DISQUS

tdaloisio · 4 months ago

I think the balance here is keeping clean lines when reporting on fact vs opinion. Since tone and tenor can easily bias fact based reporting, the facts need to stay in the clear of this bias. At the same time, as an expert on a topic, you're opinion of those facts is inherently more valuable to me as a consumer of that information (just as long as I know your biases upfront).

DChamp · 4 months ago

I prefer that my reporters (you included) report on the facts only, then be given their time at the end for their opinions to be made.
But if one can't report the facts as they are, perhaps reporting as a whole, is just some form of political/religious/state-your-cause-here propaganda.

JMHO

James Gallagher · 4 months ago

I think the issue here isn't that we are biased or not. As you point out experience influences us and whether or not we call it bias the only problem I see is when a journalist hides or lies connections and biases. As much as I dislike Fox News they are upfront about their evil intentions :)

camarobh · 4 months ago

Excellent blog post with "The Value of Voice". I enjoy listening/watching daily podcasts as part of my routine. I enjoy Loaded and Buzz Out Loud, two I never miss. I have to admit, though, that it is sometimes difficult to listen to BOL when one of the hosts is using the show to promote a personal agenda or complain about a personal experience. Especially when it happens episode after episode. When the subject comes up and you just know that [insert host name here] will complain about it.

I have always been of the opinion that the people bringing me the news should be impartial and present a balanced, unbiased report so I can make up my own mind. That approach has been increasingly difficult in this age of openness and access. As you point out, with Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, etc. we have more information than ever about each "reporters" personal experiences, opinions, and political leanings.

My recommendation is for people like you to feel free to tweet, blog, etc. about those personal experiences, opinions, and political leanings but keep them off of your "professional" obligations. When I watch Loaded I want you to present the news without bias. When I listen to BOL I don't want to hear the same people whining this and that when it happens to relate to a story they are covering. Cover the story and leave it at that

Having said that, it certainly is your prerogative to launch a podcast (or present something like BOL) as a "personal opinion show" about technology. In my mind there is a difference in a BOL that is communicating the "buzz" in the technology world that is different from a BOL that is communicating each persons personal feelings, experiences, complaints, and issues about technology as it relates to them.

At the end of the day you (and others in your profession) need to asses the impact of you going public with your personal views, political leanings, etc. and its affect on your professional career. There is clearly an element of risk there. Can your audience understand your opinion on a very personal, hotly debated issue and separate that from your professional ability to deliver technology news? That is the $64,000 question.

Adalid · 4 months ago

While hard to define, I think that I'd have to trust the journalist to listen to their opinion. I've disagreed with the BOL panel but I respect you guys so it allows for discussion. It also depends on the forum the journalist has. Would Brian Williams be able to give his opinion on the nightly news? Unlikely. However, he's been more open when he's blogged. We are a new generation who will define what interactivity with an audience means. And at least for me, someone in their early 20s, an opinion is welcome and appreciated so long as it's reasonable. Everything has it's place.

It's not longer one-way communication anyway. You're not a robot. And if you have an opinion then you'll hear mine as well.

RandomChatter · 4 months ago

Why would one choose vanilla?

Because when I want news, I want the actual information. I don't necessarily want commentary. Sure, sometimes I do, but in those cases I tune in to podcasts or read websites that provide commentary. When I want news, however, I want the facts.

This is such a big problem in American society, and very few people seem to get it — we've been trained to stop forming our own opinions and instead rely on being told what to think. The media no longer gives us the news, it tells us what to think and how to feel.

THAT is why it's becoming increasingly difficult for journalists to remain unbiased —unbiased journalism can't compete with emotion-filled reporting. That's just how psychology works. The more dramatic something is, or the stronger an emotion it elicits, the more memorable it becomes and the more impassioned people will feel about it. And, therefore, the more successful it will be within the industry.

I'm not sure the media is to blame here (I'm part of that media myself). Journalists are being steered into this kind of reporting by media corporations, who in turn are being pushed by their audience. I think it's the fault of the audience. People have lost their sense of curiosity and their willingness to think things through for themselves. They've become lazy.

For what it's worth, I'm against this concept of "open journalism," because it's not really journalism — it's commentary. And commentary can be just as beneficial to critical thinking IF the consumer analyzes that commentary rather than just accepting it as truth. But it's a problem when it's called "journalism." Because journalism has always been accepted as truth, this is a dangerous line to blur.

That being said, Natali, I don't think you should keep your mouth shut. I subscribe to your blog's RSS feed, listen to Buzz Out Loud, and watch Loaded, because I enjoy your personal opinions.

I just think it's sad that the line between journalism and commentary has become so blurred.

Kennon Bickhart · 4 months ago

Well, I, for one, don't mind opinion, when opinion can add value. For instance, Twitter and TechCrunch. That calls for some opinion, and it definitely benefited the story. However, when you start throwing opinion in just to get a rise... that's when you (reporters in general) lose me. I am all for opinions, and in fact, I think opinions help you relate to the people you are watching. The main reason why I love to listen to Buzz Out Loud is because I feel like I'm not just getting news. I'm getting personality as well... which is really refreshing.

Basically, be as open as you'd like, but don't bash, or promote, something just because you can. Also, political and tech related openness are different to me. I don't watch/listen to Loaded, Buzz Out Loud, etc... because I want to know what you think about politics. If it's a quick remark, that's perfectly understandable. If it's a Twitter post that's fine too, but I don't want to start seeing political outbursts on Loaded. ;)

Love your shows!

Robert Mullins · 4 months ago

An interesting and very pertinent essay, Natali. I'm an old school journalist, trained in the balanced, unbiased way of reporting the news. But in applying for a blogging post, an editor told me that traditional journalists don't work out well as bloggers because "they're too based on reporting." I found that condescending, but I've slowly learned to inject my voice into posts I'm writing on another site. Still, the downside of "balanced" reporting is that opposing sides of an issue may not each have the same level of merit, but we create a false sense that they do. Here's a column in today's Washington Post http://tinyurl.com/mw3rur about the disservice the media are doing on the health care reform debate when they report that proponents say this but opponents say that...we're not helping the reader decide whom to believe. The columnist calls GOP arguments against health care reform what they are: "Falsehoods." That's the best service you can provide as a journalist.

jimsutton · 4 months ago

On the Internet anything goes, including Journalism. I think that is what is so great about it. Unfortunately you have the bad stuff as well (spam, porn etc..)

I think that it is impossible for you or any other person not to have opinions or biases. Question you may want to ask is anyone going to listen?

You will turn on and turn off any number of people based on their own beliefs. You can't plan for that. Just have to have a thick skin.

eeditor · 4 months ago

There are no unbiased news sources; they only pretend to be neutral. I listen to Michael Savage and Mark Levin fully aware that they are conservative individuals. I never listened to "Air America" because they were openly politically liberal.

