[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Swprograms] CPB meddling
- Subject: Re: [Swprograms] CPB meddling
- From: Richard Cuff <rdcuff@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 18:55:05 -0400
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=CvV8dIP/i0oENc2IgKtpQHdD3LJELnzOzL8DUrtUqkpIQ9hJ6vkmvAimzxkU2qarCcbX67zLCpHYgkz/p0j8LDmJxNrkRp1pGHNAu6cGKKnxBPdmL+qFEGvgFgBSbWChjmWmxBUsX9sWNDm+CM0CcsHBw+l+8ut9Ccp8441Ioe0=
I will chime in for a few seconds here...
The issue isn't so much facts but how they're edited, analyzed and
reported. That constitutes the "value added" of journalism. That, of
course, is where bias can enter in the process.
Programming just with facts is boring. Remember the BBCWS' "
Newsdesk" program? That was a half-hour of dispatches and no
analysis. Boring.
By comparison, the "24 Hours" program was all about the analysis of
the day's news.
Nowadays, the reporting-with-analysis is combined in Newshour, World Today, etc.
It seems the lightning rod for this "facts" debate nowadays is Bill Moyers.
I'm like Joe Buch. I'd rather see the PBS tell the CPB to go pound
sand and let the viewers vote with their feet or their pocketbooks.
Or, if I were PBS, I'd take the issue to the viewers and raise the
spectre of the license fee to keep Congress out of its face. Ditto
the VOA.
Now ducking out...
RDC
On 5/4/05, John Figliozzi <jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi David:
>
> Well, to me, facts are not liberal or conservative.
_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
To unsubscribe: Send an E-mail to swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.