Murdoch rips competitors for bias even as more Fox critics emerge on the right

Murdoch rips competitors for bias even as more Fox critics emerge on the right

Networks blur policy of not paying for interviews

In the January 3, 2010 article "Networks blur policy of not paying for interviews," Associated Press television writer David Bauder reports that media payments for subjects of interviews is questioning the integrity of news media:

NEW YORK – Policies forbidding payment for news interviews increasingly seem like the network television equivalent of the 55 mph speed limit: a rule often winked at unless you're heading into a speed trap.

Three of the past month's accidental celebrities — Jasper Schuringa, who helped thwart an attack on a Detroit-bound plane; David Goldman, who took a custody fight for his son to Brazil; and the White House party-crashing Salahis — have either sought or received goodies from TV networks eager to hear their stories.

Schuringa gave interviews to outlets that had agreed to purchase blurry cell phone images he'd taken of a man who authorities say tried to use explosives to take down the plane. Goldman and his son accepted NBC's offer of a ride home from Brazil on a charter airplane.

Representatives for Michaele and Tareq Salahi, who embarrassed the Obama administration by sneaking into a state dinner, were reportedly seeking six-figure bids from networks to tell their story.

"I don't know if people would have thought of that in the past," said Andy Schotz, head of the ethics committee for the Society of Professional Journalists. "But now often the first thing people think of is to get a publicist, a lawyer and an agent and figure out how to make money" from instant notoriety, he said.

The society condemned NBC for "checkbook journalism" with the Goldman trip. NBC said it had already chartered a plane to bring its personnel back from Brazil, and Goldman's lawyer said the invitation was accepted so father and son could avoid being accosted by multiple camera crews on the way home.

But NBC took multiple pictures and interviewed Goldman on the plane before his exclusive "Today" interview with Meredith Vieira. And the network seems immune to the industry's financial troubles: A chartered jet from Brazil to New York would cost about $90,000, according to Blue Star Jets, a New York-based charter company. Going commercial, a coach seat runs under $1,400.

Policies against paying for interviews are in place to avoid distorting the news. The concern is that news subjects will change their stories to make them more valuable or please those who paid them.

Evasion efforts seem centered primarily on ultra-competitive morning news shows and prime-time magazines. These outlets now fight for stories that might have been considered tabloid fodder years ago, often against Web sites or other outlets that won't hesitate to pay for an interview or information.

News organizations now frequently pay interview subjects for the use of personal photos or videos. Both CNN and ABC paid for a Schuringa photo, reportedly thousands of dollars, and insisted they were not paying for an interview. Yet Gawker.com said Shai Ben-Ami, a Schuringa friend who was helping arrange media appearances, made it clear the Dutch hero wouldn't speak to an outlet that didn't buy rights to a photo. Ben-Ami would not comment to The Associated Press.

It's an increasingly easy dodge in these days of cell phone cameras, when there are usually visual images available to accompany an interview.

Morning shows will often bring an interview subject to New York and cover expenses. (It's not payment for an interview, but it can be a nice vacation.)

Networks can skirt ethics policies by putting their entertainment divisions in charge of an interview, said Nicolla Hewitt, a longtime network news booker. These would seem most likely in cases involving major celebrities.

"Do I think it's right? No," Hewitt said. "But is it the new reality? Yes."

Paul Friedman, a veteran news executive and CBS News senior vice president, said there's a generational change with more people in the industry who argue that the old standards are too rigid.

The Schuringa case led Foster Kamer, a Gawker writer, to mock the network news divisions. Gawker has acknowledged that it paid for a story last fall where a collaborator to Richard Heene provided evidence that the "balloon boy" episode was a hoax.

"Mainstream outlets who hold themselves in higher regards than those (like ours) who openly admit ponying up for a story are doing the same thing themselves, the sole difference being: We don't feel the need to lie about it," Kamer wrote. "Why do they?"

Paul Levinson, head of the communications department at Fordham University, said he's been paid for interviews by the British Broadcasting Corp. ("I'm not allergic to money," he said.) He said he can't recall a case where the story was distorted because money was exchanged and argues that the policy doesn't make sense.

"It has always been the case that our free press operates in a capitalist economy — meaning money is involved, whether we like it or not," he said.

Networks have a cadre of paid consultants, like former generals or national security experts who share insights when a complicated story breaks that involves their topic. There was a time they'd do it for free for the attention it offered, Friedman said.

Even with policies in place that prohibit payment of interview subjects, it's interesting how many news subjects think they can cash in. And how quickly: Schuringa had wrestled with the Detroit terror subject and dragged him to the front of the plane yet still had the presence of mind to snap photos when authorities came.

It's hard to know how frequently evasion practices are taking place, said Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute think tank. They don't usually become known unless the interview subjects talk about it or disgruntled network officials leak the news, as happened with the Salahis.

Reporters at local TV stations or newspapers that don't pay for interviews are more frequently meeting news subjects who won't talk unless they're paid, McBride said.

"If we all drew a line again, maybe we could stop this," Friedman said. "But that's probably hopelessly naive. It's out of the bottle."
___
On the Net:
http://www.gawker.com

Fox News blurs the distinction between news and opinion

Critics of Fox News claim the organization does not distinguish between the ideas expressed in its news and editorial programs. An October 20, 2009 video prepared by the liberal watchdog group Media Matters For America shows that opinions from Fox's editorial programs are repeated and reported on its news shows that it claims are "fair and balanced."

