News judgment

[NoVaJack]

Re: News judgment

Silly rabbit. You don't get to decide what's "newsworthy." News professionals, editors, and "journalists" do. Especially those who get into the business with the aim of "making a difference" and "changing the world" rather than with a diligent focus on telling the truth--ALL of the truth, as much as they can possibly get away with telling.

That's why all the newspapers across the country are doing so marvellously well.

Flourishing, I hear.

(It is smack, right?)

(Yes, there are still some . . . far too few IMHO . . . true reporters and journalists whose focus is on truth-telling rather than difference-making. They are generally unpopular with their professional peers, from what I can tell.)

(And don't get me started on the odious, rampant, ESPN-inspired bent for dubbing mere beat reporters as "insiders." Makes my skin crawl, it does.)

Final thought: I've often thought it curious (and dangerous) that the news media is just about the only industry that regularly escapes spotlight-intense scrutiny on a regular basis. Mainly because they're the ones generally doing the scrutinizing.

But who watches the watchers?

Okay, gotta answer rant with rant. (It's smack, right).
So where are you getting your information about the world then?
On 9/11, who'd you turn to?
Other than politicians, the news business is just about the only industry that lays out its product for the world to pick apart and criticize every single day, every single moment in the case of TV, in an increasingly fast-spinning world that the policy makers can't gigure out. Your ability to turn it on or off or cancel your newspaper subscription in a disagreement over story choice is what watches the watchdogs. Your ability to fire back in forums like this is what watches the watchdogs. But don't paint an entire profession with the inevitable imperfections of some .It's imperfect, damned right it is, as is any institution of humans. Are there self-promoters and suckups populating it? Damned straight there are. Are there events or stories that others choose as news that you get to shout back at the TV at? I sure as blazes hope that's always the case, or we'll all be marching back to 1984. But the alternative to a robust free media is what - state-controlled information? We're close enough there already with the tens of thousands of government PR and propoganda types your tax dollars are paying for.

[filbert]

Re: News judgment

Okay, gotta answer rant with rant. (It's smack, right).
So where are you getting your information about the world then?
On 9/11, who'd you turn to?
Other than politicians, the news business is just about the only industry that lays out its product for the world to pick apart and criticize every single day, every single moment in the case of TV, in an increasingly fast-spinning world that the policy makers can't gigure out. Your ability to turn it on or off or cancel your newspaper subscription in a disagreement over story choice is what watches the watchdogs. Your ability to fire back in forums like this is what watches the watchdogs. But don't paint an entire profession with the inevitable imperfections of some .It's imperfect, damned right it is, as is any institution of humans. Are there self-promoters and suckups populating it? Damned straight there are. Are there events or stories that others choose as news that you get to shout back at the TV at? I sure as blazes hope that's always the case, or we'll all be marching back to 1984. But the alternative to a robust free media is what - state-controlled information? We're close enough there already with the tens of thousands of government PR and propoganda types your tax dollars are paying for.

Much of what you say is quite correct and I agree . . .

I would quibble however with your statement that we have a robust free media. The major, mainstream media is much more of an ideological monoculture than it has been throughout much of our history.

And yes, much of my information nowadays comes from the "alternative" media . . . web sites, blogs, my own lying eyes, which of course usually lead back to traditional news sources when the bread crumbs lead me there--but lots of different sources; I seek lots of different points of view (foreign/domestic, left/right, Coke/Pepsi, etc.), not just the standard "narrative" of the day.

All of that gets filtered through my own trusty but (naturally) quite biased worldview--I've twisted my BS filter knob pretty much completely off nowadays from cranking it up as high as it will go any more. I understand that I am highly atypical in this . . . Most people don't have the time, energy or inclination to track down bread crumbs and seek different sources, so they just wind up passively absorbing pretty much what they're told by the big, corporate news sources.

That's not the way it was supposed to work but that's the world we've got.

I suspect I've wandered way, way, WAY off into the tall grass here.

Somebody needs to make a derogatory comment about the green school to the north or the red school to the south, quick!

[OldHare]

Re: News judgment

I think we would have all the problems solved if everyone tuned into Colbert or Kimmel every night to get the straight news. It is much easier like having someone chew your food for you before swallowing.

[NoVaJack]

Re: News judgment

Much of what you say is quite correct and I agree . . .

I would quibble however with your statement that we have a robust free media. The major, mainstream media is much more of an ideological monoculture than it has been throughout much of our history.

And yes, much of my information nowadays comes from the "alternative" media . . . web sites, blogs, my own lying eyes, which of course usually lead back to traditional news sources when the bread crumbs lead me there--but lots of different sources; I seek lots of different points of view (foreign/domestic, left/right, Coke/Pepsi, etc.), not just the standard "narrative" of the day.

