June 09, 2006
Bias Most Foul (UPDATED)
Conservatives have long known that the so-called mainstream media have a liberal bias that has only recently been offset somewhat by the rise of talk radio and rightwing blogs.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Apparently, talking points were distributed in the past year or so instructing liberals to argue that, in fact, the MSM is completely objective, or that, if bias is present, it doesn't tilt to either left or right in the aggregate. It's all reminiscent of the Left's love affair with the monster Stalin, denying his true nature even as his score of murdered peasants surpassed even Hitler's grisly record of innocent victims. Well, for you folks on the Left who see the American Press as the epitome of evenhandedness, you've got some 'splainin' to do. If perceptions of media bias are false, then it should be no challenge at all for the lefties to find their own examples of right-leaning bias. Specifically, find examples of equal or greater prominence that offset the following blatant examples of leftwing bias:
Dan Rather
Eason Jordan
Mark Halperin
Linda Foley
Statistically speaking, three examples indicate a trend; let's add a couple more. Where are the right-biased incidents that offset these:
Calling Florida for Gore in 2000 before the polls in the heavily Republican panhandle were closed.
Eight months of nightly Katrina coverage on NBC.
The MSM embargo on video from the al Qaeda terror attacks on September 11, 2001.
Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.
UPDATE: The purpose of this post was not only to point out the sorry state of what passes today for journalism, but to expose the dishonesty and disingenuousness of the Left. The "question" posed was a trick question. There are no "examples of equal or greater prominence" for the ones listed. One might as well demand the name of the American leader who was the equal of Hitler for villainy (and, of course, the Left's lunatic fringe would shout, "George Bush!").
I'm delighted to see that at least one commenter failed to see this Fool's Mate, and embarrassed himself with minor and imagined examples of Righty journalistic perfidy, only to be contradicted by one of his comrades who ascribed the gross liberal bias of the mainstream American Press to the free market. Actually, the free market explains the rise of talk radio, Fox News (which comes closer to unbiased reporting than any other network outlet), and the right side of the blogosphere. As did Mel Gibson in Hollywood, these people found a ready market. The free market also explains the precipitous drop in network news viewership and the dire straits many major daily newspapers find themselves in today.
This same commenter claims that American journalism has always mixed commentary with reporting. Not so. The real decline in American journalism began with the acceptance and codification of "interpretive reporting" in the sixties, devolved further into "advocacy journalism", and, one hopes, has reached its nadir in "agenda journalism".
The state of journalism today is not necessarily the result of intentionally evil motives or hard conspiracy. It's the outcome of editors, themselves liberals, choosing to hire reporters who also self-identify as liberal. When accused of bias, journalists tend to circle the wagons and deny the obvious, rather than taking positive steps to correct the problem. Ernie Pyle's unabashed patriotism (and recognition that true journalism was protected by the US Constitution) is out of style, but journalists can't bring themselves to admit that Edward R. Murrow, who is revered, was more a politican than a journalist, and abandoned objectivity in his war with McCarthy.
The solution is what is actually happening now. The market demands a counter to the obvious, yet unacknowledged, liberal bias of the traditional media. They are getting it, and people are making money by fulfilling that need.
It's just nice, now and then, to rub the Left's noses in their own disingenuity when they claim that ABC, NBC, and CBS are unbiased.
Posted by: Bluto at
05:19 PM
| Comments (70)
| Add Comment
Post contains 659 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Michael Hampton at June 09, 2006 05:29 PM (FVbj6)
2
Umm... dude, Stossel's a libertarian, not a conservative.
Posted by: Evil Otto at June 09, 2006 05:37 PM (fcCt3)
3
This is a fantastic website that exposes the MSM slant on a daily basis. It's quite hilarious. But also unnerving. If really exposes just how far the MSM will go to carry the Democrats water for them. The Dems have at least a built-in 10-15 point handicap in any election because of it.
http://newsbusters.org/
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 05:47 PM (8e/V4)
4
OK, I'll bite (btw, I'm only accepting argu endo that all the names you listed are liberal biased. A single incident cannot indicate a worldview, unless it is so egregious as to color an entire career.)
Bill O'Reilly (surely no argument there)
Stossel counts--although I agree he is libertarian conservative.
John Gibson
Lou Dobbs (on immigration, at least--extraordinarily biased towards conservatism)
As for incidents:
Initially, the media twisted Bush v. Gore as a 7-2 decision, when the actual decision was 5-4. It was very important to Republican hopes for legitimacy that it be spun as two Dem/liberal justices voted for bush, as opposed to the narrow 5-4 ruling it actually was.
The misquote of Gore on Love Canal. He NEVER said I was the one who started it all. NEVER. One reporter heard it wrong. But it took the media three weeks to tell the truth. By then, it had damaged his campaign terribly. Ceci Connally has much to answer for.
Also on Gore: he never said he invented the internet. NEVER said it. He said, accurately, that he played a critical role in funding its later development. The Repubs issued a press release, and the media swallowed it hook line and sinker. The truth never really made it out.
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:10 PM (DQYHA)
5
Also--in Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky points out that the media treated the death of a Polish priest by the Jaruselski government as a MUCH MUCH bigger news story than the kidnapping, rape, maiming, and murder of FOUR AMERICAN NUNS by death squads linked to the Salvadoran government. They happened about the same time, but one could read the NYTimes and get 10 times the coverage of the priest. Why? Chomsky says the media has a conservative bias.
He makes the same argument about the Indonesian killings in East Timor, the hundreds of thousands of peasants and Indians killed by the Guatemalan government, compared to the Pol Pot killings in Cambodia. While Pot killed a slightly higher percentage of the population of his country, the media coverage was ten times as great as the other two killings by US allies. Why? Conservative bias.
