Archives

Not sure how many here have seen the video of CNN news reporter Susan Roesgen as she covered a "tea party" in Chicago last week. Her behavior has set off a real firestorm of controversy, and has even spawned a website
http://firesusan.com/
The arguments about liberal media bias Vs Fox conservative bias are well documented. What do the diverse members of cleanMPG(according to the latest Delta Flyer poll) think about the whole controversy? If you have not seen the interview, there is a link to it on the site i posted. I will post my own sentiments later.:flag:

Did you know you can start a poll if you see the stuff at the bottom just before submitting the thread?

I'll do it for you - let me know if you want it reworded.

I wish I knew what was going through her head during a segment. No question in my mind that professionalism was lacking. I'm not exactly a fan of Fox News either, but it doesn't simply because I don't like the right-hand bias. It's because I don't like the bias period. The job of the media is to report the story, not to create it. If there is a story to be told it can be found by asking questions, not by making that kind of commentary. So I don't see this as a political issue so much as an issue of crappy journalist. Of course, that's not how the story going to be told by all the other journalists and commentators. We will hear little else but "liberal media bias", liberals want to take away your freedom of speech, blah blah blah ad infinitum.

And yes I think CNN should probably fire her. She obviously can't do that job so it's probably time for a new one. Something that doesn't involve people.

What I saw is not professional.

There is more news reported, but less of it is done dispassionately. :(

Did you know you can start a poll if you see the stuff at the bottom just before submitting the thread?

I'll do it for you - let me know if you want it reworded.

Thanks DF, i should have done the poll. Your choices are great, no changes needed

Glad to help

If I want an obnoxious and degrading reporting style I'll watch Bill O. Not something I'd expect from a network calling itself a global leader.

In 1949, the Fairness Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine) was passed. Commercial TV just came to the US and until the 1970's, American viewers choices were CBS, NBC, ABC, an occasional independent station or PBS....many areas had just one station. It was felt with the limited choice of TV stations and their influence, they should be required to report in a "fair and balanced manner". The evening news was only 15 minutes until the 1960's, then expanded to 30.

Sometime towards the end of the Vietnam War and Watergate, this dispassionate presentation vanished. In my home town, the only TV station switched the evening news from NBC to ABC based on the Watergate coverage was perceived to be strongly against Nixon. Later in the 1970's satellite TV would allow more networks such as CNN and many more.

In 1987, the Fairness Doctrine was abolished, leading the way to talk shows like Rush. The standard news outlets started to see breaking news as entertainment.

Yes, I think the national media was slanted left, and it was apparent during Watergate (of course Nixon always had a "us vs them" attitude). I was glad the Fairness Doctrine was repealed but now don't like the present situation where listeners can lean on one source that is anything but balanced. Don't think it will ever happen, but would love to see the national media go back to the model a half century ago and report the news dispassionately and have fewer talk shows mixing fact with BS.

Any reporter deliberately giving out untruths as news should be fired.

News articles on Susan Roesgen (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=Susan%20Roesgen&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS319US323&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn)

The Wikipedia article on Roesgen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Roesgen) mentioned the man she interviewed started out calling Pres Obama a facist.

While I don't condone her coverage, that would mitigate it a bit.

Actually, DF, according to your link it was a different man than the one she argued with(this different guy was carrying a sign that proclaimed Obama to be a fascist). I will not open the "fascist" can of worms in this thread, but that word carries baggage that taints it. It would be good for people to actually research what "fascism" espouses.
But back to Susan. IMO, it doesn't matter if one of the people called Obama a fascist. She was there to report the event as a news Journalist. When reporters report the news as if they were doing an op/ed piece, then they should no longer be permitted to be news reporters. IMO, they have broken a trust, and need to be removed. All she needed to do was ask questions, and allow the people to explain why they were there and why they were doing what they were doing. She was actually behaving as a counter protester. Very unprofessional. I was pleased to see that the crowd behaved responsibly, given her irresponsible behavior.
Here is an example of behavior when a fox reporter tries to interview far left protesters. Note the differences. The fox reporter, during his banter with the anchor, starts to go over the bias line, but when he goes into the crowd, he invites them to speak.

I see by the poll that 2 people think she did a good job. I would be interested to hear the reasoning behind that opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDGhs_LN7Fk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hollywoodgrind.com%2Ffox-news-reporter-attacked-at-democratic-national-convention%2F&feature=player_embedded

The problem is that the NEWS is a business - and business need ratings - and ratings need to get peoples attention - and nothing gets attention like controversary.

I recall when the Howard Stern movie came out - thay had a like where a large % of people who HATED Stern listened to the show - Talk about ratings.

The News is no different. You have far left and far right tring to "Out Do" each other.
Everyone saying the other side is EVIL and UNFAIR and DESTROYING our country.

I agree with BOTH of them - the extreemes are making a mess of everything.
Who does the WORLD hear talking? THEM - not the normal people who want to work hard and do good....

I'm more inclined to think a talk show host will incite things more than a reporter. Also, a reporter is supposed to be both more professional and dispassionate.

Reporters are supposed to cover the story and let the listeners draw there own conclusions.

Susan Roesgen would have been better served by making that sound bite of the guy calling Pres Obama a fascist stand out in the shoot and not challenge him....she may have turned an idiot into a martyr instead. Another alternative would have been to interview someone else.

