Re:Michael Arrington: "We Need More Opinion In News, Not Less"
by protomyth on Thursday July 08, 2010 @05:18PM
(#1498815)
Yes, it is important to know the reporter's bias, but I think we need a lot less opinion than we are currently getting. For example, we spent a huge amount of time talking about the health care bill in the USA. Lots of people shooting their mouths off on both sides, but no news agency actually going through the bill and getting people to translate it from legalese to human. That would have been useful, but opinion fills the pages and generates revenue.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Michael Arrington: "We Need More Opinion In News, Not Less"
by CWuestefeld on Thursday July 08, 2010 @05:32PM
(#1498852)
Unfortunately the opacity was a feature created and perpetuated by the legislators (of both flavors). This, and other bills like USA PATRIOT, were kept close to the chest. Even the legislators themselves weren't given enough time to read the bill before being forced to vote on it.
Journalists need to help us with this problem, but since they can't see the bills either, they need to be more vocal about the lack of transparency in governmental processes.
Re:Michael Arrington: "We Need More Opinion In News, Not Less"
by protomyth on Thursday July 08, 2010 @05:44PM
(#1498887)
To a point, but the text of the bill was out there for a couple of days before the vote and even afterwords they didn't bother to really talk about it.
Re:Michael Arrington: "We Need More Opinion In News, Not Less"
by yummyfajitas on Thursday July 08, 2010 @06:06PM
(#1498948)
The bill was 1017 pages, and reads like a legalese styled diff-output (i.e., "the word XXX in HR YYYY shall be changed to ZZZZ"). Besides, it's also important what was left out of the bill (e.g., the Heller amendment).
I think you expect too much from reporters.
Re:Michael Arrington: "We Need More Opinion In News, Not Less"
by protomyth on Thursday July 08, 2010 @07:15PM
(#1499106)
It really isn't much different then any other bill in form. I still haven't heard any follow-up on the rule making process that the bill set in motion. Some of that stuff (according to the bill, and I am sure there are reporters more qualified to read it then me) was on a 90 and 180 day time frame.
I expect them to spend the time and report on what actually affects the most people's lives. I would bet more in-depth analysis has been done on the Lohan sentence (90 days - too much?) then on the followup rules making on this bill.