Post 2: All I Know Is What I Read in the Papers

Chuck Klosterman wrote a very interesting article concerning media and the pitfalls of working in such an industry.  He starts his essay by talking about how journalists have "higher ethics and less common sense" than most other people.  He feels this way because he knows that many journalists will simply wait for the first person to call them back on a story and use that one source throughout the article instead of using all sides of an argument.  

When I was looking through news sites on the internet, I came across an article from Reuters.  The premise of this article is that McCain and his people are "disappointed" that he was not declared the winner of the debate held in Mississippi Friday night.  As I read the article, after reading Klosterman's piece, I was picturing a reporter sitting in his office working at his desk waiting for someone to call back with a quote for his article.  I can see him hearing back from McCain's people, and the reporter hanging up the phone and then typing away finishing his article.   The article starts with a paragraph stating the premise of the article; that McCain's camp is upset he was not declared the winner.  The second paragraph is a direct quote from McCain discussing how he feels that he should have been a winner in the debate.  Although there are quotes from someone in Obama's campaign, they are only quotes from a press conference which has been reported on before, and available through research.

 This article is in no way biased like the last article I wrote about, but it does fully fit into what Klosterman was talking about.  The reporter gathered quotes from the easiest and quickest source and used them and only them.  

http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/09/27/mccain-

disappointed-that-media-declared-debate-a-tie/

The 3 Tenets of Social Responsibility in the Media

While I was browsing the web for an article to use for this weeks post, I came across an article on Fox News' website about the Vermont candidate for attorney general. I had not heard anything about the candidate, Charlotte Dennett. The main focus of the article is Dennett's intention, if elected, to prosecute George Bush for murder on the basis of his decisions in Iraq.
This seemed ludicrous to me at first, but as i read the article it seemed to be much more plausible. It only seemed ludicrous due to the fact that there is no precedent for this in the past, whereas there has been others like Bush before him. The article continues to discuss (using quotes) how it is not likely for Dennett to get elected from "liberal Vermont" and that she is not what the US needs as a state attorney general.
The first tenet of Social Responsibility, Inform, is found in this article. This article absolutely "informs" readers of the fact that there is a woman running for attorney general who wants to prosecute President Bush. That is where the non-bias stops. After the first few paragraphs explaining the basis of the issue, the article goes into quotes talking about how bad this candidate would be for the country and how Vermont is liberal, as well as someone from Vermont can't make it to a national stage. Overall the bias in this article, while not in the parts written by the reporter are clearly evident through the quotes picked by the writer of this article.
This article absolutely lines up with the second tenet of Social Responsibility, Nurture. My feeling is that anything that has an influence on who is elected to represent me and the state I live in is very relevant. Even if it only shows one side of the issue and is biased, it still opens my eyes to the subject and now I can go and find more information and form my own opinions.
The third tenet, be fair, is not found within this article. Fair is one of the last words I would use to describe it. It starts off with a non-biased introduction to who, what, where, and when, but goes south from there. In order to be "fair", an article must show both sides of the issue without letting in any personal opinions or slandering anyone. Granted the author didn't outright say, Dennett is an idiot, or something along those lines, but he did use quotes that are only from opposition to her thus making it a one sided article.
This article only made one of the three tenets. I have long realized Fox News' tendencies to slant one way in their reporting. This article makes me think about what they left out that could change my opinions on this issue. In some sense, I feel as though this is good. When I see an article this one sided, it makes me want to learn as much as I can about all sides of the issue. Sometimes when I read an article that is much less biased I will just accept it and move on.


http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/19/vermont-candidate-
wants-to-prosecute-bush-if-elected/