Slashdot Mirror
CBS Sees no Journalism in Blogs
hende_jman writes "CBS News online has an article comparing some politics-oriented blogs to the kind of stuff they used to run in the author's school newspaper. It's an interesting read that has some valid critiques of the format as far as journalistic integrity is concerned (not that CBS hasn't been without its problems)."
I was seeing quite a bit more information coming earlier from FoxNews about which states Bush had won and what they were projecting
I might be wrong about this, but by the time NBC called Ohio for Bush (~1:00am), FoxNews still hadn't even called Florida. FoxNews was consistently behind every network by ABC (yeah, I flipped between all four). After calling FA early, NBC slipped behing CBS, who seemed to be calling states before everyone else. NBC took back the "early caller" crown by calling Ohio first (FoxNews didn't call it until the middle of the next day, or so their website showed).
www.ratherbiased.com
Actually FOX called it for GORE. In fact on election night FOX called it for Gore AFTER other networks did. It was only after 2 am that FOX recinded that and called it for Bush. Please get your facts from someplace other than M. Moore.
What do you think you're doing right now? /. is a blog.
While it is true that in English, a double negative can be considered improper (and unclear), this by no means implies that the negatives are somehow "cancelling" each other out.
Please, commit this "a double negative is a positive" concept to the grave where it belongs, along with other archaic concepts like never splitting infinitives, and never ending sentences with prepositions.
Exit polls, predictions, and who called what state before whom aside, I'm curious what the /. crowd thinks of this county level map:
t e2004/countymap.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vo
this is my sig
If you're referring to 2000 Fox wasn't the first to call it. THat's another F911 fabrication.
Care to backup your statement? Moore does provide some information on his assertion.
That was his point. He was criticizing them for being "ahead."
Sort of. I'm very news-hungry and wanted meaty information, so I always flipped to the earliest callers. NBC's call seemed very premature, however, given CBS's reporting that the outstanding 2% of uncalled Ohio districts were in heavily democratic areas in combiniation with the very slim margin.
If that last 2% had turned the tide (as they very easily culd have), NBC would have been left with egg on its face.
One of many sites de-bunking F911...- Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix
Would this article have been posted? I doubt it. This to me seems like a great example of the Old Media guys gloating, "HA! Those bloggers really f*cked it up this time! We are still relevant!" Too bad standard media fell for the exit polls last time around themselves. These polls occur in the realm of statistics and probability. They require PhD-style expertise to understand. While I personally don't have a PhD in statistics, I understood exactly what I was getting when I hit reload at Wonkette all day long, I was getting results that may or may not have any bearing on reality. Turned out that they didn't. Every site that I read exit poll results on had a disclaimer stating that I should take these numbers with a huge grain of salt. It's inexact information but why shouldn't I have access to that information if I want it?
As I said, the jury is still out on whether Bush stole the election, and the mounting evidence is still piecemeal and not yet worthy of a full blown pronouncement and story. In light of this growing evidence, it was way too premature for CBS to pounce on the blogs for reporting "incorrect numbers," for in this era of electronic voting it's going to take a lot of sleuthing to find out what the real numbers really are. But blackboxvoting.org is trying. Where is the CBS story on the massive FOIA effort of blackboxvoting.org?
He stated: If you're referring to 2000 Fox wasn't the first to call it. THat's another F911 fabrication.
Moore's website confirms that Fox was NOT the first news site to call the election. CBS called it first, in favor of Gore. When Fox did finally call the election it was with more up to date data and for Bush. The Fahrenheit 911 fabrication he refers to is the implication that Fox somehow changed the outcome of the election by calling it in favor of Bush. The Fox release had *better data* than the CBS release which was premature enough to have influenced the election since it came out before polling stations had closed and possibly convinced Gore voters that their vote wasn't needed.
Moore's evidence is a CNN report stating that *all* of the news outlets were at fault for the confusion in 2000.
Direct away from face when opening.
But they have NOT been getting it right for 50 years. That's the most important lesson that we should be learning from these scandals. The motives are the reasons for the "errors," which happen to have a singular bias. They reveal the partisanship that has been there all along. The scandals, ferreted out with the help of the recent blogosphere and Internet journalism, is shining the light on the bias and corruption that the networks having been subjecting us to all these years. Dan Rather's stonewalling after his exposure from Memogate shows this well. The whole world could clearly see that he was a partisan hack, but he made a laughingstock of himself by still acting like CBS couldn't figure out if the document was fake a week after the cat was out of the bag. In fact, a document expert at CBS had said not to go with the story from the very beginning because of its dubious nature. Dan Rather ignored him and broadcast the anti-Bush propaganda anyway.
I point this out because it's become clear that most people---and many "news" organizations---hardly make this distinction anymore. One can harp on the New York Times for being a liberal paper, and as far as the editorial page is concerned you won't get any argument from me; I'm guessing they would cherish the label. Likewise, the Wall Street Journal is an openly conservative paper when it comes to its editorial page.
Both are good, authoritative sources of news, however. Certainly there is some leak of opinion into the news coverage---human nature, you know---but in both cases there is an effort to keep them separate.
If Fox News is conservative and CNN is liberal, that's fine. (I say "if"---I'm not sure it's true.) We should have a difference in views put forth. Where they both fall down is in being clear which they are presenting at any one time.
(One could also argue the quality of the coverage. The balance between news and opinion is funny, and there are better quality opinon pieces than others: I can disagree with a well-reasoned opinon, but not all are well-reasoned.)
so it kinda seems to me that your post is a straw man argument. if you say it like this it sure sounds like one: "Since CBS ran an OP/ED that derides an other form of media they must be trying to regain credibility through making others look bad"
Nevertheless I think most people are missing the point
I think this guy is just old and bitter and is tired of people like wonkette disrespecting his entire profession so now that they got the exit polls so wrong he is doing a big (Neslon voice) "HA HA" which is pretty lame too if you ask me.
meep
One of many sites de-bunking F911... http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm
Except that site doesn't provide any evidence proving that Fox was not the first to call it.
Geez first some guy gets to +5 insightful with absolutely NO evidence to back up his claim. Them a bunch of us provide links showing that he was indeed "making shit up".
Now an AC posts a link for an obviously biased site, that DOESN'T EVEN ADDRESS THE ISSUE AT HAND. That site provides no evidence supporting the claim that Fox was not the first to call it. As a matter of fact, it actually supports the claim:
Over four hours later, at 2:16 a.m., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 a.m.
Life is too short to proofread.