http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/02/01/MNGM8NSSD91.DTL
After arriving at work and hearing the buzz about the scandal of Newsom. (who he and alex are both friends of the magazine, Newsom I have met twice, Alex and his wife a few times). I wasn't so shocked per say..but it is sad it involved a close friend of his and that he (alex) stepped down.)
I feel that this is a great show of how the media can be a watchdog of our society. Journalism at its best.
When I got home I watched Kron4, and they were interviewing people on the street at how they felt about this. If their feelings towards Newsom had changed or how they viewed the situation. There were several people interviewed. All said that, this was private and didn't change their opinion of how Newsom handles himself in office. Only one girl said it changed her personal opinion of Newsom himself but doesn't feel it changes how he is as a Mayor. A couple men said they'd rather focus on the city and helping the city. One older woman stated that he was a lot better than Feinstien who 'beautified herself instead of the city'.
A question I have is, is it ethical for a TV station to put several q and a's from the street, all of which who had the same opinion? (that it didn't change their opinion of him as mayor, that he shouldn't step down etc etc). Besides being a watchdog, the media also has a duty to provide fair and balanced information. yes if everyone feels that way then thats the way to report, but I have a hard time thinking thats everyones opinion) I guess this is hard to decide without all the facts. Perhaps no one felt that this was a disgrace or that he should step down or not run for re-election.
I switched to another station and found James Carville, and a Republican advisor (whose name I forget) give their opinions on the matter. They both don't think it will end his career, but James Carville thinks he wouldn't be able to run for a national office anytime soon and the Republican advisor felt that he could never run for national office.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out in the media and what happens within our city hall. And to see if all information or opinions will be one sided or if the next time I turn on the channel there will be interviews where they are differences of opinion and everyone is represented. (Is kron4 known to be a gavin supporter? or be more liberal than conservative? dare I say democratic than republican?)
4 comments:
Excellent post. I'm flying so one quick comment. You touch on the selection of man/on/the/street interviews for TV. Such interviews don't represent a valid sample of public opinion, though they certainly give a taste of public opinion. If I were doing such interviews, I'd probably spend whatever time deadline allowed -- if I'm working live, oboy -- and hope I can get some video that at least illustrates different opinions, figuring the viewers are smart enough to understand the limitations inherent in the process. But sometimes you use interviews simply because the person interviewed presented him/herself well and was articulate. A great situation to illustrate how the "structure" of a particular medium shapes content.
Really interesting post, and I have wondered the same thing lately, as well. I definitely see your point and how it's odd (for lack of a better word) that everyone would have the same opinion on the matter. Then, is it ethical to make it appear so one-sided? I suppose that depends on whether or not you really believe the news station edited the comments and only aired the ones that agreed in still respecting Newsom's political position. Maybe it's a little bit of both. We do live in "the bubble of San Francisco," and I could see how the majority of people wouldn't criticize his politics based on his private decisions, but it does make one question the news station's doing as a whole.
Everyone is talking about this. This is actually going to be the subject of the Foghorn's next staff ed. i agree with professor robertson that street talks/interviews never really give that great of a representation because you never know what you're going to get. however, im not that surprised that people aren't in a complete uproar demanding his resignation like some were with the clinton scandal. i think a lot of people took it a lot easier because it didn't come out chaotic. alex resigned with positive statements with a sense of privacy that most would respect. and then the mayor was honest about it right away never trying to deny the affair. also here in sf, i think ppl are more tolerant of stuff like that. one person i heard talking on the radio said 'it makes him more human.' strange, but bc not a lot of time or emotion was spent dragging this scandal and ppl want to keep a sense of privacy and move forward with the city, sf is seeming to be more accepting of his mistake.
Katrina made me think: Polls etc. would seem to have validated the early person on street stuff. Most Sf voters are ready to cut GN much slack and reelect him. One thing journalists sometimes to is grab a few opinions from sources, hang them out there as if they are representative -- and get it right.
Post a Comment