If you extend that reasoning, then giving anything airtime is in effect justifying whatever it is they're doing. Allowing union workers to discuss their grievances in the media justifies their strike action. Interviewing someone about why they want to marry someone of the same gender is legitimizing gay marriage. Interviewing a convicted murderer after he's released from jail justifies his actions. Et cetera.
That's really not how the media is supposed to work.
The media is supposed to present facts and opinions about said facts, "both sides of the story" if you will.
As someone who works in the newspaper business (just a small town newspaper, not global events or anything), I can tell you that people will see what they want to in the news. I can write about a local issue as precisely and broadly as I can, including things that people said on both sides of fence, and there will still be some people who accuse me of bias simply because I included the other side's argument. It happens.
Terrorists aren't nice people. They don't do nice things. But, and this is directed to Wibble, isn't it important to understand why they're doing it? Even if they're lying and they're really just undead Islamic cannibals who hate the smell of freedom in the morning, I can't understand the idea that it's bad journalism to report what they say. Of course they're lunatics, and of course you shouldn't think they're "good guys", and of course that's not what BBC or any other outlet that's doing its job wants you to think. They're reporting what these people say. You get to decide what you make of it.
There are points of view out there that are not pleasant to read, but the journalist's job is to tell you what's going on and why, using documents, reported facts, stated opinions, eyewitness accounts, footage/recordings, analysis, etc. As long as those ingredients are used reasonably and are clearly labelled on the packaging, it's fair journalism.
Unless BBC never, ever reports on the "terrorists did bad things today" side of the story, the initial claim in this thread is ridiculous and hyperbolic.
That's really not how the media is supposed to work.
The media is supposed to present facts and opinions about said facts, "both sides of the story" if you will.
As someone who works in the newspaper business (just a small town newspaper, not global events or anything), I can tell you that people will see what they want to in the news. I can write about a local issue as precisely and broadly as I can, including things that people said on both sides of fence, and there will still be some people who accuse me of bias simply because I included the other side's argument. It happens.
Terrorists aren't nice people. They don't do nice things. But, and this is directed to Wibble, isn't it important to understand why they're doing it? Even if they're lying and they're really just undead Islamic cannibals who hate the smell of freedom in the morning, I can't understand the idea that it's bad journalism to report what they say. Of course they're lunatics, and of course you shouldn't think they're "good guys", and of course that's not what BBC or any other outlet that's doing its job wants you to think. They're reporting what these people say. You get to decide what you make of it.
There are points of view out there that are not pleasant to read, but the journalist's job is to tell you what's going on and why, using documents, reported facts, stated opinions, eyewitness accounts, footage/recordings, analysis, etc. As long as those ingredients are used reasonably and are clearly labelled on the packaging, it's fair journalism.
Unless BBC never, ever reports on the "terrorists did bad things today" side of the story, the initial claim in this thread is ridiculous and hyperbolic.
Warder to starry_nite
Chapterfish — Nate's Writing Blog
http://chapterfish.wordpress.com
Chapterfish — Nate's Writing Blog
http://chapterfish.wordpress.com
BBC News Sells it's Soul - If it ever had one...
15/07/2010 09:50:52 PM
- 1059 Views
Looks like they're trying their best to uphold journalistic integrity in the face of public opinion
15/07/2010 10:54:00 PM
- 699 Views
In fact, having now read the link a bit better... I think this is good journalism. I applaud it.
15/07/2010 10:57:35 PM
- 720 Views
thats what i took away form that article
15/07/2010 11:13:02 PM
- 604 Views
I suspect it is the line of thought that says giving terrorists airtime is justifying their actions. *NM*
15/07/2010 11:32:37 PM
- 240 Views
i wonder if the same logic applies to giving air time to white supremacist
16/07/2010 02:37:43 AM
- 552 Views
I don't like that line of thought.
16/07/2010 02:44:41 AM
- 725 Views
I was going to say this*:
16/07/2010 02:47:37 AM
- 589 Views
The amount of newsworthy information in that article was close to zero, though
16/07/2010 10:16:56 AM
- 558 Views
its, not it's. i thought you were talking about the site format, which now sucks.
16/07/2010 06:36:23 AM
- 575 Views
Sorry I just don't see what is upsetting you with this article
16/07/2010 03:12:24 PM
- 605 Views
You just agreed with snoopcester about something.
16/07/2010 08:07:15 PM
- 533 Views
well hell really hasn't frozen over yet
16/07/2010 11:14:31 PM
- 708 Views
I'd rather have an unbiased source of information
17/07/2010 12:19:39 AM
- 629 Views
Ditto
17/07/2010 12:28:39 AM
- 534 Views
that is funny coming from the guy who reads the Guardian
17/07/2010 03:12:05 PM
- 491 Views
Whoa
17/07/2010 08:59:35 PM
- 653 Views