Comments on: In ancient wall, scholar sees proof for Bible http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=139 Fri, 10 Sep 2010 22:02:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3 By: Roger Bennett http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=139#comment-14792 Roger Bennett Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:32:51 +0000 http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=139#comment-14792 Toby: that makes sense, but I suppose it depends on the particular media outlet. I have noticed some outlets offering slanted coverage in situations where I was familiar with more of the story than they presented (and in some situations not pertaining to theological issues). I suppose we should directly ask Mr. Frank: did you mean the phrase “obligatory opinion” to simply reflect the impartiality of the Associated Press OR to hint at (in a pejorative way) your perception of a skeptical bias on their part? Shouldn’t all media outlets offer both sides of an issue and present both sides fairly and reasonably? Toby: that makes sense, but I suppose it depends on the particular media outlet. I have noticed some outlets offering slanted coverage in situations where I was familiar with more of the story than they presented (and in some situations not pertaining to theological issues). I suppose we should directly ask Mr. Frank: did you mean the phrase “obligatory opinion” to simply reflect the impartiality of the Associated Press OR to hint at (in a pejorative way) your perception of a skeptical bias on their part? Shouldn’t all media outlets offer both sides of an issue and present both sides fairly and reasonably?

]]> By: Toby R. http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=139#comment-14791 Toby R. Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:06:20 +0000 http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=139#comment-14791 That's one way of looking at it, but with several comments from Mr. Frank on this site about the "liberal media" you can see how I might see it the way I see it. That’s one way of looking at it, but with several comments from Mr. Frank on this site about the “liberal media” you can see how I might see it the way I see it.

]]> By: Roger Bennett http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=139#comment-14786 Roger Bennett Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:11:46 +0000 http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=139#comment-14786 It was stated "with the obligatory opinion of someone who disagrees." It was NOT stated "with the distasteful opinion of someone who disagrees," nor was it stated "with the falacious opinion of someone who disagrees." To say "obligatory opinion" is simply to acknowledge that, SINCE media outlets strive to be unbiased, the addition of a contrasting opinion is considered standard practice or obligatory. The phrase "obligatory opinion" thus assumes that the media outlet is indeed striving to be fair and impartial. It was stated “with the obligatory opinion of someone who disagrees.” It was NOT stated “with the distasteful opinion of someone who disagrees,” nor was it stated “with the falacious opinion of someone who disagrees.” To say “obligatory opinion” is simply to acknowledge that, SINCE media outlets strive to be unbiased, the addition of a contrasting opinion is considered standard practice or obligatory. The phrase “obligatory opinion” thus assumes that the media outlet is indeed striving to be fair and impartial.

]]> By: Toby R. http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=139#comment-14759 Toby R. Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:56:18 +0000 http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=139#comment-14759 "Here is the AP article explaining her findings with the obligatory opinion of someone who disagrees:" So . . . we're supposed to have a biased media? That's what that last sentence certainly sounds like. It sort of betrays a belief that journalism can be one-sided so long as it's a side you agree with. “Here is the AP article explaining her findings with the obligatory opinion of someone who disagrees:”

So . . . we’re supposed to have a biased media? That’s what that last sentence certainly sounds like. It sort of betrays a belief that journalism can be one-sided so long as it’s a side you agree with.

]]>