You guys might want to open a different thread about journalism. 

Back to Trump: this father hit the nail on the head. Like so many bullies, Donald Trump is also a self-centered coward:

The first link takes you to a video clip:

Fallen Soldier’s Father Denounces Trump

Khizr Khan, whose son, Capt. Humayun Khan, died in Iraq serving in the Army, said Donald J. Trump "sacrificed nothing and no one."

In Tribute to Son, Khizr Khan Offered Citizenship Lesson at Convention

 kurtster wrote: 
I gave the rest of your post a valiant effort but don't want to spend my Friday night diagramming sentences so I literally have no idea what you said
 
But this part, I think I get, at least I get it enough to say you're wrong. There is no way any newspaper editorial department gave 2 shits what the advertising department wanted, back in the days when every house took a paper. Even Hearst papers, editorial was outrageous, sure, but that was to boost readership/sell ads. Like I said, there were separate sections for certain types of adverts, but even in the fluffiest Home Improvement section, editorial is mostly concerned with producing enough column inches to match the amount of advertising sold. 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Maybe, though I would prefer skeptical (or how about disillusioned) after all the years.  I was more stating a scenario, than my actual views.  I no longer read a paper anymore anyways.  Its not worth the cost for the small amount of content which unless very local, is dated.  The Macy's example was just an example of how things used to work, decades ago, even in big papers.  And its not that an editor would run something by an advertiser before hand or should, they would already know and simply self censor.  Again, the preceding is a scenario, an observation, not necessarily a belief of mine.  Where you can insert my personal belief is where I say its how it used to work decades ago and the use of the word should.  I'll give you that, but not the example I offered.  The example is ludicrous on its face, but as an example of a scenario, its valid to make a point.  To not consider scenarios is just plain stupid to be honest.  I thinks that it is a function of wisdom gained by observation and experience over time.

Yeah, I didn't get in on the beginning, but I saw the opening statement before it took off.  A few years ago, I made a statement that in my mind, The Fourth Estate was officially dead to me as I was raised to understand it, with its Constitutional and legal protections, designed to keep it able to work for the people's interests.  What I cited then was the case of Bernie Madoff.  I cited Mort Zuckerman, the publisher, too.  He invested in something that was too good to be true and kept it quiet, rather than investigate it.  The wiki page leaves much of the nature of his investments out.  So right or wrong for the reason, that's when I formally gave up on the integrity of our beloved Fourth Estate and became wary of it from then on.

I can also state when and why I gave up on PBS.  Keeping it as brief as possible, I watched MacNeil/Lehrer since it was a half an hour all the way through until David Gergen was replaced by David Brooks for the counter to Mark Shields as Gergen left to join the Clinton Administration to provide some much needed help.  Brooks turned out to be anything but a legitimate representative for the "repub" side of the equation to Shields.  I sensed where PBS intended to go on from there.  I used to live for Friday evenings with Gergen and Shields.

But that's just me.  I'll continue to risk being called a lot of names using scenarios, just as SteelyD risked a lot using scenarios to make a point.  Project on me what you will.  If it bothers me I'll say something, as I sometimes do.  Otherwise, oh well ...  I'm here to argue (in the literary sense), but not fight.  There is a big difference between the two as I see it.  Others see that as one and the same.  FWIW, its hard to argue with anyone if you're not willing to see both sides.  It becomes a fight when you stop considering the other side, again as I see it.

ymwv ...
 

.. and to follow the logic.. this explains why Trump supporters are happy to vote Trump and accept the risk it all goes down the toilet.  Nothing more liberating than a good crap when you're constipated I guess but sometimes I think a bit of sport and eating good food might be a better approach.

interesting discussion.. I'm with Lazy on this one. bias is inherent to everyone's depiction of an event. This is not a pejorative claim.
Just a statement of fact. It always needs to be considered in (just about) anything anyone ever utters and journalists are no exception.

