Sad state of espresso review journalism - Page 5

by **Stuggi** on Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:17 am

Psyd wrote:Slight. The journalist has the sheen and the veneer of honesty and a lack of bias.
The ad man has no such compunction.

I have to agree/disagree on this point. Some few journalists still care about being factual and precise, and as unbiased as possible, but most I've come across just pick a side that's closest to heart for them, and then proceed to beat that drum, while still maintaining the opinion and idea of a lack of bias to not lower their own trustworthiness in the eyes of others (and often themselves).

The first is very honorable, and as long as they try as hard as possible to maintain that and only derive from it when the surrounding world forces them to I think they've succeeded. The latter is just plain hypocrisy, and personally I think those people should not be able to keep a job at a newspaper since they are keeping the public misinformed, which is something one, if one is a believer in a higher power, could call a deadly sin.

by **zin1953** on Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:29 am

Stuggi wrote:Some few journalists still care about being factual and precise, and as unbiased as possible, but most I've come across just pick a side that's closest to heart for them, and then proceed to beat that drum, while still maintaining the opinion and idea of a lack of bias to not lower their own trustworthiness in the eyes of others (and often themselves).

There is, I think, also a difference in journalism in the US and in the EU, where many newspapers have a specific slant, a specific point-of-view, and you know that before you even pick up the paper. Indeed, that's why you buy the paper!

In contrast, US newspapers have a long tradition of attempting (as much as possible) to maintain a neutrality and lack-of-bias in their reporting. This lasts until one gets to the Opinion and Editorial ("Op-Ed") pages, and in their sports coverage, where most papers are supporters of the "home" team in every sport. It's very difficult, for example, to see the blatant points-of-view displayed while reporting a major news story found in the French newspapers, or British ones, here in the US.

On the other hand, ever since Rupert Murdoch took over Fox News, and then MSNBC rose to challenge them, one can find an ever-increasing slant to the reporting on some news channels here.

by **cafeIKE** on Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:39 pm

zin1953 wrote:In contrast, US newspapers have a long tradition of attempting (as much as possible) to maintain a neutrality and lack-of-bias in their reporting.

US newspapers have a long tradition of attempting (as much as possible) to maintain an appearance of neutrality and lack-of-bias in their reporting.

NY Times, Washington Post, Hearst, Tribune et al are partisan to the core, occasionally printing an opposite PoV article to patch the neutrality veneer.

by **zin1953** on Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:58 pm

Let's not get carried away too far with thread drift here, but while I agree with the others that absolute objectivity is impossible, I think you'd be surprised by a recent survey done on the state of journalism and biased reporting in the US. Ever think of the WSJ as a "liberal" paper???

by **cafeIKE** on Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:38 pm

Let's just change the topic to "Sad state of journalism". Espresso journalism falls under that parapluie :wink:

If you have a link to the "surprising survey", please post it.
Lots of surveys are poorly crafted to obtain the answers desired.
Wikipedia : Opinion Poll
Wikipedia : Lies, damned lies, and statistics

by **zin1953** on Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:54 pm

Not ignoring you, Ian -- I'm looking for a link. It was, IIRC, discussed on NPR and was a university (or perhaps think-tank?) sponsored survey/research project that examined bias in media, including sources such as NPR, the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, CNN, and many more . . .

I've asked NPR for assistance in finding the survey, and will get back to you as soon as I find it.

by **zin1953** on Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:44 am

Thanks to the people at NPR, who linked me to the show on which it was discussed, the scientific study, "A Measure of Media Bias", can be found in the November 2005 edition of The Quarterly Journal of Economics. It was authored by Tim Groseclose, of the UCLA Department of Political Science and Stanford Business School, and Jeff Milyo of the Harris Public Policy Institute at the University of Chicago.

by **peacecup** on Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:51 am

Since you all drifted off topic a little I couldn't resist a look at the study. A brief look gives me the impression that it's flawed in many ways, but I'm no expert. The political climate the past 12 years, however, suggests that despite all of their efforts to control the public the "liberal media" have been rather unsuccessful.

Any bearing whatsoever to the original post? Well, I've yet to buy a Titan or a G3, and my espresso still tastes ok to me.

by **shadowfax** on Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:35 pm

peacecup wrote:Any bearing whatsoever to the original post? Well, I've yet to buy a Titan or a G3, and my espresso still tastes ok to me.

Only "OK?" :p

by **peacecup** on Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:05 pm

Well, I don't like to brag.

The KYM went on its way Tuesday, so hope its there soon,

PC

by **cafeIKE** on Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:07 pm

shadowfax wrote:Only "OK?" :p

Depending on the language and times, OK is as good as it gets.
Wikipedia : Okay

by **Psyd** on Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:22 am

Stuggi wrote:I have to agree/disagree on this point. Some few journalists still care about being factual and precise, and as unbiased as possible, but most I've come across just pick a side that's closest to heart for them, and then proceed to beat that drum, while still maintaining the opinion and idea of a lack of bias to not lower their own trustworthiness in the eyes of others (and often themselves)..

I think that we still refer to those folk as admen, but that they suffer from the delusion (and sometimes the outright hypocrisy) that they are journalists. Sometimes they're attempting to fool you, sometimes they're jsut fooling themselves.
A true journalist (was my point) is not one that is unbiased (as that person does not exist), but one that recognises and exposes his biases to the reader, so that his biases can be taken into account.
Stuggi, on another thread, you complained that inexpensive machines are being compared to the acme of the field to point out the shortcomings. That is a tried and true method (as I've described earlier in this thread) of journalistic criticism. It compares a new offer to a known quantity, and tests it's aspirations to greatness. It isn't comparing them as equals, and isn't pretending to. It is measuring the performance against a high water mark.


Contact Us	Legal disclaimer and copyright: This content and all its parts are copyrighted, all rights reserved. Content including all text and images in part or in whole may not be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission. Home-Barista, Home-Barista.com and related logos are trademarks of the site owner. Other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Overall speed: fast, current page: 0.8s, avg: 0.4s, max: 1.4s