Those getting their butts handed to them in the worst way are trying to be politically ambiguous, but it's failing miserably. The major news networks continue to lose ground, and newspapers are irrelevant while talk radio and political blogs continue to grow year after year.

When the dust clears we're going to find that because everyone is biased, we're all listening to what suits us best and ignoring altering points of view...to our own detriment. We all pretend to be open minded on issues that don't really matter to us, but when we get to our hot button topic, anything but a complete victory is failure; a sure sign no one can be completely unbiased.

AdamBernard · 4 months ago

Personally, as a journalist myself, I've witnessed the line between News and Op-Ed pieces blurred to new levels over the years and it's something I'm truly saddened by. News should be unbiased 100% of the time. Op-Ed pieces are where reporters can show their bias. The problem we're having today is that people no longer know the difference between News and Opinion. Articles that should go on the Op-Ed pages appear regularly on the front page as news and this has warped a lot of people's minds as to what News really is.

As my old journalism prof. Bob Greene (rest in peace) used to say, "Your mother loves ya? SAYS WHO?" This was his way of illustrating we should only be writing something as news when we have a source that backs it up. That's a huge aspect of what's been lost today both on writers and readers.

People love writing opinion pieces because they don't need to find anyone or anything to back up their ideas and the articles almost always generate discussion. People also love reading opinion pieces because they can usually find someone who agrees with them on any given subject.

I'm actually fine with Op-Ed pieces and write them regularly for work, but they're billed as just that, opinion pieces, which is why in the end I feel both forms of journalism are completely valid, just as long as they are presented as what they are.

Frank F. · 4 months ago

Natali, I honestly do not think of you as a straight news journalist, but rather as an opinion journalist working primarily in the technology sphere (for now, anyway). I listen to you, and to BoL, Gadgettes, Loaded, BW's Technology and You, and some other podcasts to hear the opinions of techies/tech professionals, whom I respect, along with their reasons. I filter the hard news out of the opinions. But I listen to CNET News Daily Podcast, WSK Tech News Briefing, and Slash Dot Review for a quick rundown of (mostly) tech hard news.

The line has surely blurred somewhat, and I don't mind reporters having opinions, but I want a line drawn between contexts where we get "the facts, ma'am, only the facts” and a commentary. On BoL there is a skeleton of hard news with sinews of reaction, and a covering of opinion, and prediction. On loaded you generally present the data with the momentary aside. News has never been opinion free (ahem, Hearst Newspapers in the early 1900's) but we should definitely resist the temptation to compartmentalize and isolate the opinion from the data.

Frank F. · 3 months ago

I just came back to review this comment and see I mistyped. The last sentence should be:

News has never been opinion free (ahem, Hearst Newspapers in the early 1900's) but we should definitely resist the temptation to not compartmentalize and isolate the opinion from the data.

Abject apologies.

Kory Haggert · 4 months ago

It would seem the ratings challenged are the vanilla types who are unbiased, trying to just present facts from all sides. These are all the bottom rung reporters and freelancers you've never heard of. Often they don't even get to credit their own name on a report.

On the other hand, those you have the best ratings frequently let their opinions be known. Even more so if the opinion is controversial. It's even more engaging if the opinion is full of easy to spot inaccuracies and blatant falsehoods, because readers/viewers feel good making corrections and arguing.

In order to pursuit ratings, talking heads are encouraged to rant. This encourages bs to breed, until the media and all unbiased journalism publicizes the bs as fact. Saddam Hussein behind 9/11. Obama friends of terrorists and no birth certificate. I'll take your word for it about Verizon but I havn't looked into seeing another side of the story.

So leaving behind journalistic integrity becomes dangerous. A nation of misinformed. I don't want to cite Goodwin's law but when gets used to the propaganda, it's easier to do evil.

Kevin · 4 months ago

Don't take this the wrong way, but you (and most of your CNET colleagues) are not journalists. Perhaps you are when you wear your CBS hat, but at CNET you all provide reporting WITH commentary or review. This is was your audience expects and wants from you, Molly, Tom and the rest.

This is true for any reporter who twitters or blogs. We expect bias and opinion. We want your personality, not bland reporting. Otherwise we'll follow the AP or some other news wire for that.

Jeffrey Pia · 4 months ago

I think journalists writing an article about a given topic should initially keep to the facts and give the reader the opportunity to draw his/her own conclusions. The reason being that readers' opinions can be easily influenced when reading about something for the first time.

That said, readers do value educated opinions about a topic and journalists are at times the best resource, being close to the subject matter and able to express themselves effectively. Journalists should definitely be allowed a medium for expressing their own personal opinions on a topic, as long as they are separate from their officially unbiased reports. Platforms such as a personal web page, blog, and Twitter/Facebook accounts are a perfect medium for this. I see nothing wrong w/ an article stating "read my opinion on my blog page." I do see something wrong w/ an article mixing them up and reader not being aware of which are opinions vs which are facts. Sometimes they are easy to tell apart (eg anything reported on Fox News), but most often they are not. As journalists, you just need to be aware of the line between expressing your opinion and influencing the audience.

vic867 · 4 months ago

It really depends what you are reporting.

When it comes to technology I want my journalists (like you) to give me your opinion, that is what I am looking for. Dvorak is a perfect example of a journalist that gives his opinion. Sometimes I agree with what he says and sometimes he is just doing it to cause attention.

I like Rocky Road, I don't like Vanilla.

Robert Jensen · 4 months ago

Natali, I've only been a journalist for two years now but I think I can remember back to when I was a reader. :o)

I think journalism is first and foremost about being unbiased.

I'll use a recent statement of yours as an example. I think we should never come out with a statement like 'Blu-ray is dead'. First off, I disagree with this particular statement that you and a few other journalists have made recently. Second, statements such as that actually bias the reader to not go out and buy that Blu-ray player they were going to buy this weekend, thus you make your predictions self-fulfilling.

I'm not saying you have to join the Blu-ray bandwagon in this particular case but I do think that all journalists need to be more even handed in they are reporting.

There are seldom only two sides to any story and I want to be informed as much as possible so I want to hear as much as the author knows about the subject from all possible viewpoints.

That's my 2 cents on the matter. :o)

Sincerely,
Robert Jensen

Robert Jensen · 4 months ago

As for the second part of your post. A journalist/reporter is supposed to be unbiased, an Editorialist can voice their personal viewpoints.

Jeffrey J. Johnson · 4 months ago

I am not a journalist but do enjoy studying history to some extent and from what I can remember the idea that journalists have to be unbiased is a pretty new idea and one the I think is not all that possible. The order that things are reported in the words chosen to describe something will always taint the story. I for one welcome this as long as the one reporting it does not try to hide their feelings. What I find offensive is when I am told someone is fair and balanced when they are quite clearly not.

