Looks like a don't-miss series.

"The crisis never really ended."

[www.pbs.org]

Considering PBS's M.O., and selection of talking heads, I feel like I've already seen it.

Quote
guitarist
Considering PBS's M.O., and selection of talking heads, I feel like I've already seen it.

sounds like you have some insider info. do tell.

If it is done by frontline, it's a must-miss.

Quote
Buck
If it is done by frontline, it's a must-miss.

---

[www.flickr.com] [picasaweb.google.com]

the press on Frontline:
[www.pbs.org]

counterpoints?

---

[www.giyf.com]

Quote
decay
the press on Frontline:
[www.pbs.org]

counterpoints?

It seems that some think "investigative journalism" is the same as "liberal bias."

---

[www.flickr.com] [picasaweb.google.com]

Wow. Cant believe all tbe negative posts on FL. I find it informative and a real eye opener on many subjects.

D &C

Quote
Uncle Wig

Quote
decay
the press on Frontline:
[www.pbs.org]

counterpoints?

It seems that some think "investigative journalism" is the same as "liberal bias."

And it seems that there are some who think biased reporting is the same thing as "investigative journalism".

PBS watchers know what they're getting, its point of view isn't hidden. But we needn't delude ourselves that their mission is pure objectivity in reporting, from an open-minded, ideologically-neutral perspective. Sometimes an institutional point of view can make a piece weaker, sometimes stronger. Good reporting is good reporting.

Most of us get news from a variety of sources, and have no illusions about investigative journalism, documentaries, how they're researched, edited, and presented, whats included, what's excluded, the the views represented. Even a investigative news organization that has demonstrated proven institutional bias--most have, none are "pure"--has value. It doesn't disqualify it from serious consideration. If the reporting is solid.

A funny example is, the Enquirer breaking the John Edwards story. When all the prestige news organizations avoided it, or just plain missed it, it was left to a tabloid to uncover it. The Enquirer isn't exactly a beacon of journalistic integrity, but their reporting proved accurate, it withstood scrutiny.

I recall seeing a Frontline piece years ago (topic was religion, details forgotten now) but I remember how the segment was juiced up with dramatic music cues and brooding, theatrical editorial flourishes, and if you weren't paying attention (or didn't recognized the selective editing) you might think "oh my god, this devastating!". But simply counting and identifying the talking heads, 85% of them were from one side of the aisle, a Who's-Who of ultra-Liberal Op-Ed personalties. Maybe they didn't think their case was strong enough if they included other views, and needed to stack the deck, thinking viewers wouldn't notice? I'd have the same questions if a piece is stacked the other way, too.

Still, that doesn't mean the segment was invalid. PBS's point of view is as valuable as anyone else's, and they often do good work.

And it seems that there are some who think biased reporting is the same thing as "investigative journalism".

I do hope you're not including me in that "some."

---

[www.flickr.com] [picasaweb.google.com]

Quote
Uncle Wig
And it seems that there are some who think biased reporting is the same thing as "investigative journalism".

I do hope you're not including me in that "some."

I was making an observation, not unlike your observation. I've not yet met anyone who thinks "investigative journalism" is the same as "liberal bias." I'd like to think most informed people are smart enough to recognize investigative journalism as investigative journalism. And biased reporting as biased reporting. And are sophisticated enough to see crossover or overlap, and still recognize relevant facts when they emerge, even in imperfect or slanted reporting. Investigative journalists can be biased, or have an ideological mission, and still uncover facts that expose wrongdoing, and perform a valuable public service.

Often, oppositional or advocacy journalists are more tenacious watchdogs. As long as they're not ethically compromised, having a strong point of view doesn't disqualify a reporter from being rigorous and fair.

When a news report if flawed, unfair, or corrupted by bias, it's usually discovered and exposed, or at least challenged. More so, with the growth of internet news sources and news analysis in recent years. Harder to get away with falsehoods, with more competition and more informed viewers and readers. That's a good thing.