LJWorld.com / "THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE ....." by Just about ... and more

Blogs home Just about ... and more

THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE …..

Republican Bill Lacy, director of the Dole Institute of Politics and campaign manager for Republican Fred Thompson's (failed) presidential campaign, Democrat Walter Shapiro, and Raymond Strother a political commentator on television, were part of a panel at KU today. The event, part of Kansas Editors' Day (sponsored by KU School of Journalism and the Dole Institute of Politics) tackled the topic: "Post Conventions: What's next in Election 2008?"

Moderator David Guth, the School of Journalism's associate dean, asked these three a variety of questions such as how and why Clinton lost to Obama after pundits thought she was a dead cert at the beginning of the campaign, why McCain came from behind to win the Republican nomination, and how should the media treat a female vice-Presidential nominee. Maybe these guys were on their very best behavior, but I was impressed as much by the manner in which they disagreed with each other in such a respectful way, as I was by their varied answers. It was political dialogue at its best.

All of them were concerned about the way blogs were now being used to express opinions often disguised as facts. When such misinformation (and innuendo) is passed along without facts being checked or truths ratified, it led to the reinforcement of old attitudes and prejudices. Blogs/e-mails about Obama being a "registered" Muslim, and Palin's youngest child being her grandchild were such examples.

The question about how Palin should be treated in upcoming debates and by the media was discussed. Opinions varied but all agreed that there should be no special concessions made for her just because she was a woman; when a person runs for public office their record, actions, opinions and behaviors are open to scrutiny.

What's next in Election 2008? Let's hope the "next" will include more opportunities like the one provided today where we can hear the informed views of those who differ from us and then take time to weigh and check the facts as well as the opinions, before we come to our own informed decisions.

(

By Eileen Roddy

September 6, 2008

Just about ... and more

From the Citizen Journalism Academy

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

6 September 2008
at 10:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…

Too bad information doesn't always trump ideology.
7 September 2008
at 6:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

femail (Linda Hanney) says…

Eileen, perhaps we depend too much on reporters to bring information to us. It is easy for the middleman to put personal twist on a story. It is good you felt an attitude of professionalism among a representative of people in that profession. RedwoodCoast said it well.
7 September 2008
at 9:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

liggyon (David Lignell) says…

Eileen,

You wrote:

“All of them [Kansas Editors' Day panel] were concerned about the way blogs were now being used to express opinions often disguised as facts.”

And Linda wrote:

“:perhaps we depend too much on reporters to bring information to us. It is easy for the middleman to put personal twist on a story.”

Is there any source, then, originating or not, that is completely free of bias? I think that's why the LJW places our blogs under “Community Perspectives Reader Blogs, ” and then adds a “Use Policy Agreement,” where one of the statements clearly places the onus of truth on the blogger:

“We do not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any user contribution, regardless of whether it comes from a user, celebrity, “expert,” or other source.”

According to Wikipedia, a blog “is maintained by an individual, with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video.”

One would hope the commentary, events or other material would be accurate, but it's often opinion based (or biased) and I'm not sure that's always a bad thing at least not for pure entertainment or for a diversity of expression.

Eileen, even you have a bias at times, though I admire your opinions greatly. For example, in response to another blogger recently, you wrote the following:

“The responses to ____'s blog remind me why I rarely discuss politics in America. If we want to disagree with an expressed opinion, that is one thing, but attacking the person who expresses the opinion is quite another. What happened to civilized dialogue?”

Do you see the bias? It implies that one could more freely discuss politics with civilized dialogue - outside of America. I'm not sure you intended it that way, but that's what I inferred from your statement.

Maybe the issue really centers on the ethical adherence of the source or sources, regardless of the vehicle of communication (e.g., press, television, radio, etc.). Undoubtedly, some sources are more objective than others, but we could all benefit from discerning among them.

Let's not pretend we're dining at Chez Panisse if we're really in the mood for Chucky Cheese.
7 September 2008
at 10:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

waltershapiro (Anonymous) says…

I am Walter Shapiro, one of the panelists at Editor's Day. The post above identifies me as a “Democrat.” In truth, I am not a professional partisan, but a working reporter. I was on the panel as Washington bureau chief for Salon.com and as someone who is covering his eighth presidential campaign. I know this is a small point, but I just wanted to underscore that I was there as a journalist.
7 September 2008
at 3:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

eileenroddy (Eileen Roddy) says…

Thanks for all the comments, questions, and clarifications.
Walter, maybe that's why the discussion was so civilized and enlightening for me - because of the professional journalistic stance? All three of the panelists looked at both sides of the issues.
I take your point, David, that it's hard not to be biased; but I rely on good journalists to fairly present both sides of the issue for me. The comment you quoted from the blog comment I made was in reference to the fact that people called Ronda “stupid” or something like that, simply because of the opinion she had. I simply requested that if we wanted to go into “attack” mode it would be more civilized to “attack” the problem or the topic rather than the person who held the opinion.