All of that gets filtered through my own trusty but (naturally) quite biased worldview--I've twisted my BS filter knob pretty much completely off nowadays from cranking it up as high as it will go any more. I understand that I am highly atypical in this . . . Most people don't have the time, energy or inclination to track down bread crumbs and seek different sources, so they just wind up passively absorbing pretty much what they're told by the big, corporate news sources.

That's not the way it was supposed to work but that's the world we've got.

I suspect I've wandered way, way, WAY off into the tall grass here.

Somebody needs to make a derogatory comment about the green school to the north or the red school to the south, quick!

Have you read the Civil War era newspapers? Ideological to an nth degree. William Randolph Hearst's papers got us into a war!

[OldHare]

Re: News judgment

Have you read the Civil War era newspapers? Ideological to an nth degree. William Randolph Hearst's papers got us into a war!

So you are trying to say there has been media bias for a long, long time!! It does not seem noticeable to most people. They think you can believe almost everything in print and television as objective material. I will need to wear my tinfoil hat more often to filter the information.

[NoVaJack]

Re: News judgment

So you are trying to say there has been media bias for a long, long time!! It does not seem noticeable to most people. They think you can believe almost everything in print and television as objective material. I will need to wear my tinfoil hat more often to filter the information.

Adjusting mine right now.... :-)

[Nidaros]

Re: News judgment

So you are trying to say there has been media bias for a long, long time!! It does not seem noticeable to most people. They think you can believe almost everything in print and television as objective material. I will need to wear my tinfoil hat more often to filter the information.

Does this include facebook?

[NoVaJack]

Re: News judgment

Does this include facebook?

It's all media, Nidaros

[UWMandSDSU]

Re: News judgment

I bet there will be more coverage about the cost of finding a President then the actual announcement of the President.
https://t.co/OcPcNM4CYL

[bigticket1]

Re: News judgment

I bet there will be more coverage about the cost of finding a President then the actual announcement of the President.
https://t.co/OcPcNM4CYL

Some of the "investigative" reporting now days borders on the ridiculous. That amount doesn't seem out of line for finding the leader of a university, and some of those were within university shifting of $ for rental of facilities and other costs for the introduction event. Angela has done good work uncovering the scandal of the grant misuse, but there seems to be very little to uncover in this .

[JACKGUYII]

Re: News judgment

Some of the "investigative" reporting now days borders on the ridiculous. That amount doesn't seem out of line for finding the leader of a university, and some of those were within university shifting of $ for rental of facilities and other costs for the introduction event. Angela has done good work uncovering the scandal of the grant misuse, but there seems to be very little to uncover in this .

$156,000 seems like a lot of money to me spend on the process. Was there a search firm involved?

[ringthebells]

Re: News judgment

The KELO story was a joke. She asked how much was spent and what it was spent on. SDSU gave her the amount and what it was spent on. It all seemed on the up and up. Angela is trying her best to make a mountain out of a mole hill. She should look into the SDHSAA finances.

[TK22867]

Re: News judgment

Was there a search firm involved?

Posters provide links to news articles for a reason....just sayin'.

[SlapJack]

Re: News judgment

$156,000 seems like a lot of money to me spend on the process. Was there a search firm involved?

To quote the article, the $156k included (with my estimates for costs*):

• Travel to meetings, interviews, and the announcement of the new president. That includes use of the State plane for regents, staff and members of the search committee.(45k - The regents are spread throughout the state, and I'm sure all were in attendance for a week or so through all the interviews and discussion. Now let's add in the time of faculty and other university staff that interviewed candidates.)
• Rent of SDSU's Performing Arts Center to make the announcement, as well as for a meal and lodging costs (25k)
• Consultant's fees and advertising; (70k)
• Miscellaneous costs, like shipping. (1k)
• Candidate travel reimbursements. (15k - 5k per 3 canidates)

IMO, anyone complaining about this cost has never been in management, run a business, or operated another similar enterprise. That's not to mention the compliance required for governmental hiring/interviewing.

*These costs are my complete guesses with no inside or outside information. This is a message board right? I don't have to know anything to post, right?

[Cowbell]

Re: News judgment

I like the idea of an active press auditing the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. There is far too little of it especially at the national level. That said, KELO anchor, Don Jorgensen, tipped his bias by framing the news story in saying that an "existing faculty member" got the position so they (SDSU) "didn't have to go far." In other words, why spend $156,000 if the right person was already there? It was a little comical when he said the process "involved the use of a state plane." That's a killer charge. The critical component missing from the report was a simple question: What is the average cost of a national search for the president of a university? Yes, $156,000 sounds like a lot of money but I have nothing to compare it with.