In my view, we spend so much time talking for two reasons:
1. we are ignorant and want to know more
2. we each see different perspectives of the same thing
edit: 2. we are ignorant but want to prove the opposite

ok, three:
3. it gives me warm fuzzies to talk about things

if we all knew everything, we wouldn't have to talk about it

(..except when we all we need is just some warm fuzzies.)

which, btw, is Trump's appeal.. not the claim to objective truth but that his "heart is in the right place". On the Grauny Trump and Brexiters call themselves "regressives" and openly celebrate how they are going to teach intellectuals a lesson.
In other words, it is pointless trying to make an intellectual argument against Trump because that is not where his support his coming from. He's tapping into an emotional frustration with "intellectuals" and "elites". So reasoning is just not going to cut it.
 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
But nonetheless a fair point: bias goes both ways.

In this case I made no mention the biker-journalist's opinion of the issue (believe it or not, there are bikers who like helmet laws) but wanted to point out that bias can lead to ignorance, even in the absence of malice.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Bias is funny. Yours says the interview with an articulate statement of the event's goals, and paints a nuanced portrait of the group is not also the result of bias. Maybe if it had been written for Cat Fancy magazine, it would have been more obvious that the avid cyclist let his bias drive his determination to get a favorable article into print anywhere.
 

Just yankin' yer chain now.

steeler wrote:
Bias takes many forms. It isn't just that the reporter wants the reader to draw the same conclusions s/he did from the facts (tho to deny that impulse is to deny that reporters—and editors, and editorial boards, and the media owners—are human), but in which facts are brought to the reader's attention because they came to the reporter's attention.

Let's say two reporters are sent to a motorcycle rally protesting helmet laws. One has ridden motorcycles for years, the other hates them and considers them noisy, dangerous menaces ridden by savages. Do they even report the same event? Which one will get an interview with an articulate statement of the event's goals, and which one won't even know who to talk to? Which one will paint a nuanced portrait of the group, and which one will present a caricature?

It isn't necessarily due to malice, it may just be due to ignorance. But it's a result of bias regardless.

 kurtster wrote: 
No. That is, if Macy's has nothing better to do than try to influence political coverage, they might apply some pressure. But all they care about is eyeballs. Preferably eyeballs attached to people with wallets. Does Macy's want to be on a page with an article about homelessness or orphans? No, and that's why newspapers have Society sections, or humor columns, etc. A car dealer might not mind being on a page with stories about Trump or the City's sewer improvement district, so they get that, and lifestyle advertisers get the Weddings section. But the paper has to put stories in that people want to read, or people stop reading and the value to advertisers goes away. So they have a huge enough challenge, making the news something people are willing to devote some time to every day. They're not in the habit of checking with Target to see if their article on the TPP ruffles any feathers.
 
You have a cynical view of journalism, and that fits with your general assumption that the few outrages we hear about are representative of the whole (in journalism, politics, people in general). It's just not useful to assume that all content is filtered by showing it to advertisers, editors with agendas, etc., before it gets to print. In fact, that's the outrage that started this whole conversation: a reporter showed his article to the subjects of the article——and everyone's losing their shit over that, because that's just not done. 

This man is responsible for things that are still going on today ...

 

 steeler wrote: 
Thanks, the Globe piece is a great example of doing the right thing for the right reasons.  Then there is the NY Times which is rife with examples of journalistic corruption and agenda pushing.

And is the NYT exempt from pressures from, say a major advertiser like Macy's, when it comes to covering Trump for example ?

 black321 wrote:
Not a question of should or shouldn't, but the plain fact that they do.

 kurtster wrote: 

 steeler wrote: 

Sure there are the '5 W's', its when it goes beyond them that things change and become more than just an accounting of facts.

Generally, an editor represents the bias of the organization, whatever it may be and must also consider its sponsors or advertisers in the equation.  They in turn will assign stories to the journalist best suited to the editor's needs to cover and write a certain story.  A good editor knows who thinks what way and why. (Are not journalists or for that matter generally speaking, workers hired that are hoped to reflect a culture that is established within and not confront that culture ?  Creating an echo chamber of sorts ?)  The journalist may or may not be aware of certain tendencies or biases they may have, but the editor surely must.  It is possible that a journalist may think they play it straight, yet the editor knows otherwise and considers this in assignments, without ever letting the journalist know why they are chosen, leaving the journalist to keep thinking they play it straight and in a way confirming that belief within said journalist.  Is that not what can be loosely termed confirmation bias ?  And over the long term it gets baked into the cake, unwittingly.  Then say the journalist moves onto something else, they take this with them and start a blog.  The journalist cannot help but to incorporate this into their new product.  Then there is finally some feedback which may challenge that unknown inner bias and things get bumpy.