A better approach, I believe is to try and show the opposing view and not just discount them. While I think as a human being we can not help having biases we can choose to look at something from another persons point of view even if we do not agree with it.

Jonathan McGaha · 4 months ago

After quickly reading a few comments below it seems most are crying for unbiased reporters because they want plain facts. That may be well and good for some reporters but no offense Loaded isn't the first place I hear about news. I've read tweets, I've went through my google reader, I've read other blogs. By the time Loaded comes into my iTunes around lunch time, I'm looking to hear what Natali has to say about the news of the day.

I think older people still operate the way their parents did, they work 9-5 and then come home and watch Brian Williams or whomever give the news. That is their main source of news and it should be unbiased. But for me as a 23-year-old tech-nerd, I've already seen those stories from a variety of sites and by 6pm I would just be getting a vanilla brand of the news.

I've heard you talk about your news pilot you have been putting together and I wonder what that will be like. If it is a Katie Couric-like newscast with tweets read that doesn't interest me (just like CNN doing this constantly doesn't interest me). So I'm not sure I know what the balance is but I do know if it has your voice carrying the direction of the broadcast it will at least be interesting enough for me to watch.

Jon · 4 months ago

I was an avid viewer of Command N (even bought a t-shirt) until on a broadcast Amber Mac mentioned the Presidential race and "hoped" Obama would win. I have never seen Command N again and no longer follow on twitter. I was a fan of Leo Laporte for years...and stop listening/watching anything he is involved in after a twitter comment on tax day.

I want tech news not political opinions or prefrences.

martynet · 4 months ago

Inherently unbiased...

Just want to say that I am a long time follower of Loaded and I catch you on other shows as my time permits. I have watched the news and how it has and is reported change over the last 30 yrs. I must say, unbiasedly, that it has defiantly degraded over that time. People like Edward Marrow, Walter Cronkite, Harry Reasoner, Mike Wallace, Dan Rather, & Morley Safer had provided very high standards for television news reporting. It is also important to remember that, until the last 15 years or so, news reporting was primarily independent of the Cooperations. The Networks were entities in and of themselves. They weren't owned by other concerns and were able to speak unbiasedly.

If a reporter told us about Dow making pesticides that caused cancer, or cigaret companies research into how to make cigarettes more addicting and knowing as early as the 50's that they were directly responsible for cancer they were "doing their job" and they were free from repercussions. That is just no longer true.

Natalie, if you say something that publicly embarrass some corporate entity that owns or is owned by CNBC just see how long you stay on the air. Even someone as big and Dan Rather was not immune. This kind of control of the news is dangerous. It leaves us with less news. No one reports that certain chemical companies are selling pesticides in 3rd world countries that the can't sell in the U.S. because they are known to definitely cause cancer. The 3rd world countries have no laws to prosecute, they unload their stock of pesticides, they own the news so nothing gets reported. Monsanto's genetically modified corn pushed on the, 3rd world, is cross pollinating with non-modified corn and effecting crops around the world and no one is reporting.

So now with the "New Media" we have much more information to sift through. We have many more opinions to wrestle with, and we have much much much less plain unbiased news. Many are happy to tell us how the events they report will/should effect our lives, and how we should be responding. They have become less carful about who gets on the tube and what kind of legitimization that gives their guest/expert. And now, the driving concern is ratings. Nobody listens to both sides. Both sides are polarized against each other and unwilling to listen to the other side or even meet in the middle. We need umbiased reporting now more then ever. It is not coming. Someone once said that an informed society is a free society. We are becoming the Uninformed.

I do believe that there is room for opinion in reporting. But it needs to be expressed as such. Tell me what is true and tell me what is your opinion. Try your best to give both sides. That doesn't mean that we need some sort of watered down 50% coverage of each view. It does mean that if the truth is that all bad or all good it gets reported as such. I don't expect bad news or good news with no personal reaction. I do expect in proportion to the event.

Well that is my thoughts, sort of soap box like now that I re-read it. Feel free to tear it apart or build it up. I will continue to catch Loaded and your other appearances as time allows.

richardbuyakjr · 4 months ago

There is a definition crisis going on here. A journalist reports facts without bias. A commentator reports and expresses opinion (bias). It is that black and white and simple.

I do wish there were more journalists out there rather than commentators. It is the height of arrogance and selfishness for a real journalist to express an opinion while practicing journalism. There are plenty of forums for journalists to make commentaries. Don't muck up the news with pointless blathering of opinion. People watching or reading news want just that.

Mark Giles · 4 months ago

I agree with you. I like to know the journalists political views so that I know where they are coming from when covering a story. The problem sometimes is trying to decide whether I'm hearing the reporter's bias or the network's bias. On Twitter I follow news agencies that are Left, Right and Center in their idealogies, so that when a story is covered I get all the points of view.

Dr. Karl · 4 months ago

Just playing devil's advocate, but why stop at 'heck' in 'to heck with unbiased'?
Is that what you thought in your head or did you censor yourself as not to offend your audience? ;)

First off, there is certainly opinion in journalism, but sharing pure opinion is generally done by pundits, editorial columnists, and a good number of bloggers, and they are still considered journalists, at least IMHO. At the same time, I don't look to Dvorak for a review of the new iPod... (or Fox news for my current event news (which, btw, I think CNN has higher ratings than both Fox(R) and MSNBC(D))). Now that we’ve excluded those who pronounce themselves as opinionated, we get to the crux of your blog post…

When people want their news, and just news- as in information about current events, I’d like to hope, at least theoretically, that they'd like only the facts conveyed so they can form their own opinions: if my news is being fed to me with a spin, I'm going to question whether or not I'm hearing the truth or just hearing lies, so I would choose to avoid listening to such broadcasts.

Alas, I’m afraid that people in general (and all of us at some point) do just the opposite (aka your point about Fox news being popular is well-taken), and only listen to journalists whose reports/spin are most in keeping with their own opinions, because, in the end, are you really going to listen to someone every night that upsets you with everything he/she says? No. You are going to listen to someone that agrees with your outlook on life because it’s comforting. Again, theoretically, if said people are at all intelligent, they should openly admit to feeding their own self-serving biases, but the fear is that they don’t realize this, in which case subjective news services are doing us a grave disservice.

