Oh the controversy! Now that Fahrenheit 9/11 is out on DVD..

---

Posted by marymoon

Yeah. We really have so few choices, which si why I think we know so little of what goes on. The media mogusl ahe their own agenda, and I think a lot of the time it is tied into big business or the gov't, or whatever. It's really sad. But I still believe in journalism.

---

Tell me about it. this is very true, about the media ties. This is part of what I studied in college & it is sometimes hard to remember, especially when the story stirs emotions.

ya gotta believe..its all we have

I took a journalism class in college and I always thought that there was a code of ethics in journalism and reporting and that they take an oath to uphold the truth and report objectively... And not let their personal opinions sway the story.

But I think the media is very liberal in its view and not always objective and I dont think this is a good thing. I believe in being objective when reporting.

---

Posted by verdila

I took a journalism class in college and I always thought that there was a code of ethics in journalism and reporting and that they take an oath to uphold the truth and report objectively... And not let their personal opinions sway the story.

---

This is true, but the slant works its way in not only through the journalist, but also through the editing, copywriting, and even the selection of stories & the order in which they are presented. It is very sneaky, but there.

it's impossible not to let your opinions sway the story, even if you are trying to be 100% objective. How? because fi you'te writing a sotry, you decide which information to gather, which sources are worhtwhile, what to incude, the wording, etc. it's always going to reflect personal bias. If you read an article carefully you can almost always tell what the reporter's attitude is toward the subject matter.

My friend sent me an article from the Daily News about the firts presidential debate and he was like 'wow, what a republican paper.' because, you woudln;t notice it unless you were looking for it, but it was in every subtlety...they made it look like bush had won, the wording they used suggested at cose inspection that ush was telling the absolute truth and kerry was just rattling stuff off.

I compared it to the articles I'd read in the times and it gave a COMPLETELY different picture..

---

Posted by verdila

I agree - but this is not a good thing.

---

I don't like it either, but mary makes a good point, it is impossible to surpress your beliefs 100%.

This is why we are not supposed to see anyone's face during the debate except the candidate who is speaking.....the faces & body language can sway viewer's opinion of a response.

There is actually an entire series of courses offered at my school regarding this very thing, so it is something that is addressed.



edited for spelling

---

Posted by marymoon

it's impossible not to let your opinions sway the story, even if you are trying to be 100% objective. How? because fi you'te writing a sotry, you decide which information to gather, which sources are worhtwhile, what to incude, the wording, etc. it's always going to reflect personal bias. If you read an article carefully you can almost always tell what the reporter's attitude is toward the subject matter.

My friend sent me an article from the Daily News about the firts presidential debate and he was like 'wow, what a republican paper.' because, you woudln;t notice it unless you were looking for it, but it was in every subtlety...they made it look like bush had won, the wording they used suggested at cose inspection that ush was telling the absolute truth and kerry was just rattling stuff off.

I compared it to the articles I'd read in the times and it gave a COMPLETELY different picture..

---

Yep, and this was my argument during the RNC, and the difference in coverage of the DNC. It is there, but usually quite subtle.

---

Posted by marymoon

it's impossible not to let your opinions sway the story, even if you are trying to be 100% objective. How? because fi you'te writing a sotry, you decide which information to gather, which sources are worhtwhile, what to incude, the wording, etc. it's always going to reflect personal bias. If you read an article carefully you can almost always tell what the reporter's attitude is toward the subject matter.

.

---

But how is that a good thing?? And I disagree - I think there is a way to be more objective. You take sources from both sides and you have editors from all races, religions, and you report w/o making a judgment or opinion on it. That is the whole principle of journalistic integrity. You save the opinions for articles that are called 'Editorials'.... Otherwise its just entertainment. Like you said, you know Fox News Channel is Republican bent and MSNBC and many other news organizations are so obviously liberal. So, now they have become more entertainment than news sources.

We need to get back to 'just the facts, maam'.