Can it not be considered a general truth that anything written (other than a journal or diary) is intended to be read by someone besides the author ?  The author wishes to be understood by the forthcoming reader at some level and writes to that person(s) in a way they hope accurately conveys their message.

This is not to be confused with those who simply write with the sole purpose of throwing spaghetti at the wall.  

Pardon the rambling, its just how my mind is functioning right now.

ymmv ...  peace out, for now.
 .
Edit: I see a lot went on while composing this thought, so pardon any redundancies of thoughts already expressed below.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Disregarding the party affiliation, but shouldn't reporting naturally swing to the left?  Having a more progressive rather than conventional view of society?

 Lazy8 wrote:

 
I was on board with you through the middle of this post, but disagree with your conclusion of bias.  There are many explanations for why coverage would differ.  How many reporters can a newspaper assign to the story?  Each reporter from the same newspaper would be searching for different angles on the story.  The more stories, the more varied the coverage.  There also are space considerations on any given day, and judgments to be made on how much space to devote to each story.  That some stories get more play than others is not necessarily evidence of bias in favor or against something.  That fast-breaking stories evolve over time is a given; inaccuracies in early reporting can happen, but that is not intentional.  If what you are talking about is that an enterprising reporter may see and report on an angle that may not have occurred to another reporter, and that this may partially be due to differences in experiences of those reporters, I could sign on.  But if you take it a step further and say the first reporter had a different angle because he is trying to sell one outcome or viewpoint while the second reporter that did not report on that angle is trying to sell an opposing outcome or viewpoint, I would not sign on.

 

         

steeler wrote:
Yes, and from conversations with journalists, and by comparing events I'm very familiar with to the stories that get reported about them.

Reporters and editors are human, just like you. They respond to incentives, they deal with the social situations at work. The journalistic profession leans farther to the left than the population as a whole—this has been confirmed so many times that it's silly to argue about it. Can we really expect that this will have no effect at all?

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Yes, exactly. Nevermind my agenda stuff. It was too broad and not worth cleaning up.
 

 aflanigan wrote:
I didn't pick this example to push your buttons (not that, truth be told, I really mind) just to highlight an issue where the news outlet's bias is most obvious.

Look at the language: school choice vs. privatized schooling. School choice doesn't imply privatization, but look where you went with it, and look where NPR goes with it.

NPR is probably my most-used news source. I like them a lot. But they come with implicit biases, biases I need to be aware of if I'm going to be informed on the issues.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
I'm not. I assume every story comes to me thru a filter, a worldview, a philosophy, a set of assumptions. And this is trivially true—I'm reading the story in English, the reporter assumes I read English, for instance.

Those assumptions change not just the shape of the story but the stories that get told. Nowhere was this more obvious than in reporting on Ferguson, MO. A lot of it focused on the event that kicked off the protests: the shooting of Michael Brown and whether or not it was justified. Others reported on the damage done by the rioting, or the behavior of the police, or how connected all this was to other shootings of other black men. There was more to the story, of course—there was a deep well of anger that didn't dissipate when a thorough investigation showed that the shooting was, in fact, justified and that many of the eyewitness reports were wrong. There was (and is) a lot wrong in that part of Missouri and the people who live there still face it.

It is possible to get a broad picture of the area and the events, but you have to use more than one source, look at the story thru more than one lens. And sometimes it takes time to get that picture, even if a source you trust tells you everything it can learn at the moment, more will emerge. Not all news outlets give their reporters that time and not all of them give later revelations the space they deserve.

So no, I don't mean agenda, I mean bias. And I don't see it as a condemnation, I see it as inherent in the process and something it's my responsibility as an informed citizen to be aware of and compensate for.