would you have the Fourth Estate abandon that spirit?

So, yes, there's definitely a slant to human interest stories. Is it not the story that needs to be told? When the law is what it is and the economics tell us who wins, who loses and by how much, the human interest angle is the only one left for determining what to do as a nation. It's the part of the story that puts our morals and ethics to the test. Time and time again, the central question is this: is it all about oneself, or is it about something bigger than oneself? Tacitly, that is the question journalists put to us when they present the human interest story.

I want to remind readers the preceding discussion was contexted for illustrative purposes on illegal immigration. That is the context of the post/sub-discussion of which this post is a part. Of other topical contexts I may certainly conclude differently, but the principles I'd apply in those contexts are the same.

I don't know if CBS does, but I do know CNN [has a high quotient of human interest stories.]

Maybe they do. I don't know. I have CNN on most of the day, but I only pay close attention if something catches my ear. I attentively watch Early Start, which doesn't have any panel discussion (likely because nobody's getting on there at four to five in the morning) and AC360, which is heavily editorial, but Andy consistently puts people from both sides of an issue on his discussion panels. Looking only at the list of stories CNN have done on the illegal immigration topic, I don't see that it's all or even heavily human interest driven. (One of their stories pointed me straight to the report on which it was based. I like when journalists do that because, as I do with footnotes in an essay, I'll read it.)

the most positive thing I could think of to start my reply

You've been here longer, but I'm must have a more jaundiced stance and a hell of a lot less patience than you. LOL

 

[Dogmaphobe]

How's about speaking English and telling us what YOU think of the current state of affairs in journalism. .

Goodness, gracious, are my posts showing up in Cyrillic AGAIN! Things are worse than I thought!


I don't know what was so difficult to understand, but the meaning of "inverse relationship" as it applies to a journalists fierce devotion to an ideology is that the more they are an ideologue, the less they are objective.

Journalism SHOULD be about the reporter being as objective as possible and having the self-control necessary to avoid interjecting their own point of view.

If you wish for a salient example of extremely poor journalism, look no further than the way the Michael Brown case was reported. This "gentle giant", a mere "teen" was supposedly gunned down ruthlessly by a white cop.

The truth of the matter AS WE COULD ALL SEE WITH OUR OWN EYES was that this enormous mountain of a man went into a convenience store, indulged in strong-armed robbery, grabbed a clerk menacingly around the neck and tossed him aside as if he were a rag doll. Further details emerged that this same mountain of a man tried to wrest a cop's gun away from him, which any sane person would realize is a threat to the cop's life.

The problem here is that the media had a story to sell and an impression to create, and damn what actually happened. They were simply advancing a very hackneyed narrative playing the race card in order to enflame tensions rather than acting as true journalists by reporting the facts and allowing the readers to decide for themselves. .

 

[OldLady]

Knowing me, I've probably entirely missed your point, Xelor.

No, you didn't.

I do see it as slanted, the way I define "slanted," anyway, which means the facts are 100% accurately reported but the writer has chosen only certain parts of the situation to mention.

Yes, okay, as a human interest story, the slant is toward the humanitarian side of the matter. We both know that's the underlying raison d'etre of a human interest story. So, yes, there is that slant. I see slant as a thing to gripe about when it is present where it shouldn't be -- pure "hard" news and pure investigative reporting.

I don't have my own definition of "slant" in news and reporting. I use the relevant (to this discussion/thread topic) one in Merriam-Webster: "to interpret or present in line with a special interest; especially : to maliciously or dishonestly distort or falsify."

As I wrote, yes, the story has the human interest slant. I don't see malice, dishonesty or falsification in the story; thus I'm not going to call it "fake news," rail about the fact that as human interest piece it tells the story of the humans affected by the change in immigration/deportation policy, or deride its reporter or the network for presenting it. The story is what it is, a human interest piece, and I see it as that. In viewing that particular story, my duty, if you will, as a viewer is not "bitch and moan" about the story itself and that it was published, but rather to decide whether the human interest aspects of the matter under discussion -- what to do about illegal immigrants -- are more important to me than are the non-human interest aspects of it.

When a network reports almost exclusively using "human interest" stories like the above or inviting in "consultants" to discuss [issues] in a negative way, it IS providing a biased view to the viewing public. I don't know if CBS does, but I do know CNN does.

Note: I edited your remark to keep the conversation general; I don't intend this to be a discussion about any specific issue.

