Do you prefer journalists to enter into discussion with the ones they interview?

Question

Do you prefer journalists to enter into discussion with the ones they interview?

politicians

,

interviews

,

interviewers

,

political bias

,

media

,

media rights

,

political news sources

I've created this topic because every once in a while, footage from earlier years/decades arises in which it is evident that the journalist uses an interviewing style which is different from nowadays (e.g. more open, receptive and personally detached). This seems to me a choice of style, so it has to be motivated by something that the audience is supposed to view as a positive improvement.

Do you, as an audience, prefer the current style of interviewing with (for example) politicians, which can be defined as more pressing, interactive and informed, compared to a couple of decades ago?

Yes No see voting resultssaving...

1 opinions, 14 replies

Add your opinion:

100

opinion Richard Wee

1 vote

Jan 30, 2017

It depends, is the reporter acting as a cheering section for said politician or not. Is the reporter trying to get to the bottom is an issue to bring out what the politician is really doing, or are they making nice. We saw a lot of make nice in the last election with Hillary, and hit Trump hard. The press was far from neutral, most of the press wanted Hillary to win and instead of being neutral they gave Hillary a pass on many things, while bring up anything and everything they could find against Trump. Had the press been fair, Hillary would have never been nominated, and we might not have Trump in the WH.

I prefer when the press goes after everybody equally, but that will never happen, no matter what side is in charge.

edit

neutral they have Hillary

to

neutral they gave Hillary

reply

subscribe

share/challenge

flag

Discussion (14)

::unhide-discussion::

0

main reply

YUNo

0 votes,

Jan 30, 2017

As an audience member though, I always feel a bit uneasy when I get to be the witness of some on-camera badgering while the politician in question tries to make his way through anyone licenced to hold a microphone, demanding answers to their questions (even when it's obvious they won't be getting any). Afterwards, a cut-scene follows to their political opposition, which gives their view entirely from their own perspective. In that way, I find nowadays media presentations relatively opinion-making.

reply

subscribe

share/challenge

flag

::unhide-discussion::

0

Richard Wee

0 votes,

Jan 31, 2017

We stopped getting news a long time ago, basically everything is an opinion, no who, what, when, where, sad but true

reply

subscribe

share/challenge

flag

::unhide-discussion::

0

YUNo

0 votes,

Jan 31, 2017

Mostly impressions and "feelings"/sentiments. If I must be stern I can vaguely recall the early 90's (NL) newsreporting as being pretty serious. On the other hand though, nowadays fewer things stay hidden (I think?).

reply

subscribe

share/challenge

flag

::unhide-discussion::

100

Richard Wee

1 vote,

Feb 1, 2017

Any and all news is basically opinion based, even if they report who, what, etc. the news organization chooses what stories to carry, and how they are presented, when Obama had a six month ban on refugees it barely made the press and no wide spread coverage, then compare that to Trumps ban on travel from certain countries. While there are some differences, the press is currently making a big deal over the face that refugees can't come into the country right now, but no big headlines when Obama did it.

So any news is filtered, and it only because those in the press can't control social media that some stories are getting out, and only when the press can't ignore the story, due to wide spread social media, that they pay any attention to it.

reply

subscribe

share/challenge

flag

::unhide-discussion::

0

YUNo

0 votes,

Feb 1, 2017

"the press is currently making a big deal over the fact that refugees can't come into the country right now"

Refugees *and* green card holders/people with a double passport. People who've been living for a decade in the US and can't get back home after visiting their family abroad; subtle difference.

I do agree that compared to his predecessor, Trump's dealings (so far) are held under a magnifying glass. One reason for this is that the majority of the world population feels concerned about his presidency, almost mirroring/answering to his own politics of fear.

reply

subscribe

share/challenge

flag

::unhide-discussion::

0

Richard Wee

0 votes,

Feb 1, 2017

Ah, Department of Homeland Security said it would no longer bar green-card holders from entering the United States. Those with dual passport, which I can't see how you have two passports from two different countries, (that alone would cause me to bar you) if you mean dual citizenship, then they have to make a stop in their other non-banned country then continue on to the US. A pain in the butt, sure. Given that many other countries are wanting to stop refugees from coming over, are they more scared of Trump, or that his idea may spread?

reply

subscribe

share/challenge

flag

load further replies (8)

Add your opinion

Challenge someone to answer this topic:

Invite an OpiWiki user:

OR

Invite your friend via email:

@

click for template

OR

Share it:

Share this discussion via OpiWiki smartlink:

OR

Add your opinion

Status:

Active

Views:

3,236

subscribe

For new opinion notification

Voting

(1 vote)

+0

-0

Interesting

Share discussion:

more »

Edit

Flag

Info

Started by YUNo.

At: debate, forum.

Talks: 15.

It depends, is the reporter acting as a cheering section for said politician or not. Is the reporter trying to get to the bottom is an issue to bring out what the politician is really doing, or are they making nice. We saw a lot of make nice in the last election with Hillary, and hit Trump hard. The press was far from neutral, most of the press wanted Hillary to win and instead of being neutral they gave Hillary a pass on many things, while bring up anything and everything they could find against Trump. Had the press been fair, Hillary would have never been nominated, and we might not have Trump in the WH.
I prefer when the press goes after everybody equally, but that will never happen, no matter what side is in charge.
edit
neutral they have Hillary
to
neutral they gave Hillary
As an audience member though, I always feel a bit uneasy when I get to be the witness of some on-camera badgering while the politician in question tries to make his way through anyone licenced to hold a microphone, demanding answers to their questions (even when it's obvious they won't be getting any). Afterwards, a cut-scene follows to their political opposition, which gives their view entirely from their own perspective. In that way, I find nowadays media presentations relatively opinion-making.
We stopped getting news a long time ago, basically everything is an opinion, no who, what, when, where, sad but true
Mostly impressions and "feelings"/sentiments. If I must be stern I can vaguely recall the early 90's (NL) newsreporting as being pretty serious. On the other hand though, nowadays fewer things stay hidden (I think?).
Any and all news is basically opinion based, even if they report who, what, etc. the news organization chooses what stories to carry, and how they are presented, when Obama had a six month ban on refugees it barely made the press and no wide spread coverage, then compare that to Trumps ban on travel from certain countries. While there are some differences, the press is currently making a big deal over the face that refugees can't come into the country right now, but no big headlines when Obama did it.
So any news is filtered, and it only because those in the press can't control social media that some stories are getting out, and only when the press can't ignore the story, due to wide spread social media, that they pay any attention to it.
"the press is currently making a big deal over the fact that refugees can't come into the country right now"
Refugees *and* green card holders/people with a double passport. People who've been living for a decade in the US and can't get back home after visiting their family abroad; subtle difference.
I do agree that compared to his predecessor, Trump's dealings (so far) are held under a magnifying glass. One reason for this is that the majority of the world population feels concerned about his presidency, almost mirroring/answering to his own politics of fear.
Ah, Department of Homeland Security said it would no longer bar green-card holders from entering the United States. Those with dual passport, which I can't see how you have two passports from two different countries, (that alone would cause me to bar you) if you mean dual citizenship, then they have to make a stop in their other non-banned country then continue on to the US. A pain in the butt, sure. Given that many other countries are wanting to stop refugees from coming over, are they more scared of Trump, or that his idea may spread?