Yesterday, all three panelists made the point that the development of blogging now opened more people up to being exposed to opinions which are not always backed up by facts.

You raise an excellent point, David, when you say that maybe the issue really centers on the ethical adherance of the source or sources, regardless of the vehicle of communication. I wish more people had been able to hear the discussion yesterday. It really gave me more food for thought and a challenge to look more closely at Democratic and Republican promises.
7 September 2008
at 11:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ostrich (Anonymous) says…

KU was fortunate to have had Walter Shapiro participate in Editors Day. He's a most thoughtful, intelligent journalist — and respected within his profession..and out.. Read some of his writings on salon.com.

Eileen, I think it's a gold star for our “community blogs” to have had someone like Shapiro respond to your review of Editors Day.
8 September 2008
at 8:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Interesting blog, Eileen. I agree with ostrich that it is quite a compliment to have someone such as Shapiro reading your blogs - let alone correcting them. :)

I wish I would have been in town so I too could have attended the program.

I think one problem with deciding who is thoughtful and intelligent has to, unfortunately, be based on the intellect of the person reading the blog, how much information they have on the topic, how much time they have to research the topic, how open minded they are, whether or not they agree with the author, etc….

I do agree with David in that basis is everywhere. Even the topic we choose to write about, the questions that are asked, can lend themselves to making one person more or less popular in the media because of the media leaning to the left or to the right.

Eileen, any chance the discussion was taped? I would love to have a chance to listen to it. Thanks!
8 September 2008
at 12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

eileenroddy (Eileen Roddy) says…

I agree with you Ronda - a lot depends on deciding who is thoughtful and intelligent. The point the panel tried to make was that the “breakout of blogs” (my phrase) - often under the cloak of annonymity, gave rise to the spread of opinions which were not always based on fact.
In the past, the “pen and ink” journalists had to check and double-check facts before they were printed. Both parties today - Democrat and Republican - are now the subject of blogs which may, or may not, contain correct information.
This will be an interesting topic for the session on ethics as part of the next CJA class.
I know Saturday's session was being filmed so I would guess that a copy will be available at the KU School of Journalism.
Christine Metz wrote a very thoughtful article that appeared in the Sunday LJW - and she mentioned some of the specific topics covered by the panel.
11 September 2008
at 11:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

LloydDobbler (Anonymous) says…

I think the concern over blogs substituting for validated fact is a legitimate concern. However, I believe there are larger issues which, in my opinion, have made elections increasingly ugly.

First, the press, which has consitutional protections and obligations, are now much more about entertainment and selling ad space than they are about reporting facts. Case in point, it took three weeks to get a legitimate interview with Sarah Palin and yet the “news” shows covered her almost non-stop with tidbits which are wholly unimportant with respect to her ability, or lack thereof, to lead. She has been both vilified and adored simultaneously and we still don't know anything about her. I also think Obama has been treated unfairly because the press is more concerned about ratings than reporting on issues. Any objective person who has watched the press in the last three weeks would say that out of the four candidates for president and VP, Obama is the only one who has even attempted to talk about issues and he gets second class status over the Britney Spears like appeal of the Palin choice. It's absurd.

I want to hear less of the “what” and more of the “how” in terms of what the candidates intend to do. Absent that, we are left with the only logical conclusion that they don't know what the hell they are going to do once they get to the Oval Office. This is unacceptable.

The other issue which makes politics unseemly is that politicians spend more time campaigning than they do governing. I would love win one term in the Senate on a shoestring budget and be able to govern with my head instead of pandering to an electorate. Going to Washington with clear vision and not worrying about the next election is the way it was meant to be.

I don't hold out a lot of hope on this issue, but how we choose our leaders is in need of a pretty substantial overhaul.
14 September 2008
at 10:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

eileenroddy (Eileen Roddy) says…

Thanks for this post Lloyd. One of the comments made by the panelists at the Editors Day event referred to the fact that many of the Press no longer accompanied the candidates on their plane travels - and those who did had limited access to the spontaneous comments and conversations. Part of this was due to economics - many newspapers couldn't afford to pay the rather substantial fee to gain this limited access. In the past, they said, press were around all the time and had an opportunity to see what candidates were REALLY like when they weren't “performing” and showing the “public” face. (Reference your comments on it taking three weeks to get a legitmate interview with Sarah Palin.)