Therefore, if you are conveying ‘the news’, I think it’s your obligation, as a journalist, to report it as objectively as possible. If you want to share your opinions and biases with other people, your product should clearly be labeled as such and I think journalists owe that to their listeners (which is why Foxes BS about being fair/balanced or whatever is particularly offensive, IMHO). Being a journalist is a very powerful job, and with great power comes great responsibility… ;)

So, I think there’s another way for journalists to convey the news objectively, but also still share their opinion; I think BOL is a poignant example of this. So, let’s say you clearly dislike FiOS. The irresponsible thing would be to pick only negative Verizon stories and pick only positive Comcast stories (if there are any ;) ) and report them as all the news there is to know about ISPs. The alternative and less misleading method is to just vent about them in a manner that is clearly just your opinion and not that of the news entity you are representing. I think with such a set-up you are clearly stating your opinion, which I am free to agree or disagree with, without subliminally feeding me your own bias re-purposed as ‘the news’. I think this should satisfy most listeners/viewers, and if they disagree with your opinion parts then they are free to go elsewhere. The problem with this method is that if the company you work for doesn’t agree with your opinions or thinks that your opinions are causing them to lose business, then, you might get fired or censored. Is that fair? My opinion here may be unpopular, but I’d have to ultimately say a qualified ‘yes’… In the end, you are working for and representing a business that has its own interests which should be free to pursue them, importantly assuming that the company’s motives aren’t biased themselves (which is a whole other conversation entirely). Your options after that are to try and work for someone who agrees with or is ok with your opinions or to freelance. So where it may be ok for me to have an opinionated blog about tech, it might not be ok for you. I guess that’s just a concession you make by working in the field, but I think those kind of concessions go with every job. I might have an opinion on a particular way to treat patients, but ultimately my employer can tell me what to do or not to do, and, if they don’t like what I’m doing they might try to fire me. My options at that point would then be to sue, saying that what I’m doing should be ok/protected, or I could start my own private practice where I could do anything I wanted as long as it’s within the confines of the established law. These are the rules we live and operate by and I think they are just in the long run (again IMHO).

If the point of this blog post were to say that you, as an employee, should have the ability to share whatever opinion you want, whenever you wanted, I just feel like that is a little unrealistic. Is it unfortunate? Kinda. Should it be illegal? Probably not, unless you can prove that whatever opinions you hold have absolutely no bearing on your employer’s ability to conduct its business fairly. (I kind of feel like a jerk for saying this, but it seems like the most fair thing to say in the big picture :-/ and while it’s popular to scream “fight back against the man”, let’s be honest, that doesn’t get you anywhere- its more important to be smart about things than just be headstrong.)
So, in conclusion, it seems that it’s all about how you portray yourself- to your viewers and to your employer. As long as you are responsible and clear at least you are not being irresponsible and shouldn’t be censored and you should be well-received. In addition, when you DO share your opinion, as long as you give fair time to some “Well Actually”-s (as you mentioned in your post), you SHOULD be ok, although, let’s face it, Verizon is never going to sponsor BOL now… lol.

In as far as what should the viewer/listener/reader do aka where should we go for news? I think you try your hardest to wade through the crap and pick the least biased source, or at least one that represents both sides of an issue, and then use your own critical thinking skills to sift the truth out from the BS. Alternatively, if you have the time and patience, try listening to opposing sources.

One final note, if you look at the BOL forums, people get upset over all sorts of stupid crap like ‘you like apple too much’ or ‘you hate apple too much’, and those people might come and go, but in the end, as you point out, everyone serves themselves best by realizing that any one opinion, while it could never make everyone happy, may often spur intelligent discussions, and when those discussions are fair and balanced, we are then able to realize the true value of voice.

Tysm, Natali, super post- it was really thought provoking.
Sry for the length, I just thought I’d share my opinion… ;)
-Dr. Karl :)

Richard · 4 months ago

The world depends on unbiased opinions. As a former journalist, there is an obligation to the public at large to provide an unbiased report on the news. In this day & age, "everyone is a media outlet" and opinions tend to skew towards emotion and personal agendas. Bloggers need to take more responsibility for the words they write as they are not held to true Associated Press standards in their "reporting". Today's youth can benefit from hearing neutral arguments pro & con on issues subject to debate. It is a journalists job to report the facts and let the public formulate their own opinion (as you said). You are in a position to influence such thought, and that only makes the public less informed [dumber] as they are allowing the media to manipulate their minds.

With all due respect to Mr. Jarvis (I have not read his book), but he did spend the greater part of his career as an entertainment journalist, which with respect to your blog entry here, does not put him in a class with such "hard news" anchors as Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather. When Jennings passed away and Dan Rather ushered out of his job (for a "more hipper & younger" newscast) it appeared to be the end of an era in "hard news" reporting.

I do read blogs like Gawker, TechCrunch and PerezHilton for entertainment value, but I also understand the difference and never trust their writers to provide me with actual facts.

So to answer your question, opinions are like a**holes, everyone has them. What we have less of, but need more of, is unbiased, unfiltered, neutral reporting.

johnmcmillion · 4 months ago

Hey Natali,

I value quality commentary, but even on the Daily Show I'm more satisfied to see Jon Stewart hold both sides accountable. For a while, I watched Fox and MSNBC to try and get a sense of both sides. But the more I watched partisan finger pointing and one-sided viewpoints, the less and less interested I became. I crave credibility. But more and more, I'm starving for depth. Real roll-up-your-sleeves reporting. CNN has its moments. The Wall Street Journal too. But the best I've found is PBS Frontline.

I dream of the day when news consists of such unbiased, expert detail, backed by a mountain of sources, it feels like the information presented is what someone would hand the President himself as definitive. Once you have that as your base, then let's get both sides in to comment. How it affects you and I. What the consequences are. And given this gold-mine of information, how we should move forward.

The clearest case today is health care reform. Clearly, there is a problem that needs to be solved. Clearly, one of the main goals is to reduce unsustainable fiscal responsibilities. So, Mr. President. I voted for you. I believe you're a smart guy, and I'm confident you've surrounded yourself with the best and brightest. So, how do we lower costs? Give me short-term long-term. Give me details. Give me a buffet of charts and spreadsheets, facts and figures, backed by independent sources. I want something so convincing, not only does the CBO back you up when they score it, but they are stunned by the extraordinary effect your plan achieves in accomplishing your goal. I want to see you reach across party lines, instead of promising it on the campaign trail. I watched Senator Coburn present a comprehensive amendment to the committee on CSPAN. It made a lot of sense. He knew his stuff. Turns out, he's a doctor. Could be helpful to put aside party, and put Dr./Senator Coburn on your team. Could be helpful to provide clear leadership on exactly what needs to go in this legislation.

Instead, we got the beer summit. Along with award-winning coverage over what brand of brew was more American.

Your voice has value. Personality goes a long way.

But I'll take a glass of facts, with a dash of depth, any day of the week.

