Let's see how often this is repeated vs reported

[sirs]

Answered already: start reporting, correcting, even questioning those same folks as to why are they using such an inaccurate claim

[BT]

Then why in the world did you post an article where they did just that? Doesn't make sense.

[sirs]

It does when you consider this is NOT being reported from the likes of the far more predominant news sources, messers NYTimes, Wash Post, LA Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN....etc., etc., etc.

I guess we can also assume you're not going to address the obviously flawed allegation of my supposed victimhood.  Perhaps that's a good thing

[BT]

here's a clue. If you are going to bitch and whine about bias, it would behoove you to post an article that helps buttress your complaint. The article you did post, did just the opposite.

[sirs]

Actually, the reporting of it by a far lesser source, that the predominant MSM folk is PRECISLY the buttressing I need.  Reporting something that's not reported is kinda like posting ............ nothing

But thanks for the advice

[BT]

No problem.

BTW whose responsibility is it to know and understand the meaning of the word congress?

Is it the speaker, reporter or reader?

[sirs]

D) All of the above

[BT]

So if the speaker gets it wrong, and the reporter dowesn't make an issue of it, preferring to quote exactly without editorial comment, the reader still can absorb that the speaker doesn't know what they are talking about?

And if that is the case, where is the bias? Are you requiring that reporters report in a certain way (pre-censored so to speak) , or are you satisfied that ultimately the responsibility for determining truth is on the reader.

[sirs]

And for those who are not privvy to what they should know about congress, (perhaps having undertaken a Canadian education) places an appropriate level of REPORTING, if not CORRECTING the inaccurate claim being made by the speaker, by the reporter

It's not rocket science.....its called objective reporting, MINUS any bias

[BT]

It's not rocket science.....its called objective reporting, MINUS any bias

Objective reporting would be to report the quote as given without editorializing as to the correctness of the content quote. That doesn't appear to be what you are after.

[sirs]

AND....to report a mistake.  That's not editorializing Bt.  If Speaker says 2+2 is 5, and the reporter leaves it at that, there may be readers who are not privvy to what 2+2 is...OR, are now confused as to thinking they thought they knew 2+2 = 4 was, and here this speaker says its 5, and the reporter says nothing??  Maybe it is 5 then.  I mean, the speaker is supposed to be credible

Point being a reporter correcting a factual inaccuracy is NOT editorializing.  It would be reporting an error, if not a follow-up question as to why they made the error.  The why would enter the realm of editorializing, but not the what, in this case the inaccurate factual statement     

[BT]

AND....to report a mistake.  That's not editorializing Bt.  If Speaker says 2+2 is 5, and the reporter leaves it at that, there may be readers who are not privvy to what 2+2 is...OR, are now confused as to thinking they thought they knew 2+2 = 4 was, and here this speaker says its 5, and the reporter says nothing??  Maybe it is 5 then.  I mean, the speaker is supposed to be credible

Point being a reporter correcting a factual inaccuracy is NOT editorializing.  It would be reporting an error, if not a follow-up question as to why they made the error.  The why would enter the realm of editorializing, but not the what, in this case the inaccurate factual statement   

What the dems are doing is using the vernacular of Congress equals the House of Representatives as illustrated by the naming of Senator McCain and Congressman Ryan. Technically it is incorrect. In the parlance of the day not so much. What you keep appearing to be pushing is some kind of regulation with teeth that forces reporters to present news in a narrow rigid way, with the assumption that the general public is too dumb to understand the difference between constitutional language and common usage of various terms.

I would be interested in what that type of regulation would look like.

[sirs]

Technically it's being used to push a political portrait....that of its Republicans running congress, and congress is seen with highely negative poll #'s, vs simply along the lines of referencing Senator McCain as a Senator.  And you KNOW THAT

and its a good thing I'm not advocating anything remotely along the lines in the regulation of speech.  One wonders why you would bring that up as well

[Plane]

   Totally bias free reporting doesn't seem likely.

     I suggest reading from a reporter who understands the liberal position , then read a report from a reporter who understands the conservative position.

    Of course all reporters seem to think that they understand everything , but this is evidently not so.

     Since the public seems quite evidently evenly divided by left vs right and but the press is 75% or more left, the situation is one of an overserved population and an underserved population.


     Over at NBC they can't buy a clue , why does Fox do such a much better business?
     

[BT]

Technically it's being used to push a political portrait....that of its Republicans running congress, and congress is seen with highely negative poll #'s, vs simply along the lines of referencing Senator McCain as a Senator.  And you KNOW THAT

and its a good thing I'm not advocating anything remotely along the lines in the regulation of speech.  One wonders why you would bring that up as well

Technically the GOP does run the House of Representatives and they have an increased voice in the Senate. All Obama is doing is saying don't blame me. Look what i have to work with. And he may have a point what with extra constitutional supercommittees to hammer out budget cuts and revenue improvements.

It's politics, what do you expect?

So do you have any suggestions to improve the accuracy of reporting or are you satisfied with just complaining?