Well, it'sa good thing in some ways because you need SOME bias. SOMEONE needs to call teh shots and decide which stories are important. If you showed every possible story form every possible engle, even the 24 hour news stations wouldn't be enough. The journalists as have to make decisions about what's interesting to the viewer, which sources are going to be enlightening and which will put people to sleep. That's bias.

ETA: One of my apssions is photography and in class we were discussing the rules of journalistic potography, how it's not generally accepted ot edit photos,, like airburhs someone out who isn't 'important' or do too much with filters, etc. HOWEVER, you're already editing the photo by deciding which photos to take, what is and is not in the frame, what depth of field to use, etc.

---

Posted by HearzBellz

Not to add fuel to the fire here....but regardless of what we read in the news, see on TV or hear people debate about, do you honestly think we ever get the whole story from all sides? I don't. I think it is impossible to get the whole story, and in some cases I don't think we should. I think the mere proces of us knowing puts this country in danger (I am thinking of that a$$hole Geraldo, who felt it was 'good television' to give away the soldier's positions on live TV )

---

Nope, I don't think we'll ever get teh whole story and I fully agree that there are parts of it that we should never know. However, I think it is our duty as intelligent citizens to gather as much information as possible to make the most informed, educated decision we can. When I hear 'I don't even want to hear their side of the story,' this is NOT being applied and quite honestly, it disturbs me. We have certain civic duties and one of those is to gather information from both sides, not just the one you agree with.

And I agree about that a$$hole Geraldo!! And no, I have not ever met the man and yet I do think he's an a$$hole

---

Posted by eogara

---

Posted by HearzBellz

Not to add fuel to the fire here....but regardless of what we read in the news, see on TV or hear people debate about, do you honestly think we ever get the whole story from all sides? I don't. I think it is impossible to get the whole story, and in some cases I don't think we should. I think the mere proces of us knowing puts this country in danger (I am thinking of that a$$hole Geraldo, who felt it was 'good television' to give away the soldier's positions on live TV )

---

Nope, I don't think we'll ever get teh whole story and I fully agree that there are parts of it that we should never know. However, I think it is our duty as intelligent citizens to gather as much information as possible to make the most informed, educated decision we can. When I hear 'I don't even want to hear their side of the story,' this is NOT being applied and quite honestly, it disturbs me. We have certain civic duties and one of those is to gather information from both sides, not just the one you agree with.

And I agree about that a$$hole Geraldo!! And no, I have not ever met the man and yet I do think he's an a$$hole

---

you can't see me, but I am applauding

---

Posted by HearzBellz

---

Posted by eogara

---

Posted by HearzBellz

Not to add fuel to the fire here....but regardless of what we read in the news, see on TV or hear people debate about, do you honestly think we ever get the whole story from all sides? I don't. I think it is impossible to get the whole story, and in some cases I don't think we should. I think the mere proces of us knowing puts this country in danger (I am thinking of that a$$hole Geraldo, who felt it was 'good television' to give away the soldier's positions on live TV )

---

Nope, I don't think we'll ever get teh whole story and I fully agree that there are parts of it that we should never know. However, I think it is our duty as intelligent citizens to gather as much information as possible to make the most informed, educated decision we can. When I hear 'I don't even want to hear their side of the story,' this is NOT being applied and quite honestly, it disturbs me. We have certain civic duties and one of those is to gather information from both sides, not just the one you agree with.

And I agree about that a$$hole Geraldo!! And no, I have not ever met the man and yet I do think he's an a$$hole

---

you can't see me, but I am applauding

---

And I wish I could see you.

I would think that it is not fair to say that it is all opinion in MM documentary. I think rather it is how MM sees certain fatcs, events, connections, etc.... It is definately the result of his opinion, but it is not fabricated by him, it is just how he interprets the facts he chose to represent in the film.

I do agree with you regarding how people do need to educate themselves, though. Regardless of what side you are an, know why you are there.