Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Subtle media bias Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
2007-12-10 2:17 PM

User image

Champion
4942
2000200050010010010010025
Richmond, VA
Subject: Subtle media bias

In a "letter to the editor" in today's WSJ, a reader made an excellent comment that I have to admit not even noticing.

 

In a recent article, the WSJ referred to the Democratic candidates at "Senator Obama" and "Mrs. Clinton."

 

Sometimes I think it is the subtle media bias that can do more harm b/c you can tend to overlook it compared with the blatant bias of various mediums.



2007-12-10 2:19 PM
in reply to: #1092928

User image

Champion
34263
500050005000500050005000200020001001002525
Chicago
Subject: RE: Subtle media bias
condorman - 2007-12-10 2:17 PM

In a "letter to the editor" in today's WSJ, a reader made an excellent comment that I have to admit not even noticing.

 

In a recent article, the WSJ referred to the Democratic candidates at "Senator Obama" and "Mrs. Clinton."

 

Sometimes I think it is the subtle media bias that can do more harm b/c you can tend to overlook it compared with the blatant bias of various mediums.



They're not biased -- they just hate women.
2007-12-10 2:34 PM
in reply to: #1092928

User image

Champion
6962
500010005001001001001002525
Atlanta, Ga
Subject: RE: Subtle media bias

It's the same thing when the left say:  Bill Clinton vice President or Former President and then in the next breath say President Bush (1st one).  When I listen to Sean Hannity or Rush, this is more obvious.  Or when they give Olie North his military title.

It's their little way of giving them a slap in the face.  I think if you're in the job, then you get the title.  If you leave the job, then you don't take the title with you.  Just my 2 cents.  That way it's equal across the board.

2007-12-10 3:28 PM
in reply to: #1092978

User image

Sneaky Slow
8694
500020001000500100252525
Herndon, VA,
Subject: RE: Subtle media bias
Marvarnett - 2007-12-10 3:34 PM

It's the same thing when the left say: Bill Clinton vice President or Former President and then in the next breath say President Bush (1st one). When I listen to Sean Hannity or Rush, this is more obvious. Or when they give Olie North his military title.

It's their little way of giving them a slap in the face. I think if you're in the job, then you get the title. If you leave the job, then you don't take the title with you. Just my 2 cents. That way it's equal across the board.

You mean I don't get to be called Hamburger Flipper Kutz anymore?  Damn.  That sux.   

2007-12-10 3:31 PM
in reply to: #1093139

User image

Master
3019
20001000
West Jordan, UT
Subject: RE: Subtle media bias
newleaf - 2007-12-10 2:28 PM
Marvarnett - 2007-12-10 3:34 PM

It's the same thing when the left say: Bill Clinton vice President or Former President and then in the next breath say President Bush (1st one). When I listen to Sean Hannity or Rush, this is more obvious. Or when they give Olie North his military title.

It's their little way of giving them a slap in the face. I think if you're in the job, then you get the title. If you leave the job, then you don't take the title with you. Just my 2 cents. That way it's equal across the board.

You mean I don't get to be called Hamburger Flipper Kutz anymore?  Damn.  That sux.   

We prefer 'Sandwich Engineer' thank you very much........

 

2007-12-10 3:36 PM
in reply to: #1092978

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: Subtle media bias
Marvarnett - 2007-12-10 3:34 PM

Or when they give Olie North his military title.

Actually, this is correct, as he's a retired military officer.  He retains the title, and it is correct to refer to him as Lieutenant Colonel.



2007-12-10 3:44 PM
in reply to: #1092928

User image

Expert
851
5001001001002525
Oceanside, CA
Subject: RE: Subtle media bias
and they may be refering to Senator Clinton, as "Mrs." because she's a former 1st Lady.
2007-12-10 3:48 PM
in reply to: #1093203

User image

Champion
4942
2000200050010010010010025
Richmond, VA
Subject: RE: Subtle media bias

MrsUSMC - 2007-12-10 4:44 PM and they may be refering to Senator Clinton, as "Mrs." because she's a former 1st Lady.

Honestly curious about this:

wouldn't that be EVEN MORE demeaning to define her more by her Husband's accomplishments then her own accomplishment of being voted to the U.S. Senate?

2007-12-10 4:31 PM
in reply to: #1092928

User image

Expert
851
5001001001002525
Oceanside, CA
Subject: RE: Subtle media bias
Since I"m not from NY, she'll always be a former first lady to me. I didn't pay that much attention to her after he left office until she started running for president.

That's all I meant.
2007-12-10 4:58 PM
in reply to: #1092928

User image

Pro
6838
5000100050010010010025
Tejas
Subject: RE: Subtle media bias
 She is a Senator and should be afforded that much respect. However, I think she plays the Mrs. Clinton role for all it is worth. Is it possible the article was alluding to something like that?
2007-12-10 5:33 PM
in reply to: #1092928

User image

Giver
18427
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: Subtle media bias

It may be for clarity.