If the human interest side, or the non-human interest side, is the only side a network reports, yes, but do the "majors" really do that? Before you answer, consider this....Take a political topic, for this example and hopefully not at the peril of the thread topic, I'll go with illegal immigration. There are a few angles to cover: legal, economic, and human. (One could say the politics of the matter, but the politics surround the issue, but they aren't the issue itself.)

What is there to say about them?

• Legal -- The law is what it is. News outlets certainly can report it. In the Internet age is there a need for them to do so? I Googled "what are the legal statutes about immigration" and the first result takes me straight to the place I need to go to find every federal law there is pertaining to (illegal) immigration. Even not knowing the details of the law pertaining to the immigration process, I know there's a legal and illegal way to get into the country. As goes any issue that has some law pertaining to it, Google does just fine for getting one to the right place. There's thus, IMO, not much value to news networks didactically reporting on legal statutes.
  
  If one desires to understand and know about certain legal nuances -- precedent, interpretation, exceptions, jurisdiction, etc. -- one may have to work a little harder, and they may even be hard to find. Maybe there's at times some value in news organizations presenting those details. I can think of instances in which they do. In the "email-gate" coverage, for example, the importance of mens rea was very clearly explained by Jeff Toobin on CNN. I don't know what other networks had to say about it, but I do know that not knowing much about it, got on Google and started looking for legal discussions about it and how it's been applied in past cases having similar circumstances to "email-gate."
  
  The news did exactly what it's supposed to do. It informed me of something I didn't know about and it told me that thing about which I didn't know is legally relevant to the "email-gate" matter. From there, the burden is mine to dig a little deeper. We all, as citizens concerned about our country, our system of jurisprudence and its equitable application, etc. had the same duty. After all, one has to know that a news program, even written news, is nearly never going to go into the full details. One has to be very naive to think that all that's worth knowing will show up in a news article/program.
• Economic -- Economic principles and laws, like statutes, are what they are. Similarly, there're scores of excellent economic resources on the Internet that explain all one could possibly want to know about how the laws of supply and demand, and the related principles and concepts interact. Like the legal aspect, it's hard to say there's a need for news outlets to report this information.
  
  Sticking with the illegal immigration issue, one might Google economic theory, gather the data and perform one's own analysis, but most folks probably lack the tools or skills to do so. What most people should be able to do is abstractly consider illegal immigration's economic impact in light of economic theory, but I have my doubts about whether they will. Willing or not, the tools needed exist and they aren't hard to find or hard to use.
  
  For example, here's one: The Economics of Immigration. If one took an econ class focused on immigration, the economic policy matters along with the analysis and measurement techniques used in that document is what one'd be taught and expected to perform, but since it's already been done in the document, one need only read the document. There are two downsides to the document: (1) one can't read the abstract or skip to the conclusion to obtain the information needed to fully understand the nature and scope of the economics of immigration, and (2) after reading it, one must apply its principles to illegal immigration. Additionally, the information isn't new, thus not news. It's just information.
  
  Lastly, one can Google the analysis offered by others. Doing that obviates one's need to connect the dots, and reporting on the analysis of individuals and groups who have connected the dots is something news organizations do. On the matter of illegal immigration, among the better economic analyses I've come by is, despite it's silly title, this one: The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration.
  
  The problem with news organizations reporting on economic matters is that their options both stink. They can report very dry and didactic content such as that found in the first linked document, or they can report the analysis of others such as that found in the second linked document. If they choose the former approach, few people will watch and then use the information. If news outlets choose the latter, people may watch, but if they don't know the information found in the first linked document (or worse, don't know basic (AP econ) economic theory) and they don't like what the analysis presented implies or states, they'll declare the news organization biased.
  
  The principles of economics aren't biased, they just are what they are. In applying them to a given situation, the way they play out will result in there being winners and losers. There's little for an individual to do but determine in which group one, barring one's altering something about one's circumstances, will land. Journalists can't tell one what needs to be altered or in which group one is.
  
  So what are they to say or do? Seems to me no matter what they do/say, given so many people's "shoot the messenger" mentality, they are screwed. I can understand why they don't much deal with it.
  
• Human Interest -- This is where the legal and economic elements come together. Right? It's where the impact, who wins and who loses, is found. The human interest side is where the measurements from the economic analysis are borne out. Accordingly, it's a legitimate story to tell.
  
  Most human interest stories tell the tale of the losers, the underdogs. That's the American way, isn't it? The story of American independence from England -- immigration to the colonies, our Revolution and solidifying the revolt's gains in the War of 1812 -- is the story of the dreams, yearnings and triumph of the underdog. Would you have the Fourth Estate abandon that spirit?

So, yes, there's definitely a slant to human interest stories. Is it not the story that needs to be told? When the law is what it is and the economics tell us who wins, who loses and by how much, the human interest angle is the only one left for determining what to do as a nation. It's the part of the story that puts our morals and ethics to the test. Time and time again, the central question is this: is it all about oneself, or is it about something bigger than oneself? Tacitly, that is the question journalists put to us when they present the human interest story.

I want to remind readers the preceding discussion was contexted for illustrative purposes on illegal immigration. That is the context of the post/sub-discussion of which this post is a part. Of other topical contexts I may certainly conclude differently, but the principles I'd apply in those contexts are the same.

I don't know if CBS does, but I do know CNN [has a high quotient of human interest stories.]

Maybe they do. I don't know. I have CNN on most of the day, but I only pay close attention if something catches my ear. I attentively watch Early Start, which doesn't have any panel discussion (likely because nobody's getting on there at four to five in the morning) and AC360, which is heavily editorial, but Andy consistently puts people from both sides of an issue on his discussion panels. Looking only at the list of stories CNN have done on the illegal immigration topic, I don't see that it's all or even heavily human interest driven. (One of their stories pointed me straight to the report on which it was based. I like when journalists do that because, as I do with footnotes in an essay, I'll read it.)

the most positive thing I could think of to start my reply

You've been here longer, but I'm must have a more jaundiced stance and a hell of a lot less patience than you. LOL

"to interpret or present in line with a special interest; especially : to maliciously or dishonestly distort or falsify."
I hadn't been using the term "slanted" with such a negative spin. I may have to find another term for articles that for one reason or another tell only part of the story.

Looking only at the list of stories CNN have done on the illegal immigration topic, I don't see that it's all or even heavily human interest driven.
To see CNN's bias, you need to look at it on a more "macro" level than the individual shows or discussions themselves. I flip back and forth a lot between CNN and FOX when there are commercials (I hate commercials) and sometimes just out of curiosity. CNN will be like a dog with a bone over any perceived Trump "issue" (and quite negative about it), while Fox will report on it and move on. Fox is equally guilty of bias, don't get me wrong. It is interesting to observe the lead stories and the time each channel devotes to what topics.

Note: I edited your remark to keep the conversation general; I don't intend this to be a discussion about any specific issue.
Most human interest stories tell the tale of the losers, the underdogs. That's the American way, isn't it? The story of American independence from England -- immigration to the colonies, our Revolution and solidifying the revolt's gains in the War of 1812 -- is the story of the dreams, yearnings and triumph of the underdog. Would you have the Fourth Estate abandon that spirit?
So, yes, there's definitely a slant to human interest stories. Is it not the story that needs to be told? When the law is what it is and the economics tell us who wins, who loses and by how much, the human interest angle is the only one left for determining what to do as a nation. It's the part of the story that puts our morals and ethics to the test. Time and time again, the central question is this: is it all about oneself, or is it about something bigger than oneself? Tacitly, that is the question journalists put to us when they present the human interest story.

Really? To me, it seems your opinion is very evident on this topic. I'm not buying your appeal to emotion; you are really mixing that up with your stated OP attempt to distinguish between the various forms of journalism. Human interest stories can be about many different things--not just stories sympathetic to the underdog--like Melania's favorite foods or a story about a local police chief's fishing hobby.

I'm all for legal immigration and I hate the refugee ban, but I have no intention of standing up for the right of illegals to remain here. Not that I'm a bigot like BL, not that I'm necessarily sure they're making us broke. I don't hate them, but they took a chance when they snuck in. If they get caught, that's on them. Take a risk, fine, but take responsibility for your choices if you lose.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Journalism SHOULD be about the reporter being as objective as possible and having the self-control necessary to avoid interjecting their own point of view.

Did you read the OP? I understand what you said. I don't understand how you come to say it and understand the five basic types of journalistic writing.

If the journalist is writing a "hard" news story, yes. That's the "few to no qualitative adjectives" reporting about people, places and events. The only allowed qualitative content is that from sources that are quoted, or, if relevant, to describe a characteristic of an unnamed source that is paraphrased or quoted. There is journalism, news, that isn't and can never be as straightforward "who, what, when, where, how and why" news presented with no sense of perspective. After all, merely collecting facts and writing them down doesn't make one a journalist; one must also weigh the evidence, for if one doesn't, one is not a journalist, one is a stenographer.

