Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WP's Mike Allen on intiminated Reporters treating bullshit as credible

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Media Donate to DU
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-05 10:40 AM
Original message
WP's Mike Allen on intiminated Reporters treating bullshit as credible
reporters drawing "false equivalence" between true and false statements:

If Allen is right -- and what's disturbing is that we think he is, at least to some degree -- journalists have become so intimidated by media bias warriors that they're now making a conscious decision to only hint at the conclusions their reporting leads them to, instead of explicitly stating them. Of course, according to Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center and his brethren, even those hints reflect left-wing bias. And sometimes they do. But more often, they represent efforts by boxed-in reporters to level with readers. Critics like Bozell seem to want false equivalence to reign supreme -- they want reporters to treat bullshitters the same as credible voices. To us, that's the greater threat to journalism -- not the media bias that right-wing partisans think they detect everywhere from the Post to the Dogpatch Weekly Trumpet.


http://www.cjrdaily.org/archives/001358.asp

March 07, 2005
Read Between the Lines - or Miss the Story?

Yesterday, Matthew Yglesias wrote on his blog about a panel discussion he participated in with Washington Post reporter Mike Allen. Yglesias, according to his account, said that journalists often try to act as "neutral arbiters" between opposing parties, and Allen took issue with that characterization, arguing that, as Yglesias puts it, "news writers are trying to present both sides' points-of-view ... they're trying to present these points-of-view in such a way so that a discerning reader can tell who's right based on reading the story." (Italics Yglesias'.)

While there's no doubt that Allen is a crack reporter, we found his comment a little alarming. His argument, as conveyed by Yglesias, seems to be that journalists churn out "he said/she said" journalism for the edification of their dumber readers, but include little clues in their stories so that smarter readers -- or, um, more "discerning" ones -- know the truth. In other words, there's a code to break when one reads the Post, or at least reads Mike Allen in the Post, and you better hope you're smart enough to crack it and get to the real story.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Media Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC