Thanks to wuap, I have read the Time cover story entitled "Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck Bad for America?" I also read the accompanying pieces "Heeeere's Glenn! When the Lunatic Fringe Tries Comedy" and "Glenn Beck: The Fears of a Clown."
My thoughts:
The writer of the cover piece clearly dislikes Beck... partially because Beck rails against media outlets like Time, and therefore the writer feels attacked. An understandable feeling, but I think David Von Drehle could have done a better job pushing his own feelings aside for the story.
That said, Von Drehle makes good points, like the one below:
I cannot argue with the possibility that Beck is doing all of this for money, and that his methods are genius if you're interested in profit.
The piece of Glenn's comedy tour is fine except that writer Joel Stein refers to Beck as the leader of the "lunatic fringe." I'm not sure you can refer to Beck's audience as a fringe at this point. Using "lunatic" there may just be a humor device, but taken at face value, it's an insult.
And finally, the Clown writer makes no bones about his feelings for Beck: the man will fail, and good riddance. He does reference some of Beck's more controversial theories, while giving credence to ones that have turned out to be correct, however.
Overall, nothing too spectacular. This is a mainstream media publication taking a closer look at someone they've disregarded for years and not really liking what they see. And they really make no bones about it.
Which brings me to my question: is such an opinion proper for these pieces? For one of them, maybe? How much bias should a writer insert into writing like this?
I believe opinion is at home on the Op-Ed page of the newspaper, on political talk shows like Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann and in books that are not considered historical accounts.
In all other venues, the rest of the newspaper, nightly news broadcasts, historical books, etc. the writer should work as hard as he or she can to eliminate traces of their own feelings from their work.
Is this boring? Yes. Is it more difficult? Yes. But is it worthwhile? I believe so.
Why? Well, primarily because these people set themselves apart as unbiased providers of news.
This is also a good idea because ordinary people pick up on bias. They see when you use words and phrases that bely your bias, and decide they can't trust you, if you're claiming to be an impartial observer when in reality you are not.
I believe the nation's news outlets are overall pretty lazy or unprincipled. I know it's always been that way, but is that a reason we should accept it? Or is this our fault? Does news reporting tinged with bias get better ratings? More readers? Maybe.
It's a complicated question.
My thoughts:
The writer of the cover piece clearly dislikes Beck... partially because Beck rails against media outlets like Time, and therefore the writer feels attacked. An understandable feeling, but I think David Von Drehle could have done a better job pushing his own feelings aside for the story.
That said, Von Drehle makes good points, like the one below:
Extreme talk, especially as practiced by a genuine talent like Beck, squeezes maximum profit from a relatively small, deeply invested audience, selling essentially the same product in multiple forms. The more the host is criticized, the more committed the original audience becomes. And the more committed the audience, the bigger target it presents to the rant industry on the other side of the spectrum.
The piece of Glenn's comedy tour is fine except that writer Joel Stein refers to Beck as the leader of the "lunatic fringe." I'm not sure you can refer to Beck's audience as a fringe at this point. Using "lunatic" there may just be a humor device, but taken at face value, it's an insult.
And finally, the Clown writer makes no bones about his feelings for Beck: the man will fail, and good riddance. He does reference some of Beck's more controversial theories, while giving credence to ones that have turned out to be correct, however.
Overall, nothing too spectacular. This is a mainstream media publication taking a closer look at someone they've disregarded for years and not really liking what they see. And they really make no bones about it.
Which brings me to my question: is such an opinion proper for these pieces? For one of them, maybe? How much bias should a writer insert into writing like this?
I believe opinion is at home on the Op-Ed page of the newspaper, on political talk shows like Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann and in books that are not considered historical accounts.
In all other venues, the rest of the newspaper, nightly news broadcasts, historical books, etc. the writer should work as hard as he or she can to eliminate traces of their own feelings from their work.
Is this boring? Yes. Is it more difficult? Yes. But is it worthwhile? I believe so.
Why? Well, primarily because these people set themselves apart as unbiased providers of news.
This is also a good idea because ordinary people pick up on bias. They see when you use words and phrases that bely your bias, and decide they can't trust you, if you're claiming to be an impartial observer when in reality you are not.
I believe the nation's news outlets are overall pretty lazy or unprincipled. I know it's always been that way, but is that a reason we should accept it? Or is this our fault? Does news reporting tinged with bias get better ratings? More readers? Maybe.
It's a complicated question.
Comment