Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cantankerous
why the media can't just take a neutral position is beyond me.
|
Because you can't take a neutral position. No matter how hard you try, your history (and your editor's) will influence how you see the event and how you report the event and even the words you use.
Plus there just isn't room on TV for all the information (less so on PBS). The reporter will pick and choose what they think is the most important. Someone looking in from the outside may see those picks as slanted but their important facts were cut for time.
I know that the station that I worked for was really concerned about appearing fair:
I remember when I was working to cover a GW Bush visit a couple of years ago. The top two stories were his speech to the military and protests against Bush. The crew I was working for got a late start and wasn't ready in time. I was called on the carpet for not informing them of the lateness of the time.* So the story on the protests went first and the positive story went second. While the managers were very concerned about this 'media slant', I don't think there were any comments from viewers.
(*to which I responded, hey, there is a clock inches from his face. My job is to set up and facilitate the live shots--not be a baby sitter)