While in college and majoring in broadcasting (of all things), I spent a great deal of time learning about the bias of News reporting. In summation, we learned that personal biases will creep no matter how hard you try to avoid them.
While PVC is not a forum for Political banter, nor should it be, I have been astounded by the mainstream News bias in the election coverage which has run amok. CNN, I am afraid to say, seems to have gone off the deep end (in perhaps my biased opinion).
I often keep the News on throughout the day and Jack Cafferty ends up on my screen more than I’d like to admit. He can be cranky, and cranky can be good. While I may not have made up my mind the direction I am likely to go for the election, Jack and the crew at CNN seem to have made up theirs. Staurday Night Live may have hit the nail on the head with their skit throwing the toughest questions to Hillary and the softballs to Mr. Obama.
I am heading down this path for one simple reason - Today I reposnded to Jack Cafferty’s blog -here-, and watched somewhat anxiously to see if they’d allow the post. You see on his CNN driven blog, your comment awaits moderation before being posted.
I can be cranky too Jack, but this post wasn’t as cranky as I would have preferred to be honest. I pointed out that despite CNN’s continued “reporting” cry for Hillary to end the race (am I showing bias against CNN?), that she is losing the popular vote and quickly losing the Super-Delegate vote - she is actually beating Mr. Obama in perhaps the most critical way...the Electoral College. Sure we aren’t at that point yet, but lest we forget that the Dems won the popular vote 7 years ago, yet lost the election to the current sitting President based on that fine thing called - say it with me now....the Electoral College. In my post I asked CNN and Jack specifically, to recall history, and note that in the states that Hillary has won, had we been counting Electoral votes, she’d be President. CNN however seems to be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in a most different direction. I am more than a little miffed my un-cranky (perhpas admittedly biased) post has not made his blog and was “moderated” out.
That got me thinking about PVC (yeah a stretch I know it - but I’m on some sort of a roll here), and what would we pull from comments and what we’d keep. Turns out we have pulled some comments already. Why? Because they were clearly flaming without facts, and under fictitious names and email addresses. We have no problem dealing with cranky, as long as it’s backed with facts. We also request that if you’re going to flame, be prepared to not stand behind a fictitious email address and want to hold a valid discussion on the topic. That’s what comments are for no?
We are attempting to make this a true community site. It’s written by a variety of the best writers, and we’re always looking for more voices. Those voices can be as PVC writers, bloggers, forum members, commentors, or simply emails. Be cranky if you have to be, but not for cranky-sake. If you feel we are too bias, tell us. We won’t moderate your comment out. Jack are you listening?
(Page 1 of 1 pages for this article )
Similar Posts Across PVC
Scott, where are your facts? SurveyUSA has been the most accurate polling service so far in these elections. Here are their estimates:
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/
But yes, this post annoys me. No facts, no research. All the makings of a post that will engage people in a flaming war.
Posted by Ajit on 04/08 at 07:46 AM
Good catch Ajit. It also seems that relying on opinion polls for early imaginary scenarios is itself a bias. The contest can’t be framed properly now, no matter how much the Clinton team and bosses of SNL (typo above BTW) try their own spin.
Since Hillary can’t quite find her identity, the Clinton’s team has just been snarky and allowed the Republicans time to iron out their candidate’s considerable flaws.
Posted by on 04/10 at 03:10 PM
Well I certainly wasn’t looking for a flame war. The data I was referring to (trying to track it down, as it was reported on CNN as a quote from another Senator), was not a comparison of one of the Democratic candidates to McCain, but comparing the Electoral votes that would have been awarded to either Clinton or Obama if they were fighting each other for President and not just the nomination.
However, the real goal of my post wasn’t really to speak about politics, which I did of course, but to point out bias in reporting.
At NAB we spent a lot of time talking about PVC to those that haven’t yet found us. One thing that was clear when compared to a magazine for example, reviews can be completed by several writers at PVC, vs. a magazine that typically hires a a single reviewer. In other words, it’s likely that any single person, no matter how hard they try, may introduce personal bias into a review.
When I was Publisher of DV magazine and then at Studio, we did hire reviewers and those reviews in a sense, thus became the representative reviews from the magazine. Or the “voice” of the magazine says “X” about this product.
It’s our hope that here, we can have multiple reviewers offer potentially different opinions and/or views of reviewed products. We’ll also encourage users to respond with their own reviews or comments in the Forums or in the comments section as well. So let’s say we review a camera by Adam Wilt, Art Adams, Bruce Johnson, and Mike Curtis – we’re likely to get different takes on the same camera. All valid, yet each reviewer coming from his or her experience. Stay tuned…
Posted by on 04/23 at 10:26 PM