I agree this seemed like Palin got sand bagged compared to the questions that Obama was asked. Wonder if it would have helped if she had been on Newsweek 16 times with one of the headlines being, “The next vice president?”

We never heard, saw or knew anything about Ms. Palin. We have had so many grilling interviews of Mr.Obama. We saw Obama talk to Bill O’Reilly and Katie Coric.. those were not cake walks. So Ms. Palin really had to convince not only the media persons but the regular people she was the right person, it is not sufficient to just do a song and dance type of performance to be a VP pic.

As media access increases, I think irresponsible journalism becomes less of a danger because we can always go to the next source. I’m not sure that means it is less incumbant on a journalist to be thorough in his research, and I certainly don’t mean it is an excuse for dishonesty, but I think even a major news source has a legitimate right to present things in the light they feel is best

ok, but your view of the news industry negates 90% of the reason people read newspapers: to get facts.

if i am reading a news story, i don’t want to have to read a half-dozen news stories to make sure i’m being told the truth. i want to read one news story.

since gwen ifill’s apparent conflict of interest is in the news today, i’ll concede that her decision to host the debate despite her vested financial interest (book deal) in an obama victory is a decision she is free to make, and she is not breaking any ethical or journalistic rule simply by moderating a debate when she cares who wins. it would only become an issue if she actually was unfair or partial in the debate.

but now that i’ve conceded that, let me reiterate my point about impartiality, neutrality, and objectivity being a standard tenet of the news industry, let me quote PBS and their statement on editorial standards.

C. Objectivity
Along with fairness and accuracy, objectivity is the third basic standard to which journalists are held.
….
Objectivity, however, encompasses more than news and information presented in a neutral way. It also refers to the process by which a work was produced, including work that involves analysis or, as a result of reporting, arrives at conclusions. To begin with, journalists must enter into any inquiry with an open mind, not with the intent to present a predetermined point of view.

the following snippet from PBS’ editorial standards statement goes to my point two, above, that differentiates certain fox and msnbc programs from NPR, ABC, CBS, and NBC programs:

Opinion and commentary are different from news and analysis. When a program, segment, or other content is devoted to opinion or commentary, the principle of transparency requires that it be clearly labeled as such. Any content segment that presents only like-minded views without offering contrasting viewpoints should be considered opinion and should identify who is responsible for the views being presented.

requiring reporters to be objective does not limit their free speech. they can always go write any opinion column they want, or quit their jobs and drive around the country spray painting “george bush sucks balls” on every overpass they see. but there are certain places in our society where clamoring for “free speech” to be honored and respected is just silly. i wouldn’t want to wake up from major surgery to my doctor telling me, “well, i almost cut out that cancerous lump, but i decided to exercise my free speech rights and spend my time drawing peace signs on your internal organs.” likewise, i don’t want a journalist to put a slant on what is supposed to be objective news, then claim safe harbor in his right to express himself. its really just a non sequitur.

Maybe we disagree less on journalism than on the general public.

I agree that the biased new reports are irresponsible and can be damaging to the democratic process.

But I also am fairly confident that, while a good chunk of America is stupid, Americans as a whole are smart enough to know when they are being fed an agenda.

As media access increases, I think irresponsible journalism becomes less of a danger because we can always go to the next source. I’m not sure that means it is less incumbant on a journalist to be thorough in his research, and I certainly don’t mean it is an excuse for dishonesty, but I think even a major news source has a legitimate right to present things in the light they feel is best (I think this may not have been true when there were essentially monopolies on the news–but my first foray into journalistic history was reading your post).

I think it is more incumbant on the voter to get his facts right, and if the voter doesn’t care, then he gets what he deserves.

But I think Travis hit the nail on the head. Like I said earlier:

Differing treatment in interviews compromises the fundamentals of disseminating information.

To claim to diseeminate information, but instead disseminate opinion or “news” through a tinted lens, is hypocritical and breaks the unwritten rules they wrote themselves.

