Is the role of the media to present "facts" or "both sides to a story"?

[Barrister]

I thought American Conservatives viewed "public broadcasting" the same way Canadian Conservatives view "public broadcasting": that the tv side is a bunch of freedom-hating communists, but that the radio side did a pretty good job at informing people (especially out in the middle of nowhere)?

[Berkut]

There doesn't appear to be any media concern in a practical sense for them to be anything other than entertainment.

You should probably pick other media, then.  I think NPR generally does a pretty good job of presenting different sides to a debate, for instance, and their news shows are not intended as pure entertainment.

But that is just my point - the media out there that isn't crap also isn't really relevant. NPR? I like NPR - I like CSM, I like The Atlantic. I like lots of stuff that does a pretty good job of actual journalism.

The problem is that it doesn't seem like the ones trying to actually do journalism are the ones that most people actually listen to. It is like there is a perverse and inverse relationship between how ethical and professional a  news organization tries to be and its ability to actual inform significant numbers of people.

[CountDeMoney]

I thought American Conservatives viewed "public broadcasting" the same way Canadian Conservatives view "public broadcasting": that the tv side is a bunch of freedom-hating communists, but that the radio side did a pretty good job at informing people (especially out in the middle of nowhere)?

Conservative American anti-intellectualism makes no such distinctions.

[Martinus]

Speaking of which, anyone here likes "Newsroom"?

[frunk]

I thought American Conservatives viewed "public broadcasting" the same way Canadian Conservatives view "public broadcasting": that the tv side is a bunch of freedom-hating communists, but that the radio side did a pretty good job at informing people (especially out in the middle of nowhere)?

I think it's just the opposite in the US.  National Public Radio is seen as the freedom-hating communists even though they usually do a good job of being reasonably balanced.  TV is primarily science, nature and arts/cooking shows, with the news/politics confined to a half hour weekdays and sunday mornings.

[Admiral Yi]

To respond to the OP, media doesn't have an obligation to present both sides of a controversial issue as equally true or plausible, but it does have an obligation to present opinions on both sides of controversial issues.

[Berkut]

Speaking of which, anyone here likes "Newsroom"?

It is ridiculously ham handed and rather superficial....but I have to admit I do in fact like the show.

The dialogue alone is worth the price of entry.

[CountDeMoney]

Speaking of which, anyone here likes "Newsroom"?

It is ridiculously ham handed and rather superficial....

Kinda like Martinus.

[Eddie Teach]

Speaking of which, anyone here likes "Newsroom"?

It is ridiculously ham handed and rather superficial....

Kinda like Martinus.

[Martinus]

Speaking of which, anyone here likes "Newsroom"?

It is ridiculously ham handed and rather superficial....but I have to admit I do in fact like the show.

The dialogue alone is worth the price of entry.

My thoughts exactly. It's very in your face when it comes to ideology but I kinda like it, as a sort of fairytale for adults.

[Viking]

Speaking of which, anyone here likes "Newsroom"?

It is ridiculously ham handed and rather superficial....but I have to admit I do in fact like the show.

The dialogue alone is worth the price of entry.

given that the first episode is pretty much in my specific field of work I just kept thinking about the Mitchell and Webb Cricket movie sketch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUyK_J_W4BI

at that point it was just ruined for me. I love the Pill and the Daniels but meh... when characters that are supposed to be smart start spouting jibberish on the topics that they are supposed to be smart about .. oh, well.. If I want technobabble I can watch star trek re-runs since I'm not an anti-matter-warp engine-physicist.

[dps]

To respond to the OP, media doesn't have an obligation to present both sides of a controversial issue as equally true or plausible, but it does have an obligation to present opinions on both sides of controversial issues.

Yeah, but the problem is when it comes to actual facts, the media has trouble getting them right even when there isn't a controversial issue involved.  If there's a 4-car pile-up at the intersection of 1st and Main at noon, whether even those basic facts will be reported accurately is less than a 50/50 proposition.

[The Brain]

The only journalism I remotely trust is The Economist.

[szmik]

To respond to the OP, media doesn't have an obligation to present both sides of a controversial issue as equally true or plausible, but it does have an obligation to present opinions on both sides of controversial issues.

Yeah, but the problem is when it comes to actual facts, the media has trouble getting them right even when there isn't a controversial issue involved.  If there's a 4-car pile-up at the intersection of 1st and Main at noon, whether even those basic facts will be reported accurately is less than a 50/50 proposition.

So true,
I remember my car accident reported in local newspaper. I was described as ... a woman, while in fact my passenger was one. Hell, no one bothered to ask me about it, everyone knew better.

[Eddie Teach]

The only journalism I remotely trust is The Economist.

What about the Daily Tim?