Binky The Bomb · 4 months ago

Journalism is more than just reporting the news, it is also reporting the opinions of those involved, as well as asking the questions you think your target audience wants answered. Bias is a part of the process, because generalised questions never are almost never the right questions, leading to an innacurate report, all for the ake of not offending someone.

Impartial questioning, done carefully to not offer any type of opinion on the subject matter can be rather dry, dull and pointless. But, on the flip side of the coin, if you go after a subject with to much bias, it can make you blind to lines of questioning that your audience would like to here. Its not a ase of Bias or Unbias, but rather a fine balance of bias and facts.

You cannot report the facts or the truth without getting up someones nose. There is no real impartiality in the end, you either report the news, or put up a notice saying "Everything is fine, noting happening in the world." even if the nukes are droping. If you report the news, any news, you have a right to tell people what is happening. You would not be human if your own views, opinions and feelings did not shape that report in some way or another.

And after all, if people do not like it, they can always go elsewhere. The fact they are still reading means you are doing something right.

Joseph Dawson · 4 months ago

I think your right and I think people do want more opinion and more bias coverage in jourlisam today. I am just not sure that it a good thing. The idea that the type of independent unbiased journalism that Walter Cronkite did (in his early years with CBS) would likely not be successful today as it was then is not good.

It appears to me that people today want to follow journalist that provide opinions as compatible with there own as possible. The fact that the opinion provided may be based on incorrect or inaccurate information has become unfortunately less important then the fact the opinion provided matches the individuals beliefs.

Truly unbiased journalism that shows the positive and the negative will often paint a picture that is some shade of gray. This shade of gray is neither sexy or simplistic enough for the average public today.

It appears to me that the general public wants to be led to a conclusion that requires little thinking and supports there pre-existing beliefs. The idea of challenging ones beliefs and requiring people to completely rethink an opinion on a topic today is far to much work and stress for the average consumer of journalism.

This brings us to a future where we have a TV channel for every flavour of person. One cannel for Mac Fans, Microsoft Fans, Democrats and Republicans. Each one following there own version of the truth all loosely based on the facts that support there belief system.

In this future the journalist who succeed maybe the ones that have opinions are the most compatible with the largest group of the population. Creating a system where the successful journalist is little more then a politician trying to create the largest following to win the next election. The truth then reported by this future journalist is merely a reflection of what the public opinion thinks the truth should be and wouldn't be hindered by facts or supporting evidence.

In the 1800's Alexis de Tocqueville was quoted to say that "In a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve." Maybe we are moving to a future where this is also true of journalism.

All the best,

Joe

Sean Genovese · 4 months ago

I think the one thing you're missing in your post here is the idea that journalism, partially as a result of technology, has morphed into two concentrations: newscasters and commentators. I absolutely believe that newscasters should be unbiased, delivering just the facts. They can have personal beliefs, and they can share them if they want, but keep them out of the newscast. If you view yourself as this type of journalist, then you absolutely should suffer backlash when your political and personal views intermingle with your reporting.

Personally, I think you are much better suited to be a commentator. I don't watch to you to get the facts, I watch you to get your opinion of the facts. The same goes for your CNET colleagues as well. You all have proven to me over time that I can trust your opinion because it is based on facts and rational thinking, not a hidden agenda. I believe the ability to earn trust is more important than whether or not I agree with your opinion. For the most part, the mainstream media doesn't get that and as a result they've lost their audience's trust--and their ratings.

Charlie Martin · 4 months ago

Natalie, I'm on the side of doing two things: first, as you say, everyone has a position, so you might as well be open about it. The problem with the mainstream media's sort of common bien pensant position isn't that they have it, but that they maintain the façade of objectivity while distorting the actual reporting, either overtly by their choice of words, or covertly by what is and isn't considered "news."

Then, second, attempt to provide objectivity anyway by looking for opposing opinions, by testing your conclusions critically, by consciously reversing an argument and seeing if it would still work. (Cf. Pelosi's recent high dudgeon about Nazi imagery being associated with the health care debate — if it's out of bounds, as I agree it should be, wasn't it out of bounds when it was being used against Bush?)

Bill from Canada · 4 months ago

Pardon the wishy-washy answer, but I think it depends on the direction you want to go. In an age where social media has really been invented (or at least popularized), it seems that most media now wants to be social. How the world got by when it's media was unidirectional is mind boggling (mild sarcasm).

You have to consider the relationship you want with your viewer/reader/listener/consumer-of-information. Do you want to have a social experience with them? Do you want the dissemination of your knowledge to be a two-way experience? In that case, you eschew the traditional definition of journalist - you have become something new and different. The term journalist was popularized in the 20th century as a person who disseminated information to a consumer - one way only, primarily due to the limitation of technology and the relatively tiny number of sources available. In that regard, it became critical that a journalist only passed on the information ("Just the facts, ma'am") because it was impractical for any feedback to "correct" biased information back to the median truth of a particular matter. People had to trust their journalists to be 100% factual so that they could then create their own informed opinions on a matter, because options for data sources were limited and, often, the ability to question that information was not practical.

This is obviously a fairly foreign concept now, as there are dozens if not hundreds of reports available to anyone at any time on a particular topic. It's now practical to take a large number of biased reports, and tease that data back to a median truth. In a sense, journalists have been let off the hook a bit because they don't have near the social responsibility to their consumers-of-information due to the fact that the "crowd" of journalists will correct any bias that you inadvertently or deliberately include in your report.

So to come all the way back to the original point - what do you want to be? If you want to take the "traditional" road of a 100% impartial reporter that hangs their hat on earning the trust of their viewers while keeping your own spin on that data to yourself, then I think you are choosing a much more difficult (even moreso now than 50 years ago due to the fact that it's near impossible to hide your mistakes), but possibly more noble path.

The other option is to engage your viewers by presenting information unabashedly tinted to your own personal view (as per Fox News) and accepting that your own tint on the information may result in omissions on an issue, or less than 100% core truth on the issue. This allows for far more two way conversation, the fulfillment of presenting views that are true to yourself and the enlightenment that comes with a corrective or educational response from your audience. The relationship with your audience may not have the 100% trust that you would have as an unbiased reporter, but your relationship is more complex and diverse as well. More like being friends than a reporter/consumer relationship.

As a result, I don't think there's a "right" or "wrong" or "should" in this matter. It's all what you want to get from the process.

Alex · 4 months ago

I may be rewriting some things that have been said by others already (people have got a lot to say and I don't have time to read it all), so excuse me. I have always thought that you tend to be one of the few reporters that actively tries to stay unbiased and neutral with the majority of your reporting/commenting (Verizon FIOS aside :P). While that's all good sometimes, I've come to see that it also seems to bind you more times than not.

Ironically, I have been pondering this whole topic in my head for the last couple of days and I think that the problem with most modern American reporters is that they adhere more to a belief of showing a balance between different sides of an issue than they are to informing the public on the facts of the issues themselves. I read a recent blog post from Paul Krugman talking about how he was invited onto a show recently to discuss some issue but the producers called him back a little while later when they couldn't find someone to take the opposing viewpoint. When I read it, I couldn't say I was too surprised.

Over and over nowadays we are seeing news reporters simply stating each side of the issue without informing the public on what the parts of the issue are or what they may even mean (e.g., the current healthcare reform debate). I think that once reporters start to learn how to inform their consumers again, then maybe we can be a better society for it. I have no problem with a reporter injecting their viewpoint into a report since it's bound to happen anyway. We are human after all. My only desire is for the reporter to still inform the public with the unassailable facts of a given issue before they begin to make their feelings known on the topic. Facts should be the most important item in a reporter's mindset and everything else second.

Although, it has been said that "facts have a liberal bias," so who knows in the end?

Joseph Dawson · 4 months ago

Natali it is clear based on the number of long and thoughtful comments people have made on this blog post, you have a great community intelligent readers on your blog. This combined with the diversity of responses really makes me question the basis of my original comment on this post.

The basis of my original comment was to say that today people follow journalists because they generally agree with the opinions of the people they follow. And I was saying that I did not think that true independent unbiased journalism was something the general public wanted anymore.

Based on the fact that a great number of people think that they want you to be unbiased in your reporting and another group says you should be bias and give your opinion. Some people like I think that what for cnet is as much journalism as any CBS news report while others don't appear to consider cnet reporting to be journalism at all.

This wide variety of comments makes me feel that the community that follow you is much wider and more deserve then I would have first guessed. This is a great thing and in a small way shows that the future of journalism may be less pessimistic then I was first thinking.

Your definitely doing something right when you have made such a wide ranging group of people spend time tonight to read and comment on your blog. When you consider likely only one in one hundred who read your post would likely leave a comment this positing impact is impressive.

Keep up the good work... Your definitely doing some good reporting and this positing was just a sample of that.

dktoney · 4 months ago

"But what of journalists? Can and should we hop on the personal political openness manifesto? And is “unbiased” a fallacy?"

I believe there is room for journalists to deliver both unbiased information and open opinion. It depends on the situation and delivery medium. The public relies on journalists to gather information and deliver both sides of the story so that we can make an informed decision about issues. There is also room for journalists to share their informed opinion after they have researched an issue - as long as the audience knows they are hearing the perspective of the journalist. The danger is when the audience believes they are hearing a balanced story when they are only hearing a biased view.

John · 4 months ago

I prefer the facts and let me determine the conclusion or whatever. If it's biased, emotional, etc, let it be labeled an editorial, blog or whatever.

Greg · 4 months ago

I thought about this topic recently and I want things out in the open. Sure, not everyone will agree with whatever your personal views are and may be turned off by it, but there will also be people who like you more for that opinion and/or respect you for even having the guts to say what you really feel. It is wrong to expect a tech reporter to never publicly state their views on anything other tech issues. Finding out a persons views make you feel like more of a human to me and not just a person I see on tv or hear on a podcast.

seniormint · 4 months ago

The journalists that make the most impact have distinctive/original voices. Conveying news is often like hauling freight in the new media age. News rains down upon us from RSS readers, Google News Alerts, and machine curated new aggregation services. Actually breaking news stories offers some distinction for a working journalist but the shelf life of a breaking news story is now measured in minutes. Break enough news and your fellow journalists might laud you and an audience might seek you out, but cultivate a unique and compelling point of view and whether you break the news or not, your audience will want to hear from you again and again.

When Google Wave was announced I know that I wanted to hear how the guests at my virtual thought leaders dinner party (Gina Trapani, John C. Dvrorak, Cory Doctorow, and many more) would react. I've unconsciously picked a mix of folks with strong and divergent perspectives. My internal BS detector might go off more for some than for others, but each voice makes me think enough to earn a seat at the table.

In addition to a strong point of view, a strong but real personality matters too. The personality is the wrapper of the strong idea and a distinctive personality can increase my consideration of an individual's perspective. The genuine warmth of Leo Laporte or the wry and perpetually bemused Christopher Buckley are completely different examples of the same idea. They each focus on things that matter to them, convey their unique perspective, and do so with their distinctive personalities intact.

Arny · 4 months ago

I agree, how are you supposed to report without some sort of bias given the amount of information coming at you these days? I think that this is an acceptable situation, as long as the bias is open and obvious (e.g. Fox). In fact, I find it quite interesting listening to reporters like yourself giving their opinions on the facts - I may not always agree with the points made, but it's exactly the type of discussion that I would have with my peers on certain topics.

I, for one, support Open Journalism!

techpops · 4 months ago

I don't really see the problem here. BOL and pretty much every other podcast I watch/listen to is heavily biased. The reason seems simple. These are not true news shows, but shows that comment on the news. The emphasis is really on comment, commentary, opinion and of course, bias.

Natali has proven herself a worthy commentor and I more often than not agree with her. The same goes for all of the buzz staff. There is a level of professionalism there that every other tech podcast should be aiming to compete with.

So for me there is nothing here to debate, what's going on is working great, in fact so great that I can't think of a better tech related show.

Perhaps where this bias starts to become a problem is when you have hosts who either don't know enough about the subject or are simply trying to sell you something. I filter out those kinds of shows over time and so unless you're very naive about the subject of tech, you should do just fine absorbing all these hosts opinions on the news.

andreslucero · 4 months ago

I think it depends on the story and what type of news you're reporting on at the time. Tech journalists can get away with more personal commentary because the audience is usually looking for an expert opinion on a given subject. As long as the other side of the story is presented fairly, you won't lose too many viewers/listeners/readers for saying something negative about a product or service—just the hardcore fans on the fringes who can't bear to hear a differing opinion.

For other types of news, it's harder to walk that line. You either have to remove all opinion completely and just present the facts, or you need to establish the show as commentary from the very beginning. Regardless of what you choose to do professionally, I don't think you should censor yourself on personal sites like Twitter, Facebook, or this blog.

sunsnapper · 4 months ago

As with most things, there is not a clear black and white division. Instead, there is a continuum of gray. I think there is a distinction between columnists creating opinion pieces and news reporters attempting to stay objective as they report facts.

Somewhere in between is today's personality-driven media, where the host is also their own brand, channel, and value-added differentiator. Inserting personality, point-of-view, or voice is one thing... inserting bias or unfairness is another.

If you choose to do opinion-based, columnist coverage, I would only suggest that you not abandon fairness.

