Editorializing during newscasts

[CAwasinNJ]

What do you all think of writing news copy in a way that editorializes or slants the presentation in one direction or another? I hear that sometimes and frankly it really annoys me.

Generally news is on news/talk stations, so you could make an argument that putting your personal spin on the news isn't that different from what you're doing the rest of the hour. I strongly disagree with that argument. If you want to be a biased talk station (and is there one that isn't?) then that's fine. The news part of your station should be separate though. First you can give the facts in as unbiased a fashion as possible. THEN present your opinion on it, clearly labeled as such. I don't have a problem with either. I just don't want one pretending to be the other.

[bigbopper]

Your post time seems to indicate that you are speaking in some sort of reference to the presidential debate.

This is what I don't like... the fact that MSNBC goes so far left that you can't get both sides of the story. Also the fact that Fox seems to lean right a lot. I don't trust AC360 or anything else on CNN. I like Glenn Beck, I think he is witty, but he is slanted as well. Now, all my examples are from Cable news networks who obviously don't believe they need to follow many rules. In my opinion, people should be able to broadcast their opinion, but any and all stations should put disclaimers out there just like they do for infomercials, "KUTV nor CBS endorses this product, the claims made are the sole responsibility of those presenting... blah blah blah. I believe in disclaimers. I also wish there was one national network that wouldn't slant the news or have a hidden agenda.

As far as local news, leanings should NEVER take place. I worked at KSL many years back and used to watch the news cast from in the studio on occasion. I used to crack up at the comments made off the air, during the taped segments... but those shouldn't (and weren't) on the air. I think it was Bruce Lyndsay who was delivering the story of a 10 year old boy who had a "hitlist" and threatened to kill those who rubbed his face in doggie doo-doo... As soon as the director yelled "clear" Bruce mumbled words to the effect that "I don't blame him, if someone rubbed my face in dog ****."

There you go, my thoughts.

[henry]

Do you have a specific station or incident you have in mind, CA?

Having written my fair share of news copy, I must say that if a slant is introduced into copy, it's simply out of laziness, rather than a clear desire to push an agenda. Case in point, if I write a reader on the economic bail-out, it may sound slanted because I do not support it, and certainly not in the form the president want to push. So that leaves me two options of how to write the reader ....

(A) TROUBLE FOR THE ECONOMIC BAIL-OUT. A GROUP OF PROMINENT REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE SAY THEY CAN'T SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN. SENATOR RONALD McDONALD SAYS THE COUNTRY SIMPLY CAN'T AFFORD IT. ((BYTE, 7 sec: "...sell out to China.")) THE CURRENT PLAN WOULD BUY $700-BILLION DOLLARS OF BAD INVESTMENTS OFF WALL STREET. FED CHIEF BEN BERNANKE SAYS WITHOUT A BAIL-OUT, THE COUNTRY WILL FALL INTO DEPRESSION.

(B) ON CAPITOL HILL ... SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEN CONTINUE TO WORK AGAINST THE CLOCK THIS MORNING, TO IRON OUT A COMPROMISE ON THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN TO BUY UP $700-BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF BAD INVESTMENTS OFF WALL STREET. FED CHIEF BEN BERNANKE SAYS WITHOUT A BAIL-OUT, THE COUNTRY WILL FALL INTO DEPRESSION. ((BYTE, 8 sec: "...to act quickly.")) BUT SOME SENATE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS DISAGREE. THEY SAY THE COUNTRY CAN'T AFFORD THE BAIL-OUT.

I may be making my facts up, since it's a Satuday morning .... but the point: Copy "A" leans against the bail-out, and copy "B" much more for it. Neither are technically "biased," but it's all in how one presents the issue.

Beyond that there is some mild editorializing in the banter. The trouble is the anchors needs to act human - and to do that they need to spout an opinion. Usually it's safe to banter near weather, sports, and the kicker and the end of the newscast. But sometimes they may need to banter midcast.

But I'd say the real bias is generally within the copy.

[Terry]

There is bias in all newscasts. I think for the most part they don't know that they are biased. CNN's new slogan is "No bias, no bull". From my perspective, that's bull. They couldn't be more pro-Obama unless they changed their name to MSNBC. And Fox News has always claimed to be "Fair and balanced". Right. Rupert Murdock, a Hillary supporter by the way, deliberately set out to claim the territory on the right by hiring Roger Ailes to manage FNC. It was obviously a smart move. They consistently get better ratings than the others.

KLO has brief newscasts in the morning. I don't know the guy's name, but he has a definite right-wing slant and he packs more news into one minute than KSL does into 5 minutes. I really enjoy the guy, partly because I sit on the right side of the fence myself.

I haven't really noticed much bias in the local TV newscasts. But then, there isn't much news anymore in the local newscasts either, especially in the morning.

[CAwasinNJ]

The timing of my post wasn't actually of any use, though you get points for a good analysis. There was actually a specific incident in my mind when I wrote that, but it was over a week old by that point. Terry actually got it. I was referring to KLO in morning drive. I happened to catch a specific report, now about a week and a half ago, about the founder of Wordperfect donating a million dollars to fight Proposition 8 in California. Most of the report seemed fine, but it ended with something along the lines of him trying to remove an institution that has existed for hundreds of years.

Now I don't want to get into a political debate over which side of the issue you're on in this sub-board. If you'd like to, feel free to bring it over to the General Talk section. I'm just talking about the addition of editorial comments in a newscast. Everything up until the final sentence of the report was factual, as far as I could tell. There was no journalistic reason to tack an editorial comment to the end, and every reason not to. If they want to do an editorial, that's fine. Just present it as such. Don't masquerade editorials as news. That's unethical. I realize that a little bias is sometimes unavoidable to spite good journalists best intentions. This was just so obvious and easy to avoid that it leads me to believe it was deliberate. I just don't see how that's right.

Meanwhile, I've found that KYLZ 104.9 is running CBS News at the top of the hour, so I've started getting my news from them instead.