Gibson has no duty to the audience, in terms of journalistic standards,other than what he may impose on himself.

yes, he does. these standards may not have originated with any formal pronouncement, but you can get it from the expectations the industry has created in its audience.

surely you’ve heard how important journalism is to democracy. when you hear people say that, do you think they mean that partisan journalism disguised as fair reporting is what is important to democracy?

you know, very few people actually pay attention to the news like you do. many, many, many people will vote for a president this fall having only seen or read or heard one or two news stories on the candidates. many people probably have no idea how differently sarah palin and john mccain are treated from barack obama and joe biden in the news. so if an individual encounters a report where mccain’s policy positions are pooh-poohed and obama’s policy positions are ogled, and said individual holds the justified belief that the news source will be impartial to both sides in reporting on the election, he or she may be led to the conclusion that obama is just better than mccain. you can see how this easily can influence votes, so it matters a lot.

this doesn’t have anything to do with the first amendment, but it does have something to do with an industry-wide trust with our democracy. here are some points from a liberal website that is concerned about media consolidation and the resulting bias. note how they talk about journalism and democracy. i disagree with your point about gibson, because i believe partisan hackery that masquerades as fair, neutral reporting is much more serious than just the regrettable personal choice of an individual journalist who leaves his ethics at the door.

TV, radio, movies, books, newspapers and the Internet are our prime sources of news and information. They shape our values, beliefs and perspectives.

Media are also essential to our democracy. We depend upon media to find out what’s happening in our communities, to play our part as citizens, and to serve as a vital check on government and corporate power.

…unbiased, independent, [and] critical journalism [are needed] to prevent abuses of power.

[source: freepress.net]

i suppose my argument is, if we had the choice between the current system of stealth bias in supposedly non-partisan news sources and the old system of outright falsehoods that i described a couple of comments up, then i would prefer the latter. then, at least, everybody would know to view journalists’ reports with the proper amount of skepticism.

But assuming that I am correct in agreeing with every serious legal scholar in the country–that the constitution actually applies to people that happen to have money and/or influence–then the brief history of newspaper marketing purposes is irrelevant. So, in such a case, Gibson has no duty to the audience, in terms of journalistic standards,other than what he may impose on himself.

But, yes I agree completely that if we add the phrase “except someone who might have a large television audience” to the constitution, then Gibson’s actions were deplorable, and he should have asked Palin about her hair style.

It’s nice that journalists at least have an ethical ideal of non-bias, but that is self-imposed. Gibson doesn’t owe us squat.

Or am I wrong and has All-encompassingly committed some kind of moral wrong by presenting a right-wing slant on nearly everything?

you’re way off.

the first newspapers in our country were created by the political parties. they were completely partisan and full of lies. at some point, most likely for marketing purposes when newspapers became big business, the trend was toward impartiality, so as to appeal to the widest possible audience. TV news developed in that environment. you had three channels, or however many (i wasn’t alive then, as you know, but that’s what i understand) so TV news basically was a monopoly. walter cronkite used to end his broadcasts with “and that’s the way it is” as if he were moses pronouncing god’s will for the evening.

my argument is not that journalists are not entitled to free speech while bloggers are. my argument is that certain media outlets (1) have so much power and influence, and (2) put on such an air of impartiality that it is improper for them to be so partisan.

for example, air america radio, all-encompassingly.com, FOX news, and MSNBC don’t have the same responsibility to be impartial that ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, or NPR have.

the difference between the first and second groups, above, is that the first group have little to none of (1) and (2). the second group has lots of (1) and tons of (2).

Gibson does not owe some duty to us to provide any kind of balanced coverage–he can say whatever he wants and we can change the channel if we want. It’s nice that journalists at least have an ethical ideal of non-bias, but that is self-imposed. Gibson doesn’t owe us squat.

Or am I wrong and has All-encompassingly committed some kind of moral wrong by presenting a right-wing slant on nearly everything?

Sure, Gibson’s politics are clearly on display which is an ethical issue for interviewers, I guess–but so what?

its not just an issue of ethics when guys who run media outlets admit their bias creates a huge electoral advantage for the democrats.

Why not talk about the “alleged” debate Gibson and his ABC pals conducted for the Democrats in which he spent half the time talking about Obama’s lack of a flag lapel pin or some other stupid thing? You’re cherry picking here

hey, did you know john mccain owns several houses and cars? do you know he doesn’t use email? we would not know these shocking and highly relevant facts without the media’s help.

on the other hand, i would prefer journalists not to ask whether the man who wants to be president of my country is patriotic, or if he threw away his flag pin because the USA just embarrasses him all the time.