Guest EXPAT Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Not surprising again, but it's always good to see this in print. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/washington-post-endorsement-four-more-years-for-president-obama/2012/10/25/6ca309a2-1965-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Once again it's only a few selected people at the Washington Post are endorsing Obama and it's misleading and unfair to say that the whole Washington Post is supporting Obama. The media should be neutral and unbiased. To be fair I would say the same thing if they endorsed Romney. The problem of bias and unfairness in the media will be addresses in the future with technological advancement, I believe. Quote
Members bertj Posted October 31, 2012 Members Posted October 31, 2012 Newspapers have never been unbiased in all of history, every publisher has their own agenda and their own ideals that the paper will always align with. These should be relegated to the opinion pages - which is where the endorsements are, but they will always find their way into the news stories. As far as "technological advancement" goes - the bias and "unfairness" will only get worse. Quote
Guest EXPAT Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Once again it's only a few selected people at the Washington Post are endorsing Obama and it's misleading and unfair to say that the whole Washington Post is supporting Obama. The media should be neutral and unbiased. To be fair I would say the same thing if they endorsed Romney. The problem of bias and unfairness in the media will be addresses in the future with technological advancement, I believe. You are totally wrong. When the editorial board endorses a candidate the PAPER endorses the candidate. I really don't understand why you are harping on this over and over again. It's ridiculous. Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Well I'm simply pointing out that I strongly believe that it's a wrong practice to do that and I do hope they they amend this way practice of endorsing candidates by owners or a few selected members of news organizations. If they want to endorse they can do it using their own name. I think that is a progressive and a right thing to do. I have difficult problems with nationalism at where I am. Japanese are very hated by both China and South Koreans because what Imperial Japanese government did in the past. I can understand their sentiment but they can't differentiate between government/organization and its innocent constituents. They identify them as the same and hate innocent citizens and foreign business. I think a lot of US oil companies experienced the same thing in the Middle East. What does the action of its government has to do with the individual interests or constituents. We use term Bush Administration, Clinton Administration and etc... Why can't we do that at the New York Times to clearly state that policy or endorsement is from a certain publisher or editor and it doesn't reflect the opinions of the whole organization. I know I can be wrong since I'm developmentally arrested so I send my apology if I offended you in anyway. I will stop here and concentrate on finding my husband. It has been my goal this year and it's already November. My time is running out again this year.. Quote
Members TampaYankee Posted November 2, 2012 Members Posted November 2, 2012 Once again it's only a few selected people at the Washington Post are endorsing Obama and it's misleading and unfair to say that the whole Washington Post is supporting Obama. How is it that you know this to be true. Are you familiar with all of the Post Staff and employees? Also, it is true that the Post is not a communal or democratic organization. It's philosophical and organizational principles are dictated by the ownership directly or through a Chairman and Board of Directors and executed by a CEO. So when the Post 'supports' something it is these people who determine what that is. The media should be neutral and unbiased. To be fair I would say the same thing if they endorsed Romney. Of course this has never been the case, nor should it be necessarily. What is important is that the paper keep the news reporting objective, unbiased, and that they 'share' their 'viewpoint' only on the editorial page. The problem of bias and unfairness in the media will be addresses in the future with technological advancement, I believe. Are you predicting the presence of an automatic 'Truthometer' on every street corner or Truth Serum added to our water with the flouride? Either of those would make Romney awfully uncomfortable. Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 What I meant was that only a few selected members who wrote that article endorsed Obama. It can't represent the opinions of the whole organization. I do believe impartiality is lost in the media and I think it's very important to restore it. Yes it might be ok for now but I do believe our descendants will look back at us and will be very frustrated at how we do things now. I hope the media can contribute more positively to our society and it delivers sound pieces of information and contents to people. It will eventually change in the future how the media operates for sure. The media is changing and evolving too and in that process I hope it becomes impartial. How is it that you know this to be true. Are you familiar with all of the Post Staff and employees? Quote
Members TampaYankee Posted November 3, 2012 Members Posted November 3, 2012 What I meant was that only a few selected members who wrote that article endorsed Obama. It can't represent the opinions of the whole organization. I do believe impartiality is lost in the media and I think it's very important to restore it. Yes it might be ok for now but I do believe our descendants will look back at us and will be very frustrated at how we do things now. Hito, you need to spend some time in the microfiche archives of a great American library surveying American newspapers, great and small, over the last 250 years to get an idea of how impartial those organs of information were. It was quite eye-opening for me, from an historical perspective. If you are interested in American History it is a very interesting and informative excursion. Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted November 3, 2012 Posted November 3, 2012 Thanks I will just do that. But I do think the media is partial. Improvement and reform should come in the future and our descendants will come up with ways to deal with it. And it's not a recent development the problems that we find in the media. Hito, you need to spend some time in the microfiche archives of a great American library surveying American newspapers, great and small, over the last 250 years to get an idea of how impartial those organs of information were. It was quite eye-opening for me, from an historical perspective. If you are interested in American History it is a very interesting and informative excursion. Quote
