Alright y'all. I am a serious journalist, working for a serious media company that is -- seriously -- committed to giving users the best possible media experience on their terms
( Read more... )
My responses, for the record:virtuisticJuly 15 2008, 05:54:34 UTC
What information/media do you like in your election coverage?
Concrete data, supportable numbers, and references I can read so I can do my own verification. I am very skeptical of statistics. I like knowing how they are gathered, I appreciate when a company releases the methodology. I like open-note stories, which are rare.
What information/media do you dislike in your election coverage?
I can't stand finger-pointing, name-calling, talking-points, and reactionary politics. It's just catty, it's never informative, and I feel if it stopped getting coverage, it would disappear because it takes a lot of energy to always be defensive, waiting for the next attack from the opposition.
What do you want from the media in your election coverage? What's missing?
Clear language, aka no slogans. "Fair and balanced" because a term that ends up meaning "somewhere there's a hidden bias." Instead of calling a battle in a war we're fighting, it's an incident or an insurgence or something. I don't think the news needs to be sterilized. I think we can be honest and call things what the are. Sometimes being politically correct and trying not to offend anyone dilutes the story to the point of being inaccurate, and as such useless. I also want more depth, especially regarding policy details and spending.
Concrete data, supportable numbers, and references I can read so I can do my own verification. I am very skeptical of statistics. I like knowing how they are gathered, I appreciate when a company releases the methodology. I like open-note stories, which are rare.
What information/media do you dislike in your election coverage?
I can't stand finger-pointing, name-calling, talking-points, and reactionary politics. It's just catty, it's never informative, and I feel if it stopped getting coverage, it would disappear because it takes a lot of energy to always be defensive, waiting for the next attack from the opposition.
What do you want from the media in your election coverage? What's missing?
Clear language, aka no slogans. "Fair and balanced" because a term that ends up meaning "somewhere there's a hidden bias." Instead of calling a battle in a war we're fighting, it's an incident or an insurgence or something. I don't think the news needs to be sterilized. I think we can be honest and call things what the are. Sometimes being politically correct and trying not to offend anyone dilutes the story to the point of being inaccurate, and as such useless. I also want more depth, especially regarding policy details and spending.
Reply
Leave a comment