| Twitter Status: |
5 commentsBalance
Campbell Brown explains why “balance” isn’t the right goal for a news organization:
When you have Candidate A saying the sky is blue, and Candidate B saying it’s a cloudy day, I look outside and I see, well, it’s a cloudy day, I should be able to tell my viewers, ‘Candidate A is wrong, Candidate B is right.’ And not have to say, ‘Well, you decide.’ Then it would be like I’m an idiot. And I’d be treating the audience like idiots.
Indeed!
5 comments
Hmm… not sure if I agree with you entirely here. Perhaps the media’s role should be: “Candidate A says the sky is blue”… “Candidate B says it’s a cloudy day”…. The Weather Channel (a creditable source) says this. Right now, the “news” is basically pundits spinning spins all-day long. The amount of intellectualism or reporting in the news is, in my opinion, at a stunningly low level. Before a debate, one could say with great accuracy what the news “experts” will say about it, regardless of outcome (though I have been relatively impressed by CNN— especially its conservative pundits who were critical after McCain’s last performance). I really believe that one could watch a cable news channel all day and learn almost nothing. I still don’t know many facts about the “Recovery Plan”, but I know all about the spin associated with it.
FWIW, I agree with Peyton on this one.
Hmm, I agree with everything Peyton wrote, too, so I think we’re talking about different things. I’m not talking about “experts” who say things like “McCain won the debate”, I’m talking about things like the 18% of Americans who believe that the Sun orbits the Earth. I now realize that my opinion was a bit obscured by the quote, but it bothers me when a factually absurd side is given equal weight, and people suggest that we should “teach the controversy” when none exists…
OK, I’m off topic now
I agree with Peyton that the news media almost always stretch the limits of credibility and neutrality in reporting.
I think you agreed twice now!
Leave a Comment