<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Newsroom</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.andrewkantor.com/2005-07/newsroom/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.andrewkantor.com/2005-07/newsroom/</link>
	<description>Andrew Kantor&#039;s comments on technology, the world, and other such things.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 16:18:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: mad macks</title>
		<link>http://www.andrewkantor.com/2005-07/newsroom/comment-page-1/#comment-1008</link>
		<dc:creator>mad macks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2005 07:44:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kantor.com/wordpress/?p=467#comment-1008</guid>
		<description>can&#039;t disagree with you there; however, would the same hold true if you were a political, rather than a tech, columnist? i respect your opinionated views on matters dealing with, say, file-sharing or rights of privacy, but if you were being as critical on things such as government handling of iraq or its support of big corporations, would you be given as much freedom? 
if the press dealt with issues the way they should (being more critical of the government in areas they truly deserve to be criticized) i doubt we would have seen george w. being voted back in. unfortunately, most big media (admittedly tv news moreso than print media it seems) are owned by big corporations that have some sort of conflict of interest keeping them from being as opinionated as they should be. 

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>can&#8217;t disagree with you there; however, would the same hold true if you were a political, rather than a tech, columnist? i respect your opinionated views on matters dealing with, say, file-sharing or rights of privacy, but if you were being as critical on things such as government handling of iraq or its support of big corporations, would you be given as much freedom?<br />
if the press dealt with issues the way they should (being more critical of the government in areas they truly deserve to be criticized) i doubt we would have seen george w. being voted back in. unfortunately, most big media (admittedly tv news moreso than print media it seems) are owned by big corporations that have some sort of conflict of interest keeping them from being as opinionated as they should be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.andrewkantor.com/2005-07/newsroom/comment-page-1/#comment-1007</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2005 00:55:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kantor.com/wordpress/?p=467#comment-1007</guid>
		<description>Everyone&#039;s biased. We&#039;re human, so we&#039;re going to have opinions. But I think you&#039;ll find a lot more bias in national TV news than in newspapers.

Where I work, I&#039;ve never heard of a reporter or an editor do a story -- or change a story -- out of bias. Our corporate bosses have nothing to say about the news we cover (unless we write about the paper itself, but that&#039;s a whole &#039;nother story).

Reporters are grunts. Guys and gals whose whole focus is to get stories -- to &quot;feed the beast&quot; as the phrase goes. There are Democrats and Republicans, and I&#039;m sure there are individual biases being reflected. 

But there&#039;s no corporate overseer planning our coverage. Reporters are *way* too cranky to submit to that kind of stuff. No reporter gets a message from his editor, &quot;Management wants you to cover such-and-such.&quot; It just doesn&#039;t work that way. 

Now, the editorial pages are a different story. That&#039;s where management gets to express its views. On our paper, and I believe on most others, the two are very separate. (At my paper they&#039;re on separate floors, in fact.) And reporters will sometimes agree, sometimes disagree with what comes out of Editorial.

That&#039;s why I say that national TV news is where you&#039;ll see the bias, because those broadcasts are much more controlled from above than newspaper stories. They&#039;re carefully scripted, carefully planned. Papers -- well, papers are just out there writing about whatever they can find to write about.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Everyone&#8217;s biased. We&#8217;re human, so we&#8217;re going to have opinions. But I think you&#8217;ll find a lot more bias in national TV news than in newspapers.</p>
<p>Where I work, I&#8217;ve never heard of a reporter or an editor do a story &#8212; or change a story &#8212; out of bias. Our corporate bosses have nothing to say about the news we cover (unless we write about the paper itself, but that&#8217;s a whole &#8216;nother story).</p>
<p>Reporters are grunts. Guys and gals whose whole focus is to get stories &#8212; to &#8220;feed the beast&#8221; as the phrase goes. There are Democrats and Republicans, and I&#8217;m sure there are individual biases being reflected. </p>
<p>But there&#8217;s no corporate overseer planning our coverage. Reporters are *way* too cranky to submit to that kind of stuff. No reporter gets a message from his editor, &#8220;Management wants you to cover such-and-such.&#8221; It just doesn&#8217;t work that way. </p>
<p>Now, the editorial pages are a different story. That&#8217;s where management gets to express its views. On our paper, and I believe on most others, the two are very separate. (At my paper they&#8217;re on separate floors, in fact.) And reporters will sometimes agree, sometimes disagree with what comes out of Editorial.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s why I say that national TV news is where you&#8217;ll see the bias, because those broadcasts are much more controlled from above than newspaper stories. They&#8217;re carefully scripted, carefully planned. Papers &#8212; well, papers are just out there writing about whatever they can find to write about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mad macks</title>
		<link>http://www.andrewkantor.com/2005-07/newsroom/comment-page-1/#comment-1006</link>
		<dc:creator>mad macks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2005 00:01:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kantor.com/wordpress/?p=467#comment-1006</guid>
		<description>the problem is that the media IS biased- at least in the opinion of much of the public. i, for one, do not trust the media. they have their own agenda and they are a business out for the almighty buck. that especially goes for the big corporate owned news providers... i can&#039;t read or see the news without wondering if i&#039;m getting it straight or in a way that makes me see a report THE WAY THEY WANT ME TO SEE IT.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the problem is that the media IS biased- at least in the opinion of much of the public. i, for one, do not trust the media. they have their own agenda and they are a business out for the almighty buck. that especially goes for the big corporate owned news providers&#8230; i can&#8217;t read or see the news without wondering if i&#8217;m getting it straight or in a way that makes me see a report THE WAY THEY WANT ME TO SEE IT.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
