Could we handle the truth?

That's true in a lot of ways.

I remember during the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban would bring in reporters into villages and claim that the US killed a bunch of women and children in an air strike. And at the same time, the reporters wouldn't actually be allowed to talk to any villagers (except a handpicked one or two).

Then the reporters would go back to the Army, and ask them. And the Army spokespeople would say that they killed soldiers, not civilians.

The problem I had is the reporters would give the Taliban the same credence that they would give the Army. To me, unless the Taliban was willing to let reporters talk to Afghans on their own, they shouldn't have even reported any of their claims.

Reporters need to consider the credibility of their sources. As you've said, too frequently, they just stenograph what each side says, instead of taking the time to look into the claims and call bullshit on the false ones.

 

This is excellent.

 

Taibbi's blog is kickass, too, at www.trueslant.com

His stuff on Goldman Sachs is just so good.

 

I disagree. If you don't give the Taliban's point of view, then you've only given the official military report. You are a press release. I think the best way to handle it is exactly the way it was presented in this example. Present the Taliban's claim, but also present the context in which they make the claim. They say civilians were targeted, but they won't allow access to the civilians who would have been witness. That's fishy. And the reader can figure that out if the context is provided.

 

My issue with that is that frequently, the reader doesn't, or can't figure out the context. Or, they don't care.

What the reporters need to do in that situation (and understandably, with the Taliban, it's an extremely dangerous situation) is tell the Taliban, "We either talk to the villagers on our own, or we won't print your claims."

And they can do the same for the US Army. The reporters either get to talk to the soldiers in the field, or they don't print their 5 o'clock follies.

It's called being an independent chronicler. There are usually more sides to an arguement than just two.

 

What you say is fine, and should be presented to the reader as you say it. The Taliban denied independent media access to civilians, but offered hand-picked civilians. Stuff like that.

 

I hate to break up the Matt Taibbi fan club meeting, but regardless of how "informative" he is, the man loses all credibility with me when he writes something along the lines of, "Blah blah blah," said right-wing dickface Tom Delay.

He does it several times per piece. It's juvenile and it undercuts whatever point he may have.

 

I actually do agree with you on this, if he does. Please link the examples. Thanks.

 

RS doesn't give away content, but here's an example from this week:

"Assurances that the government plan would play by the rules that private insurers play by are implausible," groused right-win douchebag George Will.

 

Ah, I see. Yeah, that's bad.

 

While I don't have a problem with the actual Fox News people for the most part - they should be embarrassed that so many viewers believe so many of their myths in comparison to other news outlets.
I get that people were upset by the liberal media and the Murdoch saw an opening for a right - leaning news network, but now we're past the point of two sides disagreeing about an issue, you've got the reality-based world and a large segment of the population that has become comfortable with their ignorance and a steady stream of people ready to take full advantage of them.

 

I think that modern journalists are too scared of being accused of being biased.

What section of the modern media world gets the most publicity? The right wing talk show hosts. Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, whether you like them or despise them, have significant say in the overall tenor of the public debate in this country. If not in the overall mood, then definitely the topics. They bring up something on the show and spark a response because they have such large audiences.

Yet normal journalists, who may or may not lean in a particular political direction, are so worried about being accused of being biased that they don't actually address the facts of an issue. They simply report what everyone is saying.

It doesn't matter if the president is George W. Bush or Barack Obama. If the President of the United States were to address the media tomorrow and state unequivocally that the sky does not appear to be blue like we all believe, but is really turd brown, the national media would write the following:

"The President issued a national declaration Friday, stating, "The sky is poopish colored." Meanwhile, Jon Simpleton, president of The Sky is Blue Dagnabbit Research Center, offered a harsh rebuttal to the president's claim.

"The sky is, and always has been, a blue-ish color," an exasperated Simpleton claimed. "Any changes in atmospheric color in the past, present, or future are related to temporary disturbances - clouds being gray, sunsets turning it red, etc. The President is misleading the American people with this statement."

But the president's aides insist....

Yada. Yada. Yada.

No actual work. Simple stenography, as it was put earlier. Many journalists are now glorified secretaries and it is absolutely disgusting.