I got some pretty, um, let’s say inspired, questions from a few of you. I figured the panelist already knew what the term “illegal” means so I chose not to ask that one.
I did pose this question to one of the directors of our fellowship, Patrick Butler, Vice President of Programs at ICFJ:“Has there been a correlation between the dwindling of our nation's newspapers subscribers and the general shift towards a more liberal journalistic perspective?”
Butler said newspapers’ struggles are more connected to the Internet, where people can get their news for free. He didn’t think there was a liberal or conservative bias.
Butler noted a Project for Excellence in Journalism study that found election coverage of then-Sen. Obama, a Democrat, had been more positive than negative and coverage of Sen. McCain, a Republican, had been “heavily unfavorable.”
He thought the positive coverage had more to do with Obama being a new face and that we’ll now see more critical coverage of his administration.
“Obama is not necessarily going to be praising media coverage of his presidency in the same way that Clinton wasn’t,” he said.
He said newspapers have long been criticized on both sides of the political spectrum. Some newspapers have taken flak for immigration coverage deemed too liberal, but they’ve also taken heat for being too conservative when it has to do with national security reporting, such as the buildup to the war in Iraq.
“Regarding immigration, I do think -- and this is strictly opinion -- that journalists tend to be open and interested in hearing stories of those who are perhaps less powerful. Journalists often see our role of giving voice to the voiceless….We’re telling immigrant stories and doing it in a way that is perhaps empathetic or perhaps sympathetic. That leads to criticism that we’re on their side.”
"Journalists often see our role of giving voice to the voiceless….We’re telling immigrant stories and doing it in a way that is perhaps empathetic or perhaps sympathetic. That leads to criticism that we’re on their side.”
ReplyDeletePardon me, but if you tell a story in an empathetic or sympathetic way are you not taking a side? Also, journalists should see your role as reporting the facts, not giving voice to the voiceless. This is why the mainstream press is taking a beating...
I stopped mY subscription to the paper when they hired you. I know others have done the same. To claim there is no bias is a total lie. I would respect most papers more if they just admitted their bias.
ReplyDeleteI think it very obvious that the Observer is heavily pro-illegal, liberal, and pro-Obama-he should have a sore bottom from all the kissing up by so-call reporters.
ReplyDeleteThey need to go back to the days when the average citizen could trust reporters not to take sides.
This guy orodnez, is not really a journalist as most would expect in a paper in a town like Charlotte.
ReplyDeleteHe most closely resembles a narrative journalist, but seems almost out of intuition to pose a question or scenario, then vacates to let the comments fly.
Highly effective in that endeavor, the little I have read of this column I have never seen much in the way of personal opinion, expressed 1st person, but there is obvious bias in what is and is not represented in the column.
To suggest amnesty for illegals in a country that has a hard time coming to terms with an economic fall down, and without doubt the most uncertain times most all of us will face in our lifetimes is absurd. Now we are asked by the pres to pay for their heath care too. I feel little empathy for someone who sneaks into a movie theater and is asked to get the boot when caught, I paid for my way after all.
There is a legal way to enter the country and become a citizen. Why is it that you never focus on that?
They need to go back to the days when the average citizen could trust reporters not to take sides.
ReplyDeleteWhat days were those, again?
First of all, folks, this is a blog. Blogs are more open-ended (e.g. open to discussion, interpretation, opinion, personality) than straight news stories. News sites, including CharlotteObserver.com, post a variety of content these days, including fact-based stories, narratives, blogs, opinion pieces, and reviews.
ReplyDeleteSecond, one of the roles of journalists is to make us question ourselves, our opinions, and our conceptions of the world. We don't have to agree, but sometimes we benefit from thinking about what a person with another perspective has to say. This blog is about immigration, but there was a time (based on the comments I see on this site, probably today) when a blog like this about racial integration, women's rights, or Vietnam would have gotten equally charged comments. The point is to make you ask yourself what you think and why.
How is my family less important than an illegal imigrants story? I lost my job in part to the illegal cheap labor in the construction industry and now because of the economy. It's totally untrue they do the jobs Americans don't want. Emphathy for someone who is here illegally? I don't think so. Yes it's true I did first stop buying the Charlotte Observer 6 years ago because of the liberal bias. But now with other news outlits much more unbiased and free I would never consider buying the Charlotte Observer.
ReplyDeleteButler said newspapers’ struggles are more connected to the Internet, where people can get their news for free. He didn’t think there was a liberal or conservative bias.
ReplyDeleteWell this totally invalidates his comments, how can any sane person not see the liberal bias in todays main stream media.
Franco,
ReplyDeleteI was the one that asked the question you posted to Patrick Butler about media liberal bias and the decline of newspaper subscriptions. While I was pleased to think you thought there was enough relevancy to merit the question being posed, I was disappointed that you didn't challenge his rather dismissive response with a follow-up that questions why conservative blogs, television shows and true, independent journalists are seeing their subscriber base grow while liberal newspapers such as the NYTimes, Charlotte Observer, Washington Times, etc. continue their decline.