Objectivity is essential with an investigative story too, but it's a different kind of objectivity. Just as criminal prosecutors investigate and argue with the goal of obtaining evidence that proves the assertion of guilt -- that is why the Miranda statement states that what one says will be used against one; they aren't trying to find that which will show an accused person to be innocent -- journalists investigate with the aim of discovering factual and accurate information and then based on the information they obtain, determine whether it points to assertion "X, Y, and/or Z," and to what extent for each. The main assertion of the story becomes "whichever" did "such and such." That's different from what prosecutors do in that investigative journalists are indifferent about who's "guilty" whereas prosecutors being with the assumption the accused is guilty. Those are two very different points of departure.

If the journalist is writing a column, feature or review, their rhetorical purpose is necessarily going to be one or several of the following:

• to identify and describe an event, person or place and explain its/their importance
• to review or evaluate a text
• to explain a concept or idea
• to argue a position

Any and all of those purposes will have some aspect of opinion in it; it has to. It's the adult reader's job to recognize the writer's rhetorical purpose and treat the piece accordingly, bearing in mind that the rhetorical purpose isn't debatable.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Human interest stories can be about many different things--not just stories sympathetic to the underdog--like Melania's favorite foods or a story about a local police chief's fishing hobby.

I didn't have in mind those kinds of human interest stories. I was thinking of the ones that relate to something political.

CNN will be like a dog with a bone

From what I can tell by having CNN on all day, they basically run a 30-minute topical "loop"/cycle for whatever are the few big stories of the day. I'm not nuts about that, but the fact of their doing it is one of frequency rather than the types of journalism they exercise.

CNN will be like a dog with a bone over any perceived Trump "issue" (and quite negative about it), while Fox will report on it and move on.

You may find this -- Cable News Content Analysis -- useful for evaluating whether you view of the nature of the various cable channels' reporting aligns with your perceptions. I haven't read the analysis; I Googled to see if there were any studies that present empirical information about cable news content. I haven't personally looked at all three of the major cable news networks and kept record of that type of info.

My own "gut" sense is that CNN is basically all politics all day.

Fox is equally guilty of bias, don't get me wrong.

It's hard for me to say that I see a lot of bias in CNN's reporters, but I do see plenty of it in their commentators. I also know that CNN's anchors/presenters as often ask the questions I'd ask as they don't. That is what it is, but it does mean that I don't always get the information I'm looking for from their broadcasts; consequently, I have to do some research on my own.

I just tuned in to Cavuto (I've never done so before.). He opened with a puff piece, next came a story about the seven new planets found. Then he mentioned that Pence is at a Jewish cemetery and Cavuto said,

"Back to terrestrial concerns and the big dustup over the damage to a lot of Jewish cemeteries in this country, particularly from where the VP is speaking/visiting, saying this type of hatred has got to stop."​

The image shifted to Pence speaking and what the viewer hears is,

"...Let me also say I just want to say thanks to your new governor. Thank you governor Brightenson on behalf of the President of the United States. Let me just say thank you to all of you for coming out and showing the heart of this state [MO] and the heart of this nation in this place. You just make us all proud. God bless you."​

That's all (This CNN's coverage -- so far -- of what Pence has had to say about the anti-Semitic vandalism.)

Am I out of my mind for thinking that the relevant video clip to show from Pence's remarks at the cemetery would be that of him saying whatever he said that corresponded to Cavuto's depiction of him saying the hatred has to stop?

I guess viewers are expected to take Cavuto's word for what Pence said. Where I come from, that's called "hearsay," and while I know that some news stories have no choice but to tell us what someone said, that news story, one where there clearly were reporters there, didn't need to force the viewer to rely on what Cavuto said Pence said. They could have shown it. Personally, I think Jews would be happy to see the VP saying something affirmative about the Administration's denouncement of anti-Semitic acts like "damaging" Jewish cemeteries. A short pan of some of the damage would have been useful to see.

After that came a brief business news segment. After the commercial, it was on to clip showing Maxine Waters rant about some of Trump's cabinet members. After that, it was pure editorial conversation between Cavuto and a guy who agreed with him.

Then there was another commercial break and Cavuto returned and editorialized with another Fox employee about the protesters at Joni Earnst's town hall event. They noted that she intended to talk about Veterans affairs and mocking the protesters said something to the effect of "as if there aren't enough issues around vets" and chiding the protesters for, get this, protesting. One of them claimed the protesters were brought in from somewhere -- well, duh, of course they sure came from somewhere -- but offered not one shred of evidence that so much as one protester even wasn't Iowan. Again, they had video of the protest, but no reporter asking a protester, "Where are you from? How did you get here?", or anything similar.

