Opinions on the "quality" of journalistic reporting

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Thanks. People can read the material or not. But don't expect to be taken seriously when people find out you didn't.

What erekose is attempting to do is to diminish my credibility in another thread because in her world one must have direct experience before forming an opinion, and then subsequently airing it.

Some of you are confused by the way the question is composed because she wishes to skew the results of the POLL in her favor.

The specific circumstance is where I posted an article here on VJ that was critical of CNN's decision to air a video clip that was clearly produced and composed to be used as propaganda.

The clip was described (both in written media as well as verbally during a discussion on TV) as two terrorists poised to kill an American soldier while he was perched in his turret atop his armored vehicle. The two terrorists were filming the assassination clearly with the intent to distribute the clip showing an American being killed.

Her contention (erekose) is that since *I* personally had not seen the video then *I* have no substantive input as to its appropriateness.

Further, her contention is that I shall not have an opinion regarding this circumstance because I had not viewed it directly. My contention is that of course I can and I do have an opinion!

I've never seen any of the video clips of the beheadings of Berg or the others either but I certainly know it would be inappropriate and irresponsible of any U.S. based news organization to air them on TV. Clearly this has something to do with ethical behavior.

I relied on the facts presented in the article as well as a written consensus of other major media organizations that chose not to air the video as its context and purpose was clear.

erekose clearly doesn't get it......

Prop-a gan-da........

Thanks for clearing that up. I don't need to see a beheading video to have an opinion. At least you have an opinion. erekose never seems to have one.

erekose, what say you?

I think we need to clarify what we are talking about here. There's the video, which is part of a news report. Kaydee keeps going on about the video and lambasting CNN for it, but has not actually watched the report (let alone the video) before making wild claims about the "liberal media". Here's the original thread – have a read and make your own determination. Can't say fairer than that

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...=42477&st=0

On the basis of this story about disgruntled hoteliers reacting to a CNN report Kaydee said:

This is a fine example of left liberal media exaggerating the news from Iraq. This tape was obviously targeting a specific audiance; the fine folks here in the U.S.A. It can't be any clearer that the enemy is manipulating the U.S. press and thereby the people in this country via propaganda and it's clearly working by all accounts given the results of the last election.

My initial question was:

Kaydee did you actually watch the CNN report before you commented on it?

He then says, conveniently missing the distinction between the "video" and the "CNN report":

No I did not. The article describes its content quite clearly; an enemy camera man (terrorist) filming the sniper killing a U.S. serviceman.

He then goes on to trash CNN and the quality of its journalistic reporting – firstly as propaganda and then goes on to say:

The "story", and its airing on CNN, was discussed at length last night on FOX NEWS channel and of course was criticized as going way over the line in terms of its "newsworthiness". Note that most reputable news organizations don’t air videos of beheadings. This video is apparently of the same gruesomeness and has the same intent, propaganda to be used in the media.

Pointless? The fact is that I personally don't have to be an eyewitness to any incident to form an opinion about the incident. Neither do you, nor do any of us.

For example, you've never been to the middle east (an assumption on my part) but you have an endless repertoire of (pointless) opinions about its people and politics, don't you? You base your opinions on what you read, I suppose.......

My perception of the media coverage of the war is based on my personal travels to the middle east, what I've seen there verses what I subsequently read and hear in the media. On average the stories are mostly portrayed negative and it's clear that there's an anti-war, anti-Bush bias.

Here is my reply:

If you noticed I didn’t render on an opinion on the report at all… because I haven’t seen it. I’m simply saying that if you want to have an honest discussion about the quality of news reporting it helps to actually have seen the offending piece first hand.

Otherwise what are you basing your opinion on? In fact, you’ve already answered that question yourself – you’re taking the word of other people (specifically, another news organization) – and not using your own critical thought process to examine the merit (or lack thereof) of the evidence.

You’re free to your opinion – but to not actually substantiate it by directly referencing the source you are criticizing…. I mean, what exactly are you trying to achieve here?

Alex then posted the report from Youtube. I watched it and commented as follows:

Its certainly guilty of sensationalism - though I don't see as much of a problem with the use of the footage specifically as with how the reporter uses it to ask leading questions of the soldier he interviews off camera.

I’m quite happy to discuss the quality of reporting, as it pertains to this specific story – but it seems all Kaydee wants to do is rant and rave.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No comment eh

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

One other point - on that comment about "Responsible news organisations not broadcasting beheading videos", as far as I am aware none of the major US networks have broadcasted ANY of those tapes in their entirety.

What does that tell you?

It tells me that, in this case, the news editor made a "judgement call" as to the newsworthiness of the item. Its clearly a controversial call but it aired nonetheless. So to suggest that you can't or don't need to watch the entire report before you make a sweeping claim as to the quality of the journalism (or lack thereof) and whether or not it was justifiable to broadcast the video footage seems bizarre, at best.