Unbiased news opportunity in wake of Dobbs ouster at CNN.

I am not sure how you take your news, but I like mine without open pandering. I like the Lehrer New’s hour, Market Watch, Market to Market, Nightline, and NBC’s evening news. Of all of those, you could argue that NBC is fluffing Obama’s bed pillows with the whole, “following POTUS around the White House and his trip to ‘5 Guys’ makes for awesome television” thing, but I think Nightline, as well as the others, present skewed-but-generally-unbiased news pieces about various things.

The only thing I like about CBS news is that it owns a unique and generally accessible time slot, immediately following NBC’s world news, but because there is undeniably, a bias to the left that is garnered by Katie Couric, I refuse to give her my business. For that, like Wal-Mart, drives me to extremes to NOT watch that show.

My wife got me into documentaries. I think her view is that a good documentary tells a story without a moral or really an ending. Think the mouse and the elephant from the Aesop fable – maybe it’s just a story about a freakish mouse pulling a thorn out of an elephant’s foot, and not a “do unto others” allegory.

I recently watched, “Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices.” Maybe it’s because I am skewed to an anti-WallyWorld place, but I liked the Doc, and I can honestly say it was definitely not impartial. “Man on Wire,” a doc about the tightrope artist who cabled and transversed the twin towers in NYC was a story done in a documentary format (or maybe it was just a theatrical compilation of photos and super8 film told in a riveting way). I think “The Office,” however scripted and portrayed, could be considered an unbiased look at office workers, if one ignores the fact that it is all staged; I don’t feel as thought I am torn to chose who is evil or good, right vs. wrong, but rather presented eccentric personalities in an familiar setting. Maybe a mocumentary works because it is generally unbiased, and, in when judged against my wife’s narrow view, is the truer of the documentaries.

What if the news only presented the story, facts, back-story, and characters, and did not have moral conundrums or a viable endgame?

I like the Weather-Channel-Model for news because it is exactly what the news should be – an impartial look at the happenings of the world. You’re not going to talk smack at the water cooler about a tornado’s politics (they hate poor people in trailers) vs. a Hurricanes (poor people on the coasts), and expect to be credible. You can say what has happened, what, is most likely going to happen in the future, and a statement on its current state.

Hell, even an expanded portrayal of Headline News, showing highlights of politics, anguish, and world events a la the impartiality of a sports game highlight.

All in all, I suppose you could say that there is no real impartiality. If a Jewish man made a documentary about World War II, I would think it would be near impossible to be fair and impartial, much less edit and direct a film that displays that impartiality. I think a similar situation happens in news rooms: reporter gets an idea, presents it to the editor, editor review, reporter tells story (most likely skewed to appeal to a large audience), editor reviews, edits and further skews the report, and finally report is presented, possibly independent of context, but sandwiched by context that further skews the story. In most news programs, the on-air personality is frequently in charge of content, a la the late great Jennings, the tilt-a-whirl Couric, Brian Williams, and probably John Stewart. These people are reporters, not just spoon-fed talking heads.

At the end of the day, I would like to think of my self as strongly opinionated, but open to the idea that I am wrong. Thus, I hope the reason you read my posts is because you like my writing quality, content, and can kind of relate to my sensibilities and not because either buy into my politics or because you hate what I say so much you are waiting to mess up so you can disparage me to your friends...