The national media seems to live in a world a bit different than most Americans, but they need to occasionally remind themselves of that. I know our membership at CleanMPG does not view fuel economy they way the mainstream population, and have to remind myself when in the real world.

I'm not too fond of talk radio, but initially liked it. Why? Too many people in the national media into advocate journalism, which is a nice way of saying they will turn reporting into an OP/ED. So what we have today is polarizing viewpoints from the national media and talk shows....you can easily get an opinion, but where do you get facts? :(

Well put DF.
Where to get FACTS?
The bias in news reporting is maddening. The bias displayed by Susan Roesgen in this case is what i would call a "hard" bias. Pretty much obvious and easily quantified. However, there is a lot more of what i would call "soft' bias.
For example, what you suggested that she should have done, i would consider soft bias(not picking on you DF, but expounding on your idea to make a point). If the sum total of her report of that tea party was the guy with the "obama is a fascist" sign, then that would be soft bias, because she would not have been accurately reporting the overall tenor of the event. Rather, she would have picked one extreme minority viewpoint, then portrayed the entire event to be the same way. To do that is biased, although a little harder to quantify, it is bias nonetheless.
Let's be fair. Fox does the same thing. The can call themselves 'fair and balanced'. They can call themselves "the wizard of oz" if they wish. That doesn't make it so. However, i find it amusing that people complain about "right wing fox", when there is "left wing CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC". SOunds to me like Fox is a bit outgunned..LOL.

All of this crap reminds me of the X files, to paraphrase

The truth is out there.

Finding it is just more difficult.

I'll confess that my suggestions of what Ms Roesgen might have done would be soft bias, esp the 2nd suggestion.

If I were covering the story, I'd pick what would seem one of the more reasonable people at the event. If the interviee does things like call people fascists or socialists, then I'd trust the viewers would be sophisticated enough to dismiss him, but it's not my business to do the OP/ED.

One form of bias is covering the bad poster boys to both generate ratings and to discredit a viewpoint.

___________


The best we can do is listen to a variety of sources and try to sort it out.

Who does a good job of fair reporting? BBC News was pretty good at that, although they may not be as dispassionate as they were. Occasionally they will interview Americans and there will be tension on one of those polarizing US vs Europe issues, such as the Death Penalty.

If the crowd really did treat her as poorly as some reports claim, shame on them. What a way to "raise the bar." Of course, a reporter is held to a higher standard. No one assaulted her physically, and she had no professional grounds to go on a tirade as she did. Leading questions and overt attacks on protesters really don't endear you to the large number of Americans in the middle, be it left or right leaning.

Unfortunately, this I what I've seen from CNN more often than not. Regardless of whether I agree with their points (sometimes yes, sometimes no), I never watch them anymore because the bias is, quite bluntly, insulting to my intelligence.

If anyone notices, I post News Articles with a variety of opinions, from Rush to the Socialist Workers Party's site.

I remember way back when CNN used to be the standard that other news was judged by, they are no longer that way!

If anyone notices, I post News Articles with a variety of opinions, from Rush to the Socialist Workers Party's site.

I notice DF, you are a lot more fair and balanced than fox!:cool:

Trivia question: When I change votes, it's ALWAYS on request of the voter - i.e. no chad.

There is one exception to this.

One as many as a couple of occasions, I've entered a three-digit number....what was it? :D

I say it's bad journalism but we shouldn't have the right to fire her because we disagree with her opinions, do you really want someone who is a robotic unfeeling commentator, you can tell from the video that a lot of emotions are stirred up and it was her reaction to those emotions that for once revealed her human/biased character, it is entertaining to see someone lose control.

If she would have been biased for the opposite side would she be any less wrong? Most journalists don't argue with the interviewee, I see this as her first mistake and breaking from the reporter role to the antagonist in midfilming is just bad timing and ill preparedness.

I don't watch T.V. so this was my first and only video with her or anything to do with the tea party. I don't care much about the left, right or the liberal, the media spin doctrine or the latest shows/fads etc.

I can't change all of the world to suit me so I pick my battles and choose my times to my advantage and try my best to survive the rest as other peoples campaigns effect me.

She means nothing to me, is what I'm saying. If you want her fired then she means something to you. I don't understand your perceived importance of her. - Dale

Most reporters should be fired for failing to treat authority figures the way this woman treated the man on the street.

I say it's bad journalism but we shouldn't have the right to fire her because we disagree with her opinionsWe don't hire and fire directly, but we do thru the ratings. If along with the controversy, CNN has a ratings dive - you know who is going to take the fall.

This is a l-o-n-g shot, but if everybody switched to CNBC until everybody abandoned the advocacy journalism or Rupert Murdoch stuff - I'd be all for it.

I have no problem with opinions - just keep it apart from the reporting.

Do Nothing....

She did her job as she was told to do. I think CNN got exactly what they wanted in the exact tenor they expected. She was never there as there as a reporter, but rather a editorial liason. Now the real question is whether or not CNN should take one of their "N"s away since News isn't really what they do, or have done, for a very long time.

But no. Don't fire some poor slob for doing what her boss tells her to do.

11011011

If you don't like a media network, don't watch them. It looks like a lot of people don't like CNN and MSNBC.

But no. Don't fire some poor slob for doing what her boss tells her to do...

You have a good point there.

Or put it this way:

Fire her by not watching CNN. When CNN goes out of business because they have no watchers, she looses her job anyway.