http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/comp...-at-and-seeing/

Yep.

One reporters one sided opinion about how the media is one sided?


"Alexandra Petri writes the ComPost blog, offering a lighter take on the news and opinions of the day."


If this is a lighter side of the new I would hate to see the other side.

Why is she singling out FOX new is the Headline and not explaining in the body. Was Fox the only media that was there that covered the story the way she did not like it to be covered? Does she have an issue with fox?

If you do not believe me read the comments section.

The Fox News chyron was 1 of 3 quotes that led into the article. The second quote was not attributed to a single news source because it was carried by a number of networks. The 3rd quote was attributed to a single source because that's the only place it was published.

The article was not targeted at Fox specifically.

Could have fooled me:

"Ferguson, MO, FOX News, and the difference between looking at and seeing"

Is the title line.

But agreed article did not as you put it "targeted at Fox specifically"

So what was the point of singling out Fox in the title of an article not about Fox?

I don't know. Ask the author.

Or ask the editors. Wouldn't be the first time that the title of the article didn't quite synch with the content of the article.

Because it will generate interest. And thus have a higher Click-through rate than without having Fox in the title.

True.

Just wondering why an article that appears to be nothing more than a slam of the media is posted as fact.

It is noted that another reporter from her company was arrested while in a McDonald's. The articles I have read were either totally for him (one does not believe that a newspaper reporter from out of state would be know by a beat cop among hundreds of protestors and arrested solely because he was charging his cell phone) or a complete slam of him (hiding in a McDonald's) so I will not post them.

I don't understand this, what do you mean?

What was the purpose of posting the article?

Because you did not like the article, or disagreed with its premise, you do not understand why a link to it was posted in the cooler?

after the post of the article just "Yep" is posted

Does yep refer to:
Another poorly researched article?
Another article slamming Fox?
Another article posting only one point of view?
Another article that appears to be political and glances over the deceased?
Another article that portrays social media as the answer to perceived poor coverage by cable news?
Other?

I took the article's premise to be: we seek out in the media not actual 'news', but ammunition to further our own world-view and toss aside any news piece, picture, etc. that doesn't further those goals. IMO, this happens on both sides of the aisle (conservative and liberal).

An article linking to a blog within the Washington Post was linked, but no further commentary provided other than "yep." It is not a news article. It part of the collections of blogs hosted at the Washington Post's site. I read it with the same interest as I would read any blog (including my own). It's just another person with a keyboard and a platform spouting off her opinions. I think because it is hosted at Washington Post, we, the user may be tricked into thinking it is news, but you have to look to the source. Look at the linked address and you will see, it's just another blogger.

I agree that is how it started but ended with the authors own biases (against the police keeping out the media which can not be true as there is as much media present as protestors not counting the looters) that she appears to be slamming.

I think it's pretty obvious this is an op-ed piece, isn't it?

The Washington Post publishes many op-eds, so i don't see where the slight of hand is supposed to be.

Not sure why some people automatically go into defensive mode. Are those of you who are criticizing the op-ed suggesting that arm chair quarterbacking and spinning for points for your side is appropriate in this or any other situation?

Nope, neither is writing a op-ed spinning the media coverage of a story thru armchair quarterbacking.

i suggest a read of www.themattwalshblog.com

The premise is flawed.

Thoughtful people seek the truth. "We" aren't bending the truth in an effort to further our own world view. Rather, we are required to glean among the rubbish of what amounts to pure, distilled, manipulative propaganda in our efforts to find the truth.

Some things to remember about truth. There aren't alternative truths. Right and wrong may be discerned. "Gray areas" aren't all they are cracked up to be but they sure are convenient for those who aren't thoughtful.

When considering Ferguson, two wrongs still don't make it right. America doesn't deserve a collective guilt trip for this lawlessness on exhibit in Ferguson on successive nights.

I'm personally out of patience with collective hand-wringing. That's just me though.

Ok...thanks for the ethics lesson, but i'll pass on your version.

Unbelievable! What a shame people cannot rise above their own biases. Sadly, T.S. Eliot was spot on.

Agreed