14 Responses to “Story for Story? Balanced Political Reporting? Right”

  1. Natalia Says:

    I totally agree. It appears that most of the time the media doesn’t bother to get both sides of anything and then they stick in that clause “attempts made to contact Mr. or Ms. X on their cellphone went unanswered.” The citizen journalists looking like they on the same footing at those who are qualified to do the job.

    • caribbeancontessa Says:

      Thanks for the comment. I think citizen journalists in some cases write better and are more “fair” than those whose stories are published. It does not happen all the time, but the media bias is concerning and was blog worthy. It will be ain interesting few weeks and we’ll see if today’s trend continues.


  2. knycky Says:

    Is balance we say! Daiz wha we want!

    Amazing day to you! 🙂

  3. Gisele Says:

    I like it !!… Rainy season… Dry Season… and Silly season (comes whenever our PM feels…)

    • caribbeancontessa Says:

      You are funny. I can’t take credit for silly season – its used by so many I forget who first coined the phrase. Elections all around the world engender silliness. One need only remember all the Sarah Palin and Obama paraphanalia (sp). I wonder what people do with all those cartoons, bumper stickers, hats and baby clothes if their candidates lose…Ebay? 🙂

  4. Mark Lyndersay Says:

    Think that’s weird? There’s a running commentary on Renee Cummings’ Facebook page that you might want to take a look at. It’s about well-known reporters, assigned to host the paid political broadcasts for both parties weighing in like partisan supporters.
    Quite a disturbing development.

  5. Kevin Says:

    I have to agree wit the first commenter. It is not just in politics that this happens though, but it always seems that people don’t want to answer their cell phone, according to news reports … but how do we know if this is the case or not?

    How often do we see in talk shows etc that only one side is represented? In fact, it is more common for one side to be represented rather than the 2 sides, so that when they let off the excuse that they tried to get a rep from the other side, it seems less than credible.

    I don’t know whether there is a media bias against any particular political party or not, but it does seem that the media is usually slanted against the Government of the day. Remember the Panday era? There is certainly a lot of BAD journalism going on… I have seen stories with no political agenda, where I personally know the facts of the story and when I read the report all I can say is huh?

    I would just say though, that a guy who worked on American television said that what you would do idf you were biased would be to get some “nut job” from the other side… someone far to the extreme, to give the impression of fairness, but really just misrepresenting the other side of the story.

    In respect of the politics, i don’t believe that the parties are going to give us the truth of their intentions in the campaign. I normally look and listen to their actions and words between campaigns to see how they will already perform if elected.

  6. Kevin Says:

    oooh and I just wanted to comment on what Mark raised… I think that it was scandalous and bodering on disgusting that the tv stations that broadcasted the rallies saw it fit to use the obviously not even veiled biased presenters instead of sending their own people there to provide balanced coverage…

  7. Mark Lyndersay Says:

    The media is always going to be “biased” toward the Government of the day, because that’s where the power and the greatest capacity to do ill lies.
    The issue about the presenters is that they did, in fact, send “their own people.” What they needed to do was to ask the political parties to provide their own professional hosts, identified clearly with the party whose broadcast was being paid for, to do the work of representing the interests of the party paying for the broadcast.

  8. Mark Lyndersay Says:

    That “bias,” I should add, is speaking truth to power.

  9. Kevin Says:

    Mark, thanks for the info.

    I agree that the gov’t in power is really set for negative reporting, i should have made that more clear.

    With respect to the political broadcast, I have 2 issues, the first is that I am not sure that I really am in favour of this parties-sponsoring-the-broadcast-of-their-rallies-which-should-be-news-events-impartially-covered. They should be impartially covered.

    More importantly though, they should not LOOK like they are being impartially covered. Only CNMG had the decency to state that they were broadcasting a paid political broadcast, and anyone tuning in on any other station would not have known on the face of it. That, I think is really poor on somebody’s part.

  10. Marc Says:

    Today I heard a talk show host on radio say “This is a UNC show.” Proceeded to say about PNM followers that he still letting people like them call in and contribute because “you hadda give them rope to hang themselves”.

    Aside from the question of whether this is even *legal*…

    • Kevin Says:

      Marc, it is unfortunate that that statement was made, although I would argue that talk shows are by their very nature entitled to carry the bias of their presenters, unless they purport to be impartial. The issue is in news programmes where they get a report and don’t seek to get clarification from the other side.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: