Natali Del Conte - Latest Comments in The Value of Voice

Re: The Value of Voice

beckcpo — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:47:01 -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.

Re: The Value of Voice

Minsoo — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:41:16 -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.

Re: The Value of Voice

Native Son — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:49:58 -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.

Re: The Value of Voice

dgcpn — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:18:49 -0000

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

Re: The Value of Voice

Chris Burnett — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 02:34:32 -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.

Re: The Value of Voice

todd — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:15:35 -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.

Re: The Value of Voice

Alamar9 — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:21:11 -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.

Re: The Value of Voice

Mark — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:48:09 -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.

Re: The Value of Voice

Jason Bone — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:36:35 -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....

Re: The Value of Voice

pinkprincess777 — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:06:24 -0000

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.

Re: The Value of Voice

DonnieM — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:13:25 -0000

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.

Re: The Value of Voice

Guest — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:59:20 -0000

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.

Re: The Value of Voice

TJforCongress — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 02:57:18 -0000

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...
thompson.forcongress.2010-at-gmail-dot-com

Re: The Value of Voice

Frank F. — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:37:17 -0000

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.

Re: The Value of Voice

Fernando Feria — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:11:21 -0000

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.

Re: The Value of Voice

batkol — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 04:04:26 -0000

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.

Re: The Value of Voice

mikerichards — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:20:26 -0000

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.

Re: The Value of Voice

Greg — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:59:27 -0000

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.

Re: The Value of Voice

Jomichael — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:29:54 -0000

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.

Re: The Value of Voice

Jake Stapleton — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:23:51 -0000

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.

Re: The Value of Voice

jose_ndc — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:26:35 -0000

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.

Re: The Value of Voice

Adam — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:18:37 -0000

Who says robots don't have feelings?

Re: The Value of Voice

sunsnapper — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:53:24 -0000

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.

Re: The Value of Voice

Andres Lucero — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:26:19 -0000

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.

Re: The Value of Voice

techpops — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:20:22 -0000

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.