For example, to criticize McCain for lack of tech savvy during the campaign is factual and fair game, even though an opinion is expressed. To do 10 of 10 stories where Republicans are technology illiterates while Democrats are all tech gurus who read slashdot and program their own RSS feeds would be distorted and unfair.

There are so many areas in technology where one can avoid the left/right political divisions, and focus on the authoritarian vs. libertarian axis. For example, the DMCA is arguably bad legislation, with members of both parties voting for it. (Passed unanimously by Republicans and Democrats in Congress and signed by Democratic President). Having opinions opposed to the DMCA would not favor Republicans or Democrats.

Onerous cell phone or credit card contracts... less a left/right issue and more of individual power vs. entrenched or consolidated power.

Privacy issues, identity theft, etc. present another area where one can voice strong opinions without being branded a Republican or Democrat.

Finally, consider the possibility that openness does not simply mean to state your opinion. Perhaps "open journalism" means being up front about one's bias along with the opinion. This presents an open view of the host's opinion and the bias that led them there.

Adam · 4 months ago

Who says robots don't have feelings?

jose_ndc · 4 months ago

I congratulate you for your courage as long as you have something you can fall back on.

But you're absolutely right. Openness and the truth is what everyone wants. Of course, some of us may not want to hear the truth, but knowing the truth and making decisions based on one can lead to better results.

Jake Stapleton · 4 months ago

Natali,

I think openness is a matter of context and your venue. I remember several times that you got underneath my skin while you were doing Textra. You dropped several political comments right in the middle of your tech podcast. The point to me is I do not mind different viewpoints but that is not what I tune into a technology podcast to hear. With that being said I think the recent BOL with the federal CTO was handled extremely well. It was released in the regular stream as a standalone episode so that I had the choice to listen to it or not (regardless of my political disagreements with the administration and your guest’s assertions).

In my opinion the media has never been unbiased in anyway. Bias is in the eye of the beholder you mention that fox news has an “agenda”; I think it is one of the fairest news sources around. Which one of use is right and which one of us is biased? We both have our own believes that shape us and our world views; I would only ask that you be mindful of your audience and venue when you try your openness.

Example

On Loaded you reported on the broadband stimulus funds. That news definitely belongs in your tech podcast.

What would cross a line for me would be after reporting on the funds you then went on to say how wonderful it is for this change and how enamored you are with our new president. (If this is the case)

I hope this makes sense I know that many of the technology personalities that I listen to every single day probably do not share my political or societal beliefs. But as long as we are talking tech and I am tuning into a tech podcast that should never be a problem.

Jomichael · 4 months ago

I think you should feel comfortable voicing your opinions even though you are a reporter. Just be sure to indicate that when you do so, you are acting as a columnist. I think you can wear both hats. When you are reporting the news, I hope you can still present it in an unbiased manner. Feel free to analyze and comment after the facts have been objectively disseminated. Please don't take away a straight distribution medium for the facts. We are finding it harder and harder to sift through the slanted coverage that dominates the "news cycle." We need reporting that doesn't favor one side, at least until the facts are there for us to digest.

I do think you should be prepared for the backlash that will come from this openness. You have on multiple occasions expressed anger at the reactions your positions evoke from the public. You don't have to be a journalist or internet celebrity to receive venomous retribution from the trolls out there. Just look athe comment section of any Digg story, and you will know that you are not singled out for unfair treatment. So you as a journalist can have opinions, but those will be subject to the freely expressed responses of your followers, readers, viewers, and downloaders, many of whom haven't any manners when a keyboard sits in front of them. You may even have to be prepared to lose a large number of them, particularly if you choose not to suffer any questioning of your stance, as you did on BOL when you first demanded online voting by the next election, then forbade anyone to comment, challenge, criticize or question your (at the time) unsupported and unexplained position.

At any rate, I ask again to please keep the objective news coming. The unbiased presentation of accurate information shouldn't be marginalized as "vanilla." It needs to be upheld as the strongest weapon the masses have to defend themselves against those who would wield power, money, and influence irresponsibly, and the means by which the voting public can properly understand the issues they will have to consider at election time. I do respect the media when it acts honorably, and you have a responsibility as the Fourth Estate to insure that some part of it does.

Thanks for the topic. Keep up the good work.

Greg · 4 months ago

I agree with DChamp. News presented in an openly biased setting is nothing more than propaganda. A journalist's job is to inform, not to sway. There is a time for engagement, and a time for straight information flow.

mikerichards · 3 months ago

Natalie,

You make many good points and arguments. I think that when people speak about openness it more means that you are open to discuss a topic. For example, you may not like Verizon FiOS and so you could choose to ignore them, any discussion involving them, and only speak about Comcast. This would not be what I consider open. However you could voice your opinion about them, be open to discussions, and agree to disagree about them and their service. That is what "I" view openness to be in a reporter. A reporter who will report the news, as it is, is just that a reporter. However a reporter that can report on the news at it is, and then offers their opinions in a well thought out manner is more than a reporter to me; they are a valuable person in media. Not to confuse this with reporters who report on the news, but are untruthful; you still need to be truthful in your reports.
Hope my thoughts help move the discussion along.

batkol · 3 months ago

There is no such thing as being unbiased. That is a journalistic fiction that is scarcely a century old. God knows, reporters prior to the 20th Century did not think it was there job to be unbiased. The point is not to be unbiased but to be open to other points of view and to report as accurately as you can what you hear and see. That is what it means to be a reporter. What separates journalists from the non-journalistic community is that you are trained in how to acquire information and transfer same to a lay audience in a way that renders such information intelligible (or as nearly so as that is possible) to the lay public. In an age of rapidly growing amateur journalism, what makes professional reporters so important is the function they can serve in setting standards for what constitutes sound investigation and even handedness. In other words, the serve a modeling function.

Fernando Feria · 3 months ago

Following any media in general, I have noticed that after certain reports there are times when one is left aching for an opinion one way or another in order to reinforce or even counter whatever emotion has been summoned by whatever newly acquired information. There are other times when one simply does not want to hear the reporter's opinions. In the past all this was easily explained by ones own bias. Personally, I think that explanation is a bit lazy if not disabling.
The obvious answer might be equally disabling.
Non bias is still important to maintain, but I do think we need to revisit what that means rather than doing away with it. Much too often people assume it is a stance one should maintain even after research has been completed and understood. To remain unbiased would be a symptom of not having yet completed a process. Unbiased is how one should approach research. To be unbiased is a position taken at the beginning of every encounter and surly one that needs to evolve during the encounter up until the resolution.

To hide opinion of a resolution is slightly inhuman since even when one states a series of simple facts there is always an accompanying demeanor (assuming the statements are understood and previously thought about and not simply being read out loud).

