Press Democrat Media Bias in Occupy Coverage: Letter they will not print
Nearly a week ago, I sent this letter to the Press Democrat describing the media bias that their reporter (Bob Norberg) demonstrated in his coverage of the Sebastopol City Council meeting. Since they received it, they have published a number of letters critical of our City council's resolution to support the Occupy Movement. But they decided that this one was not fit to print. Thank you, Wacco, for an independent non-corporate media outlet for our growing Occupy-era conscious community. Comments welcome...here is the letter that never saw print:
Media Bias in Reporting Occupy
EDITOR: As an investigative journalist with 30 years of experience, I want to share what I regard as media bias in the PD’s coverage of the Occupy movement (“Sebastopol endorses Occupy movement,” Wednesday).
A clear bias was demonstrated by the reporter’s decision to report the public comment of the single anti-Occupy movement speaker, without mentioning that she was the only one out of a dozen speakers against the resolution, Or that during the past two council hearings on this subject, 30 other citizens spoke in favor of Occupy Sebastopol, while only one spoke against it. Readers are left with the false sense that our community is divided.
Further bias was evidenced in the reporter’s paraphrasing of the lone Occupy critic’s assertion that the city sets a bad precedent by letting the movement participants “continue to break the law with their tent at the plaza and by waiving insurance requirements and permit fees.”
This calls to mind the pathetic “two sides of the story reporting” on “death panels.” There never were death panels, but because of the parroting of factually incorrect propaganda, many Americans thought there were. It is the media’s responsibility to correct, instead of quote, clear inaccuracies.
The missing facts here are these: The Council is not “waiving” requirements; fees apply to commercial events, not to protest. And there is noting “illegal” about the rights enshrined in our First Amendment: to assemble, to protest, and to free speech
Re: Press Democrat Media Bias in Occupy Coverage: Letter they will not print
Here is the original article that this letter references
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20111206/ARTICLES/111209656
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:
Nearly a week ago, I sent this letter to the Press Democrat describing the media bias that their reporter (Bob Norberg) demonstrated in his coverage of the Sebastopol City Council meeting. Since they received it, they have published a number of letters critical of our City council's resolution to support the Occupy Movement. But they decided that this one was not fit to print. Thank you, Wacco, for an independent non-corporate media outlet for our growing Occupy-era conscious community. Comments welcome...here is the letter that never saw print:
Media Bias in Reporting Occupy
EDITOR: As an investigative journalist with 30 years of experience, I want to share what I regard as media bias in the PD’s coverage of the Occupy movement (“Sebastopol endorses Occupy movement,” Wednesday).
A clear bias was demonstrated by the reporter’s decision to report the public comment of the single anti-Occupy movement speaker, without mentioning that she was the only one out of a dozen speakers against the resolution, Or that during the past two council hearings on this subject, 30 other citizens spoke in favor of Occupy Sebastopol, while only one spoke against it. Readers are left with the false sense that our community is divided.
Further bias was evidenced in the reporter’s paraphrasing of the lone Occupy critic’s assertion that the city sets a bad precedent by letting the movement participants “continue to break the law with their tent at the plaza and by waiving insurance requirements and permit fees.”
This calls to mind the pathetic “two sides of the story reporting” on “death panels.” There never were death panels, but because of the parroting of factually incorrect propaganda, many Americans thought there were. It is the media’s responsibility to correct, instead of quote, clear inaccuracies.
The missing facts here are these: The Council is not “waiving” requirements; fees apply to commercial events, not to protest. And there is noting “illegal” about the rights enshrined in our First Amendment: to assemble, to protest, and to free speech
