I’m sure his views on the military NEVER colored his analysis. Huh uh, no sir, no chance of that, just us objective journalists here.

BTW, Journal = Diary

I say non-bias be hangged. No reporter has ever been, nor is it possible for ANYONE to be, without bias or preconceptions; at least for the most part.

Just like with congress and campaine finance, drop all the rules and bylaws. Let there be transparency.

- The Cat

The new advocacy journalists: Directed, Pure, and Unafraid, according to themselves.

There are: journalists (few left), pontificators and Olberkinder. The former should never be confused with the latter.

Admitted advocacy, fine. Admitted political bias? Not yet, but one can always hope…on the other hand we’re not stupid and can figure them out. I’d just like for them to be more honest, less hypocritical about it.

Every article written by one of these so called “Jounalists” should START with a disclaimer.

This, at its very base, is propoganda… not news…

“We can’t complain too much. We’ve always said we wanted them to admit their biases, and now they’re doing it; it’s just that they’re claiming to be biased towards “good” instead of left or right.”

It’s still a positive step in the right direction. Five years ago, could you imagine this piece being published, even in a throwaway rag like USA Today?

He actually is performing a valuable service (as are the people linked in my update).

Are you bequeathing upon him absolute moral authority? Just because this reporter was hit by a bomb or whatever in Iraq, doesn’t really make him expert on IEDs, the Iraq conflict, hospital care or anything else. I’m not sure why you agree with this. If you want to give him a victim status and let him tell his story; that’s fine. But it doesn’t translate into an expert status.

The same thing with the 9/11 widows. Just because their family members were killed in the 9/11 attacks; they are not experts on terrorism, buildings, international policy or anything else.

This trend is not good. Reporters should report facts. If they are advocates; lets drop the news label all together and just call it the 6:30 advocacy cast.

It kills me when reporters start stories like:

Bob Johns has trouble finding health insurance….

Then continues as if its a major problem across the country; but pointing to Bob Johns as the focal point of the problem.

Emotional manipulation is all this is. As you said, the road to hell is paved with this.

More reporters overtly embracing agenda journalism

Hearing this shocked me almost as much as Britney Spear’s failure to win ‘Mother of the Year’.

Opps wait too late to ask that question.

I don’t think Van Susteren is necessarily promoting herself; she just has to know when to let go.

This just in: Deepak and Satish Kalpoe both confess to being the father of Anna Nicole’s baby.

Agreed. That’s why I place him on the opposite end of the spectrum from Olbermann. He actually is performing a valuable service

What about Greta on FoxNews? Her endless coverage of the missing high school student long ago crossed the line from “doing good” to weird-cult-like-following of a story.

That horse has been beaten into a fine red paste.

I see Woodruff as different from Oprah, O’Reilly etc in that he is in a unique position to report on brain injuries suffered in war and the recovery process.

Agreed. That’s why I place him on the opposite end of the spectrum from Olbermann. He actually is performing a valuable service (as are the people linked in my update).

That said, these people are confirming in their own way what the right has said about the media all along. Instead of reporting objectively, they try to determine from the outset of a story which ‘side’ is ‘good’ and then shape their stories around making the other side of the story ‘bad.’ This isn’t such an issue when you’re talking about a story on a child molester because everyone wants to see him/her locked up, but it becomes a big issue when we’re talking about stories on things like stem cell research and the war in Iraq, where the reporter’s ‘side’ comes through in some cases very clearly. I think in those cases reporters need to make even more of an effort to report ‘from the middle’ but these days, that’s just asking too much. Reporters don’t get into the news business simply to report the news anymore. They want to shape it – and in some cases, create news. And that’s a problem.

Regardless, he’s performing a much needed service by throwing light on this issue.

Global warming killing the hooker business :(

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=39945&in_page_id=2

Doesn’t O’Reilly do the same thing with his crusade for Jessica’s Law?

Absolutely; he’s mentioned in the piece. Hence my reference to “good” instead of “left or right.”

Now Greg Mitchell can go back and re-edit all of those old columns.