Quoted from an article about a fallen soldier. The "family did not want to discuss their sentiments about the war or the political debate surrounding President Bush's failure to find weapons of mass destruction, one of the prime reasons cited for invading Iraq last year."
If the family didn't want to discuss politics why was it necessary for the paper to put that in the article?
2006-12-24 07:06:58 · 18 answers · asked by Abu 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
oldbasshole - I know for a fact that there was one political question asked neither his mother or step father wanted to answer it and said they didn't want to discuss politics they just wanted to honor the marine in the article.
2006-12-24 07:18:50 · update #1
It wasn't necessary. The person writing the article put their own thoughts and feelings about it in there; it's the authors biased opinion
2006-12-24 07:10:23 · answer #1 · answered by angeldiva 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Anything anybody says always has a bias. Whose bias is it? The paper's or the family's? The paper definitely has one, & they imply the family does also. If the family said, "No comment", the papers comment, while still technically true, is innaccurate. The paper is definitely not telling the whole truth no matter what the family believes. In my opinion, the paper should not have said what it did.
Now, you left your side wide open to this comment. Fox News claims to be fair & balanced. Not true. They present a view not usually seen in the rest of the media. which is great. However, many times, I have heard Bill O'Reilly shout, "SHUT UP!" repeatedly to someone he invited onto the program & was interviewing who presented a view opposing his own. That is biased & unfair reporting to the worst degree. This is the standard Fox uses consistently. I seldom see that coming from any other news outlet. Thank God!
So I guess your question of bias really boils down to the questions, "To what degree is it biased?" and "How unfair is it?"
I would love to hear what William Buckley, the father of modern conservatism, has to say about the quality of Fox News. My guess is this real gentleman has some scathing things to say. My guess is he avoids the likes of Bill O'Reilly & Geraldo Rivera like the plague.
2006-12-24 07:37:06 · answer #2 · answered by bob h 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would have to see the whole article in order to make a proper opinion. Tho I am sure it is safe to say the reporter did not track down and ask the family that one and only question. The media does have a responsibility to report what was said and in this case asked and not answered. That is the meaning of being on the record. In any post death family interviews I have seen here in Canada or the US it has always been asked about the support of the war.
2006-12-24 07:39:22 · answer #3 · answered by Cherry_Blossom 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well they were making a point.
While the family of the fallen soldier did not want to comment on politics. Some news jock wanted to get his two cents in and use the death of a soldier to further his politics.
It's sad, but it is protected speech.
2006-12-24 07:11:46 · answer #4 · answered by Crzypvt 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
splendor is likewise contained in the ear of the beholder. A blind person (no longer inevitably a guy) can relish the spectacular thing approximately music, and as that person has no optical distractions, probable appreciates it even greater effective than a sighted person. The expression isn't biased, in basic terms incomplete.
2016-12-18 18:40:01 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're surprised by the liberal bias opposed to the war? Hasn't that been evident in virtually every news broadcast for 3 years? The audacity of some of these reporters, injecting their own opposition to the war whenever they see fit, is truly amazing, if not unprofessional.
2006-12-24 07:15:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Could have been any number of things. The family could have said they were too angry to discuss it and the paper toned it down, or the journalist could have asked, on purpose, and gotten a "no comment." The family could have brought it up or the journalist could have. Could be an angry community, or a pist off journalist. Who knows. It's impossible to tell. I wouldn't jump to conclusions.
2006-12-24 07:13:42 · answer #7 · answered by Angry Daisy 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Despite what journalists would like to think (and would like for you to think), journalism isn't a profession like medicine, law, or clergy, and there has never been any serious attempt at serious unbiased reporting. This stuff is annoying now, but not nearly as bad as it was in the time of our Founding Fathers.
2006-12-24 07:25:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
IT'S LIKE THE PRESS ASKING A MOTHER AFTER HER SON HAS BEEN GUNNED DOWN ON THE STREET--"HOW DO YOU FEEL?" THERE ARE A WHOLE SLEW OF THESE MORONS RUNNING AROUND THE COUNTRY. THEY HAVE TO INJECT DIALED UP EMOTION, FEAR, PAIN, AND SUFFERING INTO EVERY STORY TO MAKE IT MORE "IN YOUR FACE" INTERESTING. ITS NOT REALLY NEWS REPORTING ANYMORE. IT'S MUCH CLOSER TO A VIDEO GAME WITH THEM PRESSING THE BUTTONS TO GET THE RESPONSE THEY WANT.
2006-12-24 07:38:50 · answer #9 · answered by Rich S 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Exaggeration of the press seeking high morbidity for sensationalism.
2006-12-24 07:09:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