Journalistic Ethics - The Ed Show

On my way to the dog park this morning I'll mail this letter:

October 31, 2009

NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112

RE: MSNBC - The Ed Show

Greetings:

Last Thursday Mr. Schultz called Rush Limbaugh "a racist, pill-poppin' radio guy." On previous shows he has called Limbaugh "the drugster." I have noticed that Schultz frequently demeans the people whom he opposes by engaging in name-calling.

Doesn't Schultz understand that name-calling is a violation of logic? 1 Doesn't he know that "Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect." 2

He is either an ignoramus or an unethical journalist, or both. He certainly doesn't enhance the credibility of NBC News among educated and politically independent viewers.

Accordingly, it is unlikely that NBC and MSNBC will ever gain such independent viewers and become the leader in the TV ratings.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Bieter

1 Name calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices with the intent that invoked fear based on fearmongering tactics will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem. [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org...

2 http://www.spj.org...

Do you think this act of criticism is effective or just a waste of time and the cost of postage?

At 10/31/2009 7:28:52 AM, dogparktom wrote:
Do you think this act of criticism is effective or just a waste of time and the cost of postage?

I think you have yourself there an influential question (a kind of response bias, I can cite my Statistics book if you want).

I think you're wasting your time.

You are kind of wasting your time, mate.

Ed Shultz isn't a journalist, he's a talking head, like Limbaugh or O'Reilly, and let me ask you, how many times have you written a letter over their demeaning, cruel words? You probably haven't and won't, and you shouldn't, because it is just opinion being spouted off on a show designed for opinion. They aren't journalists, so any ethics associated do not apply.

If you don't like it, don't watch it.

At 10/31/2009 12:50:36 PM, Volkov wrote:
You are kind of wasting your time, mate.

Ed Shultz isn't a journalist, he's a talking head, like Limbaugh or O'Reilly, and let me ask you, how many times have you written a letter over their demeaning, cruel words? You probably haven't and won't, and you shouldn't, because it is just opinion being spouted off on a show designed for opinion. They aren't journalists, so any ethics associated do not apply.

If you don't like it, don't watch it.

________________________________________
I agree with what you say except that they all claim to be journalists and "cable news" channels. I think that it is important to keep aware of standards. That is what my letter is - a reminder of standards.

I have the Comcast basic service for which I pay $10.09 per month. I only receive MSNBC. MSNBC is so bad that I suspect that they pay Comcast to broadcast their shows. I refuse to pay more money to get FOX.

So I think that we basically agree.

Now, I must go. The Fighting Irish game is starting and I must watch to avoid sin.