Shock!!! The Kansas City Star is the journalistic equivalent of the Obama Girl!!!
There's a school of thought among respected journalism academics, theorists, professors and critics that endorsements of political candidates by major newspapers are unethical and really represent an outmoded practice which reflects a time when newspapers did not prize their (so-called) objectivity and were aligned with old school political machines.
Today The Star is endorsing Barack Obama for President.
This isn't really a big surprise to anybody but it speaks to the hypocrisy of Kansas City's paper of record.
Any reasonable person could contend that The Star can no longer offer objective news, opinion, insight or analysis on the subject of the Presidential race now that their leadership has publicly pledged their support.
We've seen it before - The Star made up their mind for Mayor Funky (look where that got Kansas City), The Stadium Tax, Light Rail and so many other ballot issues and their coverage was OBVIOUSLY skewed to support the decisions of their top level staff.
But if The Star can't offer objectivity or the untouchable professionalism and ethics that their editors like to contend exists in the daily paper . . . Then what differentiates them from any news source?
TV beats newspaper when it comes to immediacy and visuals.
Magazines, weekly print editions and even message boards offer more expert and lengthy analysis.
Blogs have more hardcore and brazen opinions.
The folks using Twitter are far more clever.
If The Star doesn't have objectivity or the ethical high ground, what do they have?
Fortunately, this question and other ethical dilemmas regarding the daily newspaper don't rally matter since the business model of printing day old news on dead trees is quickly going the way of the dinosaur and online revenue could never support the huge corporate news gathering enterprise in its current configuration.
Meanwhile new media makes no secret of bias and consumers aren't complaining about it. Furthermore, the digital future of all news content means that The Star no longer has an insurmountable advantage when it comes to distribution. Online and on the the cell phones and PDAs of media consumers, The Star pushing their agenda is simply another entity clamoring for attention very much like Obama Girl only not as nearly as captivating.
posted by Tony Permalink
But I like the comics
Ask Hillary Clinton how a Star endorsement works out in the end.
I'm typing LOL on Nick's avatar.
You may remember that The Obama Girl did not vote in the Primary (she was busy with waxing or something), and The Star does not count for much either.
Yeah, it's a first of its kind thing for a newspaper to endorse a presidential candidate. Great catch, Tony. The next thing you know, the Star will be intruding on the privacy of the dead by printing obituaries.
The Star included in their endorsement a full page with color pictures of Obama at various events. They said that the opposing view was on next page with McClanahan's column. It was 1/3 page in black and white. Now THAT is objective. I understand it was in the opinion section, but their bias bleeds into the news sections.
Tony, you're way too kind to us bloggers by saying we have 'more hardcore and brazen opinions' (than other forms of media, I presume you mean.)
We bloggers are mostly careless and opinion... and lack both the staffs and discipline to check our facts.
We shoot potshots from our basements, very often under the guise of our OWN anonymity. WE don't follow journalistic practices of using sources and verifying them independently.
We don't even have editors to check our spelling!
I don't even agree that the media 'makes no secret of bias'. Faux News' mantra 'fair and balanced' shows quite the opposite.
Newspapers have ALWAYS had points of view and that's been their right and practice since before the Revolution. Modern papers do try to separate fact and opinion by having separate editorial boards view the news with admitted opinion.
In television, commentaries were labeled as such until a decade ago and now they don't bother superimposing the disclaimer to diffenteriate news from opinion.
Like radio, fact and opinions on TV are intermixed by loose lipped, young anchors and hosts who sometimes don't even call themselves 'journalists'. KMBZ's morning team, which reads live commercials, are referred to as 'hosts'.
The news beast on cable's three so called news channels has such an appetite that CNN, MSNBC and FOX fill the time by intermixing news and analysis. Analysis should be 'informed opinion' but it isn't even that, always.
And of course schools don't teach young people enough about how to be critical listeners.
You spend a lot of time doing the 'dead tree press' criticism. It's cute but its like bare feet. Not funny anymore.
I've said before that only newspapers have the staffs to cover the real news--that is cover society as opposed to chasing ambulances. I don't take the paper anymore, but like you, I read it every day on the net.
I'm sure you know that most of the crime news, you do get from the star's website. And they have the best blogs in town, hands down.
I spend a career in electronic journalism but I do know who does most of the newsgathering. It remains: print. Or if you have a problem with the method of dissemination, we'll call it 'old media.'
What we SHOULD call it is JOURNALISM MEDIA. Because 'new media' is everything BUT journalism.
So to summarize, there are information enterprises who practice JOURNALISM and ones who just RUN OFF THEIR MOUTHS or plagerize from others.
The only difference is that all of them are exploring the methods of sending those words to people--by paper, blast or informal email networks, twitters, blogs, online or broadcast or cable audio or TV.
It's why none of them are making much money. Too many choices. The bad news of that is it takes earnings to hire staff to do JOURNALISM! Newspapers are cutting staffs. These are not good days for "capital J".
Newspaper endorsements, Tony, are the LEAST of the things we have to worry about when it comes to getting accurate NEWS.
Tony, Tone, Toni!
Can't believe you're dissing my Man Crush!
I'm not sure newspaper endorsements ever made a difference. I'm guessing they have even less influence now as fewer people read them. And the people who do read them are old farts like me and they're dying off. (Ok, I'm only 49, but I'm probably the last of the generations who read newspapers.)
There is typically a Chinese wall between editorial and news at a large newspaper. I think you're looking for gremlins under the bed that don't exist.
I think the larger fact is that newspaper endorsements are sound and fury signifying nothing.
Plus, seems to me most endorsements are the kiss of death. Everyone hates their local newspaper and thinks it's run by idiots. This predates the Internets.
But how can you not love Mr. Cool Customer, Barack Obama? Even the Star isn't blind.
Todd Epp
Kansas Watch
http://kswatch.squarespace.com
good post radioman. - mt
pleazzz NEvER show us puta mary dirty snachez brown milk sags!!!!!!!!!
Tony, You dumbass republican shill, I suppose you'd prefer the star endorse the geezer and the nazi church lady? Probably.
Radioman you are a fucking idiot.
The Star's got eyeballs looking at it.
An average 2.8 pairs a day looking at its 250,000 copies a day, and two million pairs a month online.
So they're going to do what they want, continue to make money, and ignore little Internet Shits, because there's a rotating cast of them that will come, have their fifteen minutes, and go.
Also, nobody complains about bias on the web because when they look into a toilet after they sit down, they know what they're going to see.
also, Radioman, you are one hundred percent right.
If the Star is doing so great then why do they keep having to fire people?
The Star is kinda like Tony - they both have a bunch of deadbeat relatives in warmer climates who they need to pay the bills for.
That's why.
usuk
i quit reading the star after this you people will be sorry if obama wins this watch your taxes balloon up and all the welfare people will have there hands out waiting for free health care i would much rather have mcclain
agreed. McClain is the man.
McLain's is the bakery. Who the fuck is "McClain"? Or is that "McClaim," 'cause he and his repub-fuck cronies want to claim all our money?
damn, tony's sure gonna be glad when you get done with the steroid treatment there, honey.
yeah, i know. gonna owe him a big apology. or his mom, if he's like funkstumper.
Post a Comment
<< Home