GE's silencing of Olbermann and MSNBC's sleazy use of Richard Wolffe

Glenn Greenwald provides another example of how corporate control of the news media is detrimental to society's ability to learn the truth in his August 1, 2009 column "GE's silencing of Olbermann and MSNBC's sleazy use of Richard Wolffe." In essence, the corporate executives do not want the truth told if reporting the truth hurts the profits of the parent company's other businesses.

People Choose News That Fits Their Views

In the June 8, 2009 article "People Choose News That Fits Their Views" on LiveScience.com, Jeremy Hsu wrote:

News readers gorge on media messages that fit their pre-existing views, rather than graze on a wider range of perspectives. In other words, they consume what they agree with, researchers say.
The finding comes out of a recent study which tracked how college students spent their time reading media articles on hot-button issues such as abortion or gun ownership.
Unsurprisingly, students gravitated toward articles that supported their views.
"The idea has been around for a very long time, but it has just never been proven," said Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick, a communications researcher at Ohio State University. "It's just considered textbook knowledge or lay common sense."
That preference for similar views may also influence hardcore political junkies who prefer to read blogs with strong political views, according to separate research.
However, researchers still don't know how individual uncertainty about political views affects time spent reading one side or the other. And on the flipside, individuals most confident in their political stance may actually seek out opposing views to read.
News that fits your views
Previous studies have asked people about their news reading habits and broad political beliefs, such as liberal or conservative.
But the new Ohio State study took that a step further by observing how 156 college students spent five minutes reading online magazine articles on a computer. The computer recorded the time each student spent looking at pro and con articles about four issues that included abortion, gun ownership, health care and minimum wage.
"A survey isn't the greatest way to get hold of issues," Knobloch-Westerwick told LiveScience. "In my study, we just had people click on things so that we could watch unobtrusively."
As a result, she found that participants spent 36 percent more time reading articles that agreed with their point of view. They had a 58 percent chance of choosing articles that supported their views, as opposed to a 43 percent chance of choosing an article that challenged their view.
Students also commonly spent time reading both sides on any given issue, according to the study, which is detailed in the June issue of the journal Communication Research. However, very few clicked just on articles that opposed their views.
How political junkies read
Only 5 percent of online news readers go to political blogs on a daily basis, according to a new book by a different researcher, yet many represent the most politically active consumers of the news.
Such readers may prefer blogs over mainstream media sources because they suspect bias in the latter, said Richard Davis, a political scientist at Brigham Young University in Utah.
"They're clearly disenchanted with traditional media," Davis said. "That's why they read blogs in the first place - in their view, they see blogs as more accurate."
Davis worked with several independent firms to conduct nationally representative public opinion surveys of both political blog readers and journalists for his book, "Typing Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2009). He also focused on seven of the top political blogs, which at the time included Daily Kos on the left and Michelle Malkin on the right.
Such political blogs are up front with their political views, and typically "echo" the news reported by traditional journalists while adding their own spin or analysis.
But among the hardcore political junkies, 30 percent told the survey that blogs are more accurate, whereas only 8 percent said traditional media was more accurate. About 40 percent gave equal marks to both.
This trust in blogs over traditional media does not carry over to general readers, Davis cautioned. Less frequent blog readers usually give equal weight to blogs and traditional media. And overall, general readers still put more faith in traditional media.
Conservatives buck the trend
Some findings from both researchers suggest that individual confidence and certainty play a role in what people choose to read.
People with stronger party affiliation, conservative political views, and greater interest in politics proved more likely to click on articles with opposing views, according to the Ohio State study.
"It appears that people with these characteristics are more confident in their views and so they're more inclined to at least take a quick look at the counterarguments," Knobloch-Westerwick noted.
However, Knobloch-Westerwick added that her latest study was not designed to assess reader motives, and that she hopes to more carefully study the issue in the future.
The Brigham Young University survey found that journalists also tended to read liberal blogs - perhaps a reflection of journalists' political beliefs, although even conservatives said liberal blogs were often better-written, Davis pointed out.
Among the political blog readers, a similar trend emerged in which "liberals read almost exclusively liberal blogs, but conservatives tend to read both," Davis said.
Davis offered another possible explanation for this trend among blog readers. Conservative views dominate talk radio, and so conservatives may feel more satisfied by that outlet and are willing to check out opposing views on blogs.
By contrast, liberal views dominate the blogosphere, but are scant on talk radio.
Winning hearts and minds ... or not
The big question that remains is whether consuming all this news affects or changes people's views, or simply hardens original beliefs.
Experts have fretted for a while about how people tend to read only what agrees with them. But current research suggests that it's amazing that people ever change their views, Knobloch-Westerwick said.
Some researchers have even begun examining how political leanings are rooted in biology, and the combined influences of genetics or life experiences. A separate recent study suggests that men with more daughters are more likely to take a liberal point of view, while women who have more sons may lean more conservative.
Still, having hardened political views bolstered by media messages might not represent all bad news for a democratic society.
"People who spend more time with messages that bolster their views are more likely to engage in political action, something that's very desirable from a democratic point of view," Knobloch-Westerwick said.

Corporate Control of the News

Corporate control of the news.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jODaS3cts3Q

http://www.truthout.org/article/dan-rather-slams-corporate-news-conference

http://digg.com/television/Dan_Rather_The_News_Stops_With_Making_Bucks

http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/news-as-cyberpunk/dan-rather-corporations-government-runs-newsrooms/

Alternative international media website outside corporate control.(Globalvision News Network)(www.mediachannel.org)

http://www.whoownsthenews.com/