Fox News Isn't Biased. They Swear They Aren't

Yep. I agree. If you are a political reporter, you can't make public statements about your vote. It is customary, at least where I'm from, that journalists are independents, and do not acquire membership of a party. A paper or a magazine can demand that you do not disclose political preferences, if you are on the employees list (I have the luxury of not doing any political reporting, so I can state my opinion in public).

McCain responded correctly, and it speaks in his favour that he did so instantly. Unless, of course, it is all a set-up.

I'm not trying to put McCain down, but the first thing I thought was that it was odd for him to say anything at all. I just can't imagine a scenario where a candidate would scold someone for saying they'd vote for them under any circumstances, but especially since she was just helping the cameraman and not preparing to interview him or anything. I'd think he'd have given her a wink and thumbs up or something and kept on getting up. Maybe he's paranoid and thought he was somehow being tested? (shrug)

I clicked to read the article but there's no article there.

@ Cheryl Johnson,

Yea, that is why I thought it might be an elaborate PR stunt. It's just too correct to be true, somehow. I know it sounds paranoid, but in this day and age... but I guess your explanation is, again, more realistic. He thought he was being tested and responded in a stingy manner. Fox, paradoxically, had to acknowledge the blunder and respond. Occam's Razor.

You mean Chris "A Thrill Ran Up My Leg" Matthews and Keith "I Hate Hillary" Olbermann? Shirley you jest.

If you don't like it, don't watch it.

Exactly. Most of us choose our news sources as a way to validate our personal beliefs. Those of us who lean left will choose left-leaning sources. Those of us who lean right will choose right-leaning sources. Most of us don't want our beliefs challenged by another point of view.

Reporters appear on tv news shows all the time and offer their opinions or haven't you watched Meet The Press, Fox News Sunday or a host of others lately? What one cannot due is offer an explicit endorsement of a particular candidate which this young woman did.

Right, but I just noted this reality. My point was that it doesn't make any sense. So, if Politician X supports a particular policy and Politician Y doesn't, you, as a reporter, can endorse and keep reporting on said policy but if you endorse Politician X, you are judged to be unable to do your job. What's the difference?

As for the shows you listed... to take an example, George Will comments on policy all time. That's his whole point. But he isn't allowed to report on policy. Mr. Gordon is.

Will writes on policy all the time but he's a columnist and not a reporter. The oleaginous Dana Milbank, who's kind of a hybrid, editorializes on Olbermann's chorus of yesmen nearly every night as do a host of others. The official policy at the New York Times is that its reporters aren't supposed to have anything good to say about any aspect of the US's presence in Iraq (and my tongue is only slightly in cheek here). This is what got Gordon and the great John Burns in trouble when they appeared on Russert's show and also on Charlie Rose.

I honestly don't know how to classify Milbank and most days I wonder if there's a point to him at all. I realize you probably hope for more upbeat coverage of Iraq, but I think its silly to argue that the Times hasn't provided that - John Burns and Gordon both have A LOT of good things to say about our military presence there and they pretty much are the figures responsible for covering the war for the Times. Dexter Filkins too has a lot of good to say, but I really admire the guy (as does Laura Ingraham, apparently!) and I think it's unfair to place him in the same category.

Objective broadcast journalism died the day corporations began buying up networks and made the decision that the news departments had to make a profit.

Good quotation.

Unfortunately, I am afraid that pigs will fly and monkeys will leap from my butt when that happens.

I'll be on the first row when it happens, then.

There never really has been objective journalism. We just like to think that there was.

Quite correct. Every reporter and editor brings his/her biases to their job. It's simply impossible not to. I have no problem with this. In Europe and the UK everyone knows where the various papers are coming from with respect to an ideological slant. Only in the US is the fiction maintained that there is such a thing as unbiased reporting.

In Europe and the UK everyone knows where the various papers are coming from with respect to an ideological slant.

True.

Every reporter and editor brings his/her biases to their job. It's simply impossible not to.

Among us journalists in Europe we have a technical term to describe this argument: Bad excuse.

Please allow some of us to wallow in our idealism. With all the deceit in our world it's nice to hope for the small light of truth to appear.

I do know alot of the history of journalism in my country and I know that it hasn't all been Ed Murrow and Ernie Pyle. I also know that objectivity is rarely attained but it shouldn't be gleefully abandoned for the sake of greenbacks, opportunities for toadying, and houses in the Hamptons.