Comments on: The Value of Voice

By: beckcpo

beckcpo — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:47:01 +0000

I have to preface this comment with the fact that I am just an average Joe that frequently screams into tunnels and that my only impact tends to be less revolution and more scaring of pigeons munching on some bread at the other end of the tunnels. ;o)

But personally–for what it's worth–I prefer to listen to media personalities that not only transmit the information that I've probably already heard through another source, but add a little bit of personal insight or analysis. Sure, I like to come to my own conclusions, but sometimes I either like to be helped along in that path or at least have the preliminary analysis done for me. From there I can decide whether or not I agree with your conclusions or if the topic is even interesting enough for me to research further. For me, that makes the journalism experience all the more worthwhile.

Isn't the trick of successful broadcasting to be able to express your voice, but not alienate the other half? I believe that the responsibility of the journalist is to express the truth to the public as they see it while challenging to the viewer/listener to come up with their own version of truth, which is going to be based on their own unique personal experience and previously heard information.

By: AlbertEinstien12345

AlbertEinstien12345 — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:26:27 +0000

If you only disseminated facts while reporting you would appear boring and lifeless. You do an excellent job of displaying your affection of the story or product. Offering your professional opinion while reporting factual information is still journalism. Giving up any sign of a bias would mean giving up your personality, which would be a tragedy in my opinion.

Keep up the great work

By: Minsoo

Minsoo — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:41:16 +0000

I think before you can tackle the topic of JOURNALISM, you must first agree about the definition of NEWS. Today, learning about what happened, that is, the cold hard facts of what occurred, can be had for free via newswires and the web itself, then cross checked over multiple sources as well as direct feeds such as twitter. This is what people used to call NEWS. It's now a commodity and the expectation is that it can be had for free. What is missing however, are the insights, additional information, back-story and CONTEXT for why any particular piece of NEWS could or will impact people. What is commonly called PERSPECTIVE. If some one could demonstrate a consistent additional value of providing that context and insight in a friendly, non-judgmental way, that would be of great appeal. That would be worth choosing to follow and give the most precious of all things today. ATTENTION.

By: Native Son

Native Son — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:49:58 +0000

You asked questions and I felt I needed to respond. You once said on "loaded" that people should be restrained from calling other people names to which I responded, not so. Now you say that you, as a journalist, should be able to speak your mind. I feel a conflict within you here.
The only reason I can understand a journalist voicing their own opinion is to sway others into thinking the way they do. As an individual on your own website or telling your mom, dad and sister, now that's something else.
Celebrities and journalists that use their media positions to promote their own agenda discuss me. They only want to control people or sway their opinion.
Leave your religion and your politics at home or on your personal media. You will get more respect in the long term. Looks like others may agree but I don't always follow the consensus.
Oh, I think Sotomayor is prejudice and I hope you are not quoting her for her judicial opinions but maybe because you share a common background.
You should be happy you're not in the Bay Area today. I don't think you would be running in the park, you slacker.

By: dgcpn

dgcpn — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:18:49 +0000

Natalie,
I too am a broadcast journalist.
Our responsibility is to report the facts
and leave the opinions up to the viewers/listeners.
Once you start to offer your opinion during a so called
report you become an entertainer and lose your journalistic
credibility and objectivity. If your goal is to become a news entertainer
in the realm of consumer electronics then keep doing what you are doing.
If you wish to be an objective journalist than drop your personal opinions.
There is nothing wrong with being a "vanilla" journalist is it means you are
part of the rare breed of journalists left that stick to the facts and stay off
their soap boxes.

Respectfully,

David

By: Chris Burnett

Chris Burnett — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 04:34:32 +0000

Natali

Part of the reason that shows like BOL and TWIT work is because it is a discussion, and therefore opinions are required to further the show. Be kinda boring if no one had anything to say…
Loaded on the other hand is in a format that one would expect to hear the news without bias. This even has a prevision, as long as you present the facts, and then present your opinion labeled as such ( i.e. saying, I think…. or in my opinion…. ). This to me is more than acceptable, it's appreciated. The expectation is that you have either experience with the subject, or have heard from multiple sources before shaping your opinion. In this day and age where there is a dearth of news sources, it seems that a journalist's (note journalist, not reporter…) job is more as a filter. As consumers it's our job to decide which filter we trust and enjoy.

By: todd

todd — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:15:35 +0000

Natali-
For an anthropologist, this is discussion is always relevant. As members (or outsiders to) the communities among whom we work, we can't help but form opinions, allegiances, friendships, etc. However, it is still possible to be objective (or at least approach objectivity) without being neutral. I worked with an indigenous community on the southwest coast of New Guinea and witnessed the devastating impacts of three decades of mining on their land, resources and lifestyle. While I certainly found the damage to their livelihoods (without appropriate compensation and/or assent) repugnant, pointing out the FACTS of their experiences was a good way to be objective, while leaving readers with a strong, irrefutable notion of reality.

By: Alamar9

Alamar9 — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:21:11 +0000

I agree with you. For me, Openness is the only clear communication worth listening to or reading. If you are open about where you stand and offer it as such, people can agree or disagree with you…it's their choice. If you offer facts, along with your opinions, then I believe that, is the new 'Balance.'
I found you on Twitter, following Leslie Sanchez…whom I like, even tho she is a 'republicana.'
I look forward to following you. Peace.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:48:09 +0000

I don't mind bias in journalism, but I think openness is a key to that. If I am not getting full disclosure, I greet journalism with skepticism. While full disclosure by itself does not create an automatic trust of the journalist, without it I don't see how I can trust the journalist, no matter how much their published opinions might coincide with mine.

By: Jason Bone

Jason Bone — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:36:35 +0000

Natalie: I like your work on Cnet, BUT. I really think journalists should be A-Political. I watch/listen to some of your podcasts and when I hear political views I turn it off. Just my two cents….