CNN, Octavia Nasr, Hezbollah & Thomas Friedman

I agree that she should be gone.

I think it's interesting that both Nasr & Friedman had an easier time finding good things to say about Fadlallah than many people did with Steinbrenner.

Now if you think Steinbrenner was a bad guy, fine.

But I don't think all of the support for Muslim "women's rights" does anything to mitigate this guy's support for suicide bombers.

He was a bad guy & didn't deserve Nasr's "respect".

 

You've conflated Steinbrenner and a terrorist supporter. That probably plays in Boston ...

 

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's take in the Jerusalem Post:

 

I don't have a problem with Nasr recognizing the positive accomplishments of a polarizing figure. The part about being a "Hezbollah giant" is troublesome. If a Washington correspondent tweeted about Ted Kennedy being a "liberal giant I respect a lot," readers would assume the reporter isn't planning on voting for Sarah Palin. It compromises the reporter's perceived objectivity at the minimum, and at worst raises questions about their agenda.

 

A lot of people did use phrases like that about Kennedy.

I'd have to think though if they were straight news folks or commentators.

I'm really surprised, though, at how many of you find the problem -- in general -- to be exposing your own biases.

If you have biases, you should let your audience know them. This way they can factor it into your reporting.

The key is to either not be biased, or not let your biases affect your reporting.

 

If your bias doesn't affect your reporting, then airing it only gives people ammunition to shoot down your credibility. Then, given once again that it doesn't affect your reporting, it only does harm.

I understand what you're saying. Admitting bias should lead to a better-informed news consumer. Because of their well-known slants, HuffPo and Fox News consumers are more aware that they're sometimes not getting a balanced report. Heck, many people want biased news anyway.

Openly admitting a private bias upholds journalistic standards of transparency and honesty -- in a vacuum. As you said, people will factor it into your reporting. Only they'll do it when it suits them, so they can keep believing whatever they want to believe.

 

YankeeFan: Just wondering, would you have been troubled if a journalist expressed condolences or respect for Menachem Begin when he died? Recall that he was the leader of a terrorist group which conducted what is still the deadliest terrorist attack in the history of Israel/Palestine (killing 91 people at the King David Hotel). Also, any problem with the fact that both of the NYT’s reporters covering the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Isabel Kershner and Ethan Bronner, both have strong ties to Israel? (Isabel Kershner is an Israeli citizen, and Ethan Bronner’s son is serving in the Israeli military) Or is bias ok, so long as those who have it are playing for the team you support?
http://www.counterpunch.org/weir02262010.html

 

I don't have all of the answers.

Everyone has biases.

Some, you probably just need to run by your editor. Some should be brought to the attention of the reader, and some should prevent you from working on an assignment.

But I would lean towards openness.

Reporters like to think they can keep there bias out of their stories.

Maybe they can, but I think you should be as honest as possible with your audience. let them know. Let them decide.

At the very least, if a supervisor is aware of a bias, he/she can look to make sure it doesn't creep into reporting.