Based on the comments already written to this article about non-neutrality in news reporting and subsequent dismissal of paying for such bias, how can there be a disconnect between liberal newspapers decline and increase in subscribers to 'alternative' news sources? To me, the answer is clear and supported by others who have posted. We just don't trust the integrity of the news being reported by the mainstream media and thanks to the Internet, have found other more objective perspectives.
At the Observer we wondered if we were playing favorites on our endorsements. So we went to a great political source who knows more about politics and is the fairest source we could think of and get the answer.
ReplyDeleteCome to find out we were not being fair and they suggested we try to endorse more Democrats as our paper did not want to appear to be playing favorites.
So we thank the Mecklenburg Democratic Party for clearing this up for us.
+1 for Larry
ReplyDeleteIf you, Franco, are truly a journalist, see yourself as giving a voice to the voiceless, please consider giving said voice to an American unemployed due to illegal immigration. The American that was laid off from a $10 hour job, but later told she could reapply for $7per hour, but even lost that to illegals that would work for $5. How about giving the voice to those that are here who belong here, whose family has fought for this country? These are the ones that need the voice. To not write of these masses of people would be biased and unobjective.
ReplyDeleteThe Charlotte Observer definitely has a liberal bias. Their post-election articles and editorials were all recommending the election of democrats, and especially Obama. The editorial noted McCain's superior accomplishments, yet recommended Obama. Whenever I sent in letters to the editor, or Buzz comments, if they were against Obama's election, they were never printed. I sent in letters under various names and email addresses, but if the letter contained specific concerns about Obama, they were never printed. Conservatives have been well aware of the liberal bias for years, and many have stopped their subscriptions. Seems as though every front page had sympathetic articles about illegal aliens, or minorities who were on welfare, homeless, or otherwise unmarried with children, unemployed. How about a front page article about how individuals of any race can achieve success through prioritizing educational achievement, refraining from sex before marriage, following the law, respecting authority figures, valuing personal responsibility over assigning blame everywhere but self? Conservatives have tired of the spot lighting of such "victims."
ReplyDeleteI was a newspaper reporter and editor for 15 years. I even taught journalism and communications at a university where I lived prior to moving to the Charlotte area. You can do "human interest" stories about the immigrant experience by presenting the facts -- not your own slant. And if they are LEGAL immigrants. To help the "voiceless" ILLEGALs is ridiculous. We need to tighten immigration laws not loosen them. My grandparents were immigrants, but came here legally -- so I know about the struggling immigrant experience and the realization of the American dream (which, by the way, started with learning and speaking ENGLISH because they wanted to be AMERICANS!). I prefer Walter Cronkite-style journalism -- fair, balanced, OBJECTIVE.
ReplyDeletefrano has NEVER posted a neutral article since coming here. He is ALWAYS pro-illegal no matter how badly it affects the CITIZENS who suffer due to the flood of criminal invaders.
ReplyDeleteNewspapers and television news used to be a way to REPORT the news to people. Now, however, they think they are in the business of MAKING the news. Journalism today is not exactly what journalism was orginally intended to be.
ReplyDeleteThe same crap goes on in Phoenix, Az. The Arizona Republic hired pro- illegal writers to push an agenda. They are laying off people big time at the "Rag" because real Americans don't buy the "give 'em amnesty crap". Sheriff Arpaio is the only one trying to do something about this invasion, but he's stiffled by that "biological freak", Homeland security freak Napalotono. I see the Observer is another pro-illegal rag!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHEY! WITHOUT ILLEGALS WE WOULD BE DENIED STASH HOUSES, DRIVE-BYE SHOOTINGS,HOME INVASIONS, ID THEFT,JAMMED EMERGENCY ROOMS, AND SCHOOLS FULL OF ILLEGALS. IMMIGRATION COVERAGE IS ALL PRO-ILLEGAL. WHY WOULD ANY TRUE AMERICAN WONDER WHY THE NEWSPAPERS ARE IN BIG TROUBLE? I HOPE THEY ALL GO BROKE!
ReplyDeleteSo! The head of homeland security wants all illegals that don't have criminal records "released". What do our brave border agents got for their trouble? A border agent dead ,trying to enforce immigration laws that this racist president and his minions want them to ignore.
ReplyDeleteWE HAVE JERK=OFFS LIKE ORDONEZ HERE IN PHOENIX. THEY ARE ALL THE SAME, IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THEM YOUR A RACIST. WHAT THEY WANT AND THE SO-CALLED PREIDENT WANTS IS OPEN BORDERS. THE REAL RACIST ARE THE BEANER WRITERS THAT WANT TO BRING THIS COUNTRY DOWN! THE WRIGHTS, GATES, AND OBAMAS ARE JUST AS BAD!
ReplyDelete