Is that news? No. It's clearly editorial, and I'm fine with them doing editorials. But here's the thing. Both those chit-chat segments featured Cavuto and an echo chamber guest. No opposing voice whatsoever, not even in a follow-up segment. That same one-sided format is hard to find on CNN's editorial segments.

 

[jwoodie]

Yes, okay, as a human interest story, the slant is toward the humanitarian side of the matter. We both know that's the underlying raison d'etre of a human interest story. So, yes, there is that slant. I see slant as a thing to gripe about when it is present where it shouldn't be -- pure "hard" news and pure investigative reporting.

This was on CBS EVENING NEWS, not 20/20 or some other non-news "human interest" program. Are you so blinded by your partisan outrage that you can't tell the difference?

 

[usmbguest5318]

I think Jews would be happy to see the VP saying something affirmative about the Administration's denouncement of anti-Semitic acts like "damaging" Jewish cemeteries. A short pan of some of the damage would have been useful to see.

OldLady, just wanted to offer a contrasting illustration that, hopefully, shows why I PBS is what I watch everyday to get news. Here -- PBS NewsHour full episode Feb. 22, 2017 -- you'll find yesterday's PBS News Hour broadcast. It begins with the story of cemetery vandalism and Pence's remarks at the St. Louis cemetery. From the get go one can see the image of the vandalism in some cemetery, that small image alone provided more detail than I'd seen on Fox's Cavuto or CNN's coverage of the event.

So, yes, though Fox, MSNBC and CNN are what they are, and one can obtain some news from them, I think one has to see them for what they are rather than what they once were. Too, I think one must recognize that they are what they are and not what one might want them to be.

 

[OldLady]

I think Jews would be happy to see the VP saying something affirmative about the Administration's denouncement of anti-Semitic acts like "damaging" Jewish cemeteries. A short pan of some of the damage would have been useful to see.

OldLady, just wanted to offer a contrasting illustration that, hopefully, shows why I PBS is what I watch everyday to get news. Here -- PBS NewsHour full episode Feb. 22, 2017 -- you'll find yesterday's PBS News Hour broadcast. It begins with the story of cemetery vandalism and Pence's remarks at the St. Louis cemetery. From the get go one can see the image of the vandalism in some cemetery, that small image alone provided more detail than I'd seen on Fox's Cavuto or CNN's coverage of the event.

So, yes, though Fox, MSNBC and CNN are what they are, and one can obtain some news from them, I think one has to see them for what they are rather than what they once were. Too, I think one must recognize that they are what they are and not what one might want them to be.

Thanks. I agree about the cable news stations. I wasn't complaining so much as just commenting on an interesting dichotomy between CNN and FOX. I do watch PBS NewsHour, or if I'm busy at that hour I record it.

I do hope that cemetery vandalism wasn't adolescent males out doing the equivalent of "cow tipping," with no idea it was a Jewish cemetery. If so, they have misled a nation. Probably more headstones were damaged than your typical pack of drunken 14 year olds would bother with.

We have that kind of vandalism here a lot, since our cemeteries are small and out of the way, and the old headstones are easy to knock over. Besides being upsetting if your grandparents' stone was tipped, it's EXPENSIVE getting them repaired. Bad, bad, bad.

 

[OldLady]

Yes, okay, as a human interest story, the slant is toward the humanitarian side of the matter. We both know that's the underlying raison d'etre of a human interest story. So, yes, there is that slant. I see slant as a thing to gripe about when it is present where it shouldn't be -- pure "hard" news and pure investigative reporting.

This was on CBS EVENING NEWS, not 20/20 or some other non-news "human interest" program. Are you so blinded by your partisan outrage that you can't tell the difference?

I do think he focused on a CNN story because I brought them up in my post. I still stand by my proposition that CBS puts on what "sells," not because they are in collusion with the DNC or an even darker plot to take over the world.

 

[jwoodie]

I still stand by my proposition that CBS puts on what "sells," not because they are in collusion with the DNC or an even darker plot to take over the world.

Then why is their "news" viewership is declining?

 

[danielpalos]

this is the civic and moral imperative, Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

History proves that dictatorships do not grow out of strong and successful governments, but out of weak and helpless ones. If by democratic methods people get a government strong enough to protect them from fear and starvation, their democracy succeeds; but if they do not, they grow impatient. Therefore, the only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over its government.--FDR