Irritation occurs when the reporter is suspected to have approached the topic from the get go with an established prejudice or a severe inclination. More common, is when the listener, is so afflicted and never really understands the topic at hand yet still endeavors to acutely identify someone with whom they generally disagree.

I will always agree with the notion that one should report the news rather than to dictate the interpretation of it.
Reporting the news and sharing ones impressions is not the same thing. Enabling our understanding of this nuance would be a helpful approach to settling this debate.

TJforCongress · 3 months ago

Ms. Del Conte,
I feel that - in your case - this is a double edged blade. While you are on-air reporting the news; yes, you must remain unbiased. This provides an unbiased, fair view on the issues being reported. However, once you are off-air and in your own arena, such as this blog; you should be free to voice your opinions.
This is YOUR blog, and it should reflect YOUR views. The fact that you are paid to report the news makes no difference in this particular arena. If you write & post these on YOUR website, on YOUR time, then this should 100% reflect YOUR personal views.

I find it borderline tradgic that many news reporters are villified for expressing their own personal opinions on various topics of discussion - even when expressed off-air.
My advice is this - Express your opinions freely. We have a First Amendment Right in this country, and it should be used as often as possible. The Constitution does not limit the right of Free Speech based on a person's occupation. Personally, I welcome personal opinons from news reporters because it does make them "less robotic" to the individuals who see them day after day being unbiased.

Thanks!

TJ Thompson
www.ThompsonForCongress2010.com
thompson.forcongress.2010-at-gmail-dot-com

davidmfreire · 3 months ago

Open journalism invites a journalist to get information with the means that are available to her without consideration and enforcement of the laws, ethics and rules that guide professional journalists.

Without guidance and adherence to the wise men and women whom have established instutions to ensure the protection and privacy from those with means then open journalism is simply an open invitation to satisfy personal vanities while violating another person’s privacy.

DonnieM · 3 months ago

Natalie;

(ack! This came out longer than I thought it would, sorry...I hope that you find it of use)

I've read back through a couple of your blogs, but I haven't read too many of the comments. I don't know if I'm covering ground already covered (and I’m assuming that I understand your goals and questions correctly as well)…so here it is;

1.) As for news bias, that's complicated; Are you the Producer, as well as Reporter? Who controls the content? If it's all YOU, then I'd say "yes", be bias if you wish...but let it be known that you are filtering the content and that this is YOUR show, colored by YOUR P.O.V. and that you are not trying to present "fair & balanced" (laconic wink to FOX) coverage. You are effectively then, an op-ed Reporter/Commentator, and there's nothing wrong with that. I personally don't mind my favorite Commentators having bias, as long as they don't try and pretend that they're puritanical, old-school Reporters...which leads in to my next point;

2.) The news (like most things in life) is all about TRUST. As long as I feel that you're making your case based on substantiated facts…even if you draw a different lesson or opinion from the facts than another Reporter/Commentator who is of a different bias than yours...then I don't mind. At least I know that you showed me ALL of the evidence (important for that trust!), and hence, I was able to draw roughly the same conclusion as you, because we think alike (or maybe I can't formulate my thoughts as well as you can, and that's why I watch you to begin with, because I know that basically we'll agree in spirit, and you'll then be able to express that spirit more eloquently than I).

3.) "Entertainment factor" is a big part of the news today. It's part of why people like O'Reilly and Beck are so successful. I'm not saying that you need to yell at people or have confrontational interviews (that doesn't strike me as your style anyway). But you should think about what your strengths are in the area of entertainment and integrate them in to your show. Basically, you just need to be GENUINELY passionate in YOUR own unique way. If you're not passionate, why should we be interested in what you're saying? Part of being passionate means choosing to highlight the stories that you see fit. Don't cover the story the same way as everyone else. Find ways to look at things in which you know others usually won't, angles that are of interest to you and get you fired up and thinking...and which reflect your unique P.O.V.

4.) Lastly, always be intellectually honest. I think part of why O'Reilly is so successful is because most of the time, he tries to play devil's advocate when covering a story (not always, but for the most part). This is also known in sales and advertising as "Anticipating Resistance". In other words, you're intellectually honest because you recognize and openly acknowledge the other potential P.O.V., and you give it air. By doing so, you get even MORE "street cred" than so-called "Reporters" who are obviously leading us in a desired direction (either overtly, or via “news by deletion”). People aren't dumb. They know when they're being led around. But even when they might agree with someone who is doing this to them, nobody likes to be thought of as a hack! We get more satisfaction (and strength of conviction) as individuals out of honestly addressing the other side's view in the debate. ex; This is part of why I miss Alan Colmes so much. I RARELY agreed with him, but at least I got to hear his side's P.O.V...and this often helped to strengthen my conviction in my own P.O.V. (and Hannity's) because now, having fairly addressed all relevant points, I could honestly say that my convictions were strong based on a fair assessment of both sides. I don't watch Hannity as much anymore…even though I still agree with him for the most part…because there is no genuine and equal conflict there. Make sense? You can create that conflict yourself if need be, by playing "devil's advocate". ;-)

In conclusion, I'd recommend that you simply be true to yourself and to your audience, and the viewers who feel your passion and who share your interests will be there with you. The goal is not to win everyone over who agrees with you, but rather to garner that all-important integrity that comes from being completely honest at all times. Once people believe in you, they'll tune in to what you have to say...even the ones who don't often agree with you! And all simply because, at the very least, they TRUST you.

Trust = respect.

Hope that wasn't too long a read and that it was worthwhile.

I always enjoy reading your blogs, because they inspire me as well. So you’re obviously doing something right! lol ;-)

Keep up the good work.

All the best,

Don M.

pinkprincess777 · 3 months ago

Why in the world would I want to 'interact' or 'engage' with the news? Report the facts. I can form opinions for myself. It bothers me that people in the news media feel they need to impose their personal ideas or opinions upon the rest of us about current events. It is actually kind of insulting and a subtle implication that educated people cannot think for themselves.

If a company is doing something stupid (like Verizon) simply tell us about it. We are smart enough to handle it without anyone holding our hand or telling us how to think.

Jason Bone · 3 months ago

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....

Mark · 3 months ago

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.

Alamar9 · 3 months ago

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.

todd · 3 months ago

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.

Chris Burnett · 3 months ago

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.

dgcpn · 2 months ago

Natalie,
I too am a broadcast journalist.
Our responsibility is to report the facts
and leave opinions up to the viewers/listeners.
Once you start to offer your opinion during a
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...In the long run it
will garner you greater respect from your peers, superiors and the public.

Respectfully,

David

Native Son · 1 month ago

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.

Minsoo · 1 month ago

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.

AlbertEinstein12345 · 1 month ago

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

beckcpo · 4 weeks ago

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.