really? whatever happened to media being a neutral voice? Anyways, if you say they endorsed John Kerry last time, I guess we dont have to worry about these endorsements being very effective?
what lena forgot to mention is that here, in the us, there is a wall of china between the editorial page and the rest of the publication. i'm surprised you weren't told that at any of the numerous publications you've clerked for. it's usually the defense used by the journalism staff when a paper is attacked for its editorial page views and political bent. but i do agree with you it is a bit wishy washy.
Thanks for the addition; you're right that the editorial page and the rest of the paper can differ greatly.
Another added point to perhaps make is that many, many American publications are known to have political biases one way or another. The New York Times, for example, is known as a relatively liberal newspaper, whereas the National Review or the Chicago Tribune or FOX News (as just a few examples) are known to be Republican-leaning media outlets.
I guess the best thing to do, then, is to draw your news from a large number of sources and then make your own decisions.
im aware of the traditional disctinction but statements as gradiose as "Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president." throw me off.
Yes, but if you read the Washington Post editorial - and you don't even have to read it that carefully - it seems like there is actually quite a bit of ambivalence. It reads as if they gathered the staff together, and everyone voted, and the vote was split down the middle and they had a long and heated argument before finally coming to endorse Obama.
The New York Times Editorial Board just Endorsed Barack Obama. They did it in a long article that explains the differences between the McCain and Obama campaigns; and ultimately why they feel the Obama campaign is backing the nominee better suited to be the United States' 44th President.
The media has the right to have an opinion, and as biased as some news networks are (e.g. Fox News) I beleive it reflects positively on American freedom of speech. Of course its up to news-followers to smarten up and choose wisely what they believe/disbeleive. At the end of the day news in general is based largely on point of view, personal bias, and perception. I say listen to the late-night comics; they tell it like it is. Imagine we could do that in Egypt.
8 Egyptian bloggers are in the US for a first-hand look at the election campaigns. They will be blogging on this site through the presidential inauguration as part of a project by the Kamal Adham Center for Journalism Training and Research at The American University in Cairo.
8 comments:
They are allowed and in fact they published a similar editorial endorsing John Kerry in the last presidential race.
really? whatever happened to media being a neutral voice? Anyways, if you say they endorsed John Kerry last time, I guess we dont have to worry about these endorsements being very effective?
egydiva,
what lena forgot to mention is that here, in the us, there is a wall of china between the editorial page and the rest of the publication. i'm surprised you weren't told that at any of the numerous publications you've clerked for. it's usually the defense used by the journalism staff when a paper is attacked for its editorial page views and political bent. but i do agree with you it is a bit wishy washy.
Ticknad,
Thanks for the addition; you're right that the editorial page and the rest of the paper can differ greatly.
Another added point to perhaps make is that many, many American publications are known to have political biases one way or another. The New York Times, for example, is known as a relatively liberal newspaper, whereas the National Review or the Chicago Tribune or FOX News (as just a few examples) are known to be Republican-leaning media outlets.
I guess the best thing to do, then, is to draw your news from a large number of sources and then make your own decisions.
im aware of the traditional disctinction but statements as gradiose as
"Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president." throw me off.
Yes, but if you read the Washington Post editorial - and you don't even have to read it that carefully - it seems like there is actually quite a bit of ambivalence. It reads as if they gathered the staff together, and everyone voted, and the vote was split down the middle and they had a long and heated argument before finally coming to endorse Obama.
hahaha somehow i can totally picture that scenario happening...
The New York Times Editorial Board just Endorsed Barack Obama. They did it in a long article that explains the differences between the McCain and Obama campaigns; and ultimately why they feel the Obama campaign is backing the nominee better suited to be the United States' 44th President.
The media has the right to have an opinion, and as biased as some news networks are (e.g. Fox News) I beleive it reflects positively on American freedom of speech. Of course its up to news-followers to smarten up and choose wisely what they believe/disbeleive. At the end of the day news in general is based largely on point of view, personal bias, and perception. I say listen to the late-night comics; they tell it like it is. Imagine we could do that in Egypt.
Post a Comment