Eric Black on The Patriot

Will Black answer a question? I called in on Saturday to break up the love fest with a question.  Is Black there?  Can he answer this question?

Here’s the question: Both papers had a story about Senator Metzen’s hearing.  The PP quoted a rep from Mothers Against Drunk Driving who said that the sentence was too light.  The Strib article did not mention the MAD lady.

Does that constitute, in Black’s view, “fairness”?

Does that constitute, in Black’s view, media bias?

Black will get extra points for expounding on his answers.

I can’t answer for Black but I can say that most newspapers don’t have quotes from the same outside sources on stories, so I’m not surprised that the MADD quote was in one paper and not the other.  If they both had the same quote from different authors, that would be plagiarism.

I can also say that getting a quote from MADD about a drunk driving sentence is like getting a quote from MCCL about whether there are too many abortions in the state – you get the quote you are looking for.  A better approach on proving Metzen got too light of a sentence would have been to actually compare it to other people with the same offense. 

Where is it written…. Where is it written that two reporters from different papers can’t interview the same person at the same place at the same time?

The MADD lady was at Metzen’s hearing.  The PP interviewed here.  Either the Strib did not interview her OR did interview her and what she said was left on the cutting room floor.  This looks and smells like bias.  Trust me on this, but if a MADD lady had been available at a hearing for a GOP senator, the MADD lady’s comments would have been in the Strib’s story’s lead and the headline would have looked like “MADD assails ‘light’ sentencing of GOP Senator”.

I do agree with you that a little work checking on same/similar sentencings would have been in order.  The PP, at least, did get a comment from someone.  The readers can weigh the value of that comment as they will.  That is what journalism is supposed to bring to the table.

As for plagerism, that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of.  Explain to me how one paper could plagerize the other when both stories came out the SAME TIME and the SAME DAY.
Sheesh!!!!

You should re-name your blogs “Apologist for the MSM”.

pretty sure that url was taken when we set up >>>You should re-name your blogs “Apologist for the MSM”.

News Value? JB, I think the point is, what is the news value of running the quote?

MADD is an organization which advocates for specific policies regarding DWI offenses-tougher sentences.  Their representative gave a quote consistent with the position they advocate.  Does the quote in any way advance the reader’s understanding or add to the story about Sen. Metzen?  Or does it instead serve to express MADD’s position, which is not part of the story? 

Getting a quote has no value one way or another.  In the context of a news story quotes only have value in so far as they give readers greater insight into the story.  If the PP thought the sentence was light they should have provided some statistical backing for that belief or at least a slightly more neutral source (law professor, former judge, something) to give a quote.

I think your comments perfectly illustrate another of Mr. Black’s points from his interview:  that anyone determined to see bias will *always* find it.

Will Black answer a question? I called in on Saturday to break up the love fest with a question.  Is Black there?  Can he answer this question?

Here's the question: Both papers had a story about Senator Metzen's hearing.  The PP quoted a rep from Mothers Against Drunk Driving who said that the sentence was too light.  The Strib article did not mention the MAD lady.

Does that constitute, in Black's view, “fairness”?

Does that constitute, in Black's view, media bias?

Black will get extra points for expounding on his answers.

I can't answer for Black but I can say that most newspapers don't have quotes from the same outside sources on stories, so I'm not surprised that the MADD quote was in one paper and not the other.  If they both had the same quote from different authors, that would be plagiarism.

I can also say that getting a quote from MADD about a drunk driving sentence is like getting a quote from MCCL about whether there are too many abortions in the state – you get the quote you are looking for.  A better approach on proving Metzen got too light of a sentence would have been to actually compare it to other people with the same offense. 

Where is it written…. Where is it written that two reporters from different papers can't interview the same person at the same place at the same time?

The MADD lady was at Metzen's hearing.  The PP interviewed here.  Either the Strib did not interview her OR did interview her and what she said was left on the cutting room floor.  This looks and smells like bias.  Trust me on this, but if a MADD lady had been available at a hearing for a GOP senator, the MADD lady's comments would have been in the Strib's story's lead and the headline would have looked like “MADD assails 'light' sentencing of GOP Senator”.

I do agree with you that a little work checking on same/similar sentencings would have been in order.  The PP, at least, did get a comment from someone.  The readers can weigh the value of that comment as they will.  That is what journalism is supposed to bring to the table.

As for plagerism, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.  Explain to me how one paper could plagerize the other when both stories came out the SAME TIME and the SAME DAY.

Sheesh!!!!

You should re-name your blogs “Apologist for the MSM”.

pretty sure that url was taken when we set up >>>You should re-name your blogs “Apologist for the MSM”.

News Value? JB, I think the point is, what is the news value of running the quote?

MADD is an organization which advocates for specific policies regarding DWI offenses-tougher sentences.  Their representative gave a quote consistent with the position they advocate.  Does the quote in any way advance the reader's understanding or add to the story about Sen. Metzen?  Or does it instead serve to express MADD's position, which is not part of the story? 

Getting a quote has no value one way or another.  In the context of a news story quotes only have value in so far as they give readers greater insight into the story.  If the PP thought the sentence was light they should have provided some statistical backing for that belief or at least a slightly more neutral source (law professor, former judge, something) to give a quote.

I think your comments perfectly illustrate another of Mr. Black's points from his interview:  that anyone determined to see bias will *always* find it.