Since there's another Clinton often in the news, referring to her gender ensures readers won't be confused. I know Bill's not now nor ever been a senator, but it still may give people pause if they read "Sen. Clinton", wondering if they're talking about her or him. If they say "Mrs.", it's crystal clear.



2007-12-10 5:48 PM
in reply to: #1092928

User image

Pro
4189
20002000100252525
Pittsburgh, my heart is in Glasgow
Subject: RE: Subtle media bias
Why not just call her Senator Hillary Clinton, as you're supposed to do upon first reference, and then Sen. Clinton after that, using female pronouns, as per AP style?

And Mrs. literally means, "wife of" Clinton, and that's considered a personal title. The AP style guide and the rules of etiquette I've always been taught is to refer to a professional in their professional title. In her current incarnation and profession, she is a Senator, and should be addressed as such. In her former role as First Lady, Mrs. would have been appropriate, but is no longer appropriate.

No one would ever call a female PhD "Mrs" rather than Dr., nor would you call a female physician anything other than Doctor. Just because she married some guy doesn't mean that his title and name should take over hers. She's carving out her own career now.
2007-12-10 6:03 PM
in reply to: #1093512

User image

Master
1927
100050010010010010025
Chicago
Subject: RE: Subtle media bias

phoenixazul - 2007-12-10 3:48 PM  No one would ever call a female PhD "Mrs" rather than Dr., nor would you call a female physician anything other than Doctor. 
Actually AP style frowns upon bestowing the title of Dr. upon people without MD's or who don't have doctoral degrees in the sciences because most people outside of academics thinks Dr. means physican. If you do use Dr., for an academic title then you need to say right way what their speciality is. Page. 76 So you'll see lots of people not being called Dr. even though they have PhD's in newspapers.

2007-12-10 7:04 PM
in reply to: #1093512

User image

DC
Subject: RE: Subtle media bias
phoenixazul - 2007-12-10 6:48 PM

Why not just call her Senator Hillary Clinton, as you're supposed to do upon first reference, and then Sen. Clinton after that, using female pronouns, as per AP style?

And Mrs. literally means, "wife of" Clinton, and that's considered a personal title. The AP style guide and the rules of etiquette I've always been taught is to refer to a professional in their professional title. In her current incarnation and profession, she is a Senator, and should be addressed as such. In her former role as First Lady, Mrs. would have been appropriate, but is no longer appropriate.

No one would ever call a female PhD "Mrs" rather than Dr., nor would you call a female physician anything other than Doctor. Just because she married some guy doesn't mean that his title and name should take over hers. She's carving out her own career now.


x2
2007-12-10 7:48 PM
in reply to: #1093487

User image

Master
1821
1000500100100100
Subject: RE: Subtle media bias
run4yrlif - 2007-12-10 6:33 PM

It may be for clarity.

Since there's another Clinton often in the news, referring to her gender ensures readers won't be confused. I know Bill's not now nor ever been a senator, but it still may give people pause if they read "Sen. Clinton", wondering if they're talking about her or him. If they say "Mrs.", it's crystal clear.



bob dole and liddy dole. married. both senators. a news search for "mrs. dole" turns up nothing for her. how many people do you think know who (former) republican nominee for president bob dole is? now how many people do you think know that liddy dole is a senator from north carolina? it's not an issue of clarity.

Edited by jimbo 2007-12-10 7:54 PM
2007-12-10 8:28 PM
in reply to: #1093340

User image

Expert
862
5001001001002525
BFE
Subject: RE: Subtle media bias

MrsUSMC - 2007-12-10 4:31 PM Since I"m not from NY, she'll always be a former first lady to me.

 

Thats ok. Neither is she.



2007-12-11 7:16 AM
in reply to: #1093512

User image

Giver
18427
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: Subtle media bias

phoenixazul - 2007-12-10 6:48 PM Why not just call her Senator Hillary Clinton, as you're supposed to do upon first reference, and then Sen. Clinton after that, using female pronouns, as per AP style? 

Because not every paper uses the AP Style Guide? And even those that do have lots of little "house style" conventions that they use that departing from published style guides.

Or it could just be sloppy copy editing.

My point is, people often assume "media bias" when there is none.

2007-12-11 10:57 AM
in reply to: #1092928

User image

Extreme Veteran
364
1001001002525
Luray, Virginia
Subject: RE: Subtle media bias
Ha, I wouldn't even give her the "Mrs." I know she's hiding some football size cahones downstairs.
2007-12-11 1:44 PM
in reply to: #1092928

User image

Regular
114
100
Louisville, KY
Subject: RE: Subtle media bias
The one example of subtle media bias I remember was from during the Bush/Kerry election. The local newspaper got called out on this one (it is locally called the "Herald Liberal"). Within one week the paper ran one article about Kerry talking about how he was a distinguished member of an elite and selective group at Yale. They also ran an article about how Bush was a member of a clandestine, secretive, and elitist boys club. Of course, both men belonged to the exact same club, the Skull and Bones. I still find it funny when people claim there is no media bias because it's there in both directions.
New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Subtle media bias Rss Feed