Finally, there is documented evidence that many tv networks had consultants in 2002-3 who advised them not to cover the anti-war movement intensively, at the risk of losing viewers. This isn't quite a conservative bias, since they were only doing it for market share, not conservative bias directly, but it had a lot of the same effects.
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:17 PM (DQYHA)
6
JD: when applied to you, the adjective "dull" is a triple entendre...
Posted by: Darth Vag at June 09, 2006 08:28 PM (+nlyI)
7
Yeah, them poor old conservatives ... all they got is the White House, Congress, 2/3 of the state houses and legislatures, all of Fox News, National Review, the neo-cons, several dozen think tanks, NewsMax, Rush Limbaugh, Cal Thomas, Hitchins, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarburough, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin,
How the hell can they ever hope to get their word out?
Posted by: glenn at June 09, 2006 08:39 PM (oxMjD)
8
Darth, I know that complex arguments are like kryptonite to you. My apologies. I will keep it simple and snappy for you in the future. Maybe I'll post twice--once for you, and once for everyone else.
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:45 PM (DQYHA)
9
Tell it like it is Bluto.
Glenn: We need out spoken heros to counteract the lies of the liberals.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 09, 2006 08:47 PM (4Ospb)
10
Yeah Bluto, tell it like you wish it were.
Rooster: You're funny. That's exactly what liberals say about Al Franken and Keith Olbermann.
Posted by: glenn at June 09, 2006 08:50 PM (oxMjD)
11
That's not the point, Glenn. All the examples you cited are avowedly biased and conservative except for Fox News. The MSM is so insidious because they claim to be objective but are not. They would receive more respect if they reported the exact same stories but admitted their bias.
JD, it's ironic that you put O'Reilly at the top of your "right-wing" list and then began an impassioned defense of Al Gore. Are you familiar with the incident in which Gore claimed that he had received a letter from a little girl who claimed that she didn't even have a desk in school because of over crowding? Many in the press did laugh at him, but guess who researched it and verified that Gore was telling the truth? If you guessed O'Reilly, you're right! Another point on O'Reilly: he supports gay adoption and favors more gun control. Hardly conservative positions.
Posted by: Thrill at June 09, 2006 09:06 PM (DYb4r)
12
O'Reilly isn't a journalist. He's -- if anything -- a commentator. He's SUPPOSED to offer opinions.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at June 09, 2006 09:08 PM (Gn9tM)
13
Where is that asshole Improbulus
Posted by: Garner at June 09, 2006 09:12 PM (Tf4se)
14
Thrill; True, and offered up to make the point that, far from being victims of media, conservative viewpoints have more than ample voices in their support.
But here's the larger issue. What is referred to as the "bias of the MSM" irefers largely on the fact that it brings stories to the surface that are not generally flattering to George Bush in particular and Republicans in general, correct?
Well, that's not a lack of objectivity; that is the job of the media. The powerful who have control over vast swaths of information-letting are held in check by a media that is SUPPOSED to be saying, "Uh, excuse me Mr. President, we think that statement is bullshit." You want a media that parrots the company line? Go pick up a 1960 copy of Pravda.
George can't get a break? Big deal. He's the President, for Christ sake. Without a media that calls government officials on the rug, there's no point in having one. Sorry they're bashing you're guy, but that makes their efforts no less sincere. The White House has a press office and spokespeople. That's not the media's job.
And if anybody comes out with this crap about the kid-glove treatment the Clinton's got from the media, I may scream. Because of 9/11, GW got a walk from the media the first three years of his Presidency like no other President has before or may ever get again. A WALK. Now the questions are finally being asked and it's such a shock to conservatives it apparently looks like bias.
Posted by: glenn at June 09, 2006 09:32 PM (oxMjD)
15
Free market, Bluto, people want to listen to what they like. If you don't like what the other citizens like to watch or listen to then change the channel. And of course if you don't like what they have to say then just censore them or ban them.
Posted by: john ryan at June 09, 2006 09:49 PM (TcoRJ)
16
>>>"NewsMax"
LOL! Newsmax. That's true. And that's exactly how we know the MSM is the voice of the Democrat party. Because of the folks at Newsmax. That's all we're saying. Why do you keep denying it? Just stop it already! Tell the truth! The MSM carries water for the Democrat party 24/7.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 09:51 PM (8e/V4)
17
Glenn, nothing you just said is correct.
The job of the media is to get the facts right. If they can't do that, they're not worth anything to anyone.
And, as it happens, they can't. No only are they blatantly biased, not only do they present their bias as fact, but they are actively incompetent.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 09, 2006 10:41 PM (O0soJ)
18
Off topic , but:liberals want to level the playing field. EVERYONE will be equal. Heck, no more losers=no more winners. Make sure everyone gets their fair share by taking from those who earned more. Power to the people!!! Workers of the world, unite!!! /sarc off
Posted by: REMF at June 10, 2006 03:16 AM (7RMSi)
19
Liberals are always yammering about tolerence all except when it comes to conservatives and patriotic god fearing americans
Posted by: sandpiper at June 10, 2006 07:36 AM (08Fdo)
20
Bluto associating the "Left" (whomever that actually means) with Stalin makes about as much sense as doing the same with the "Right" and their love affair with Hitler. Also somewhat bad timing considering the recent release of seclassified documents showing how the "Right" protected Nazi war criminals after WWII including ADOLF EICHMANN http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/132509 Here is a link to the AZ Star
Posted by: john ryan at June 10, 2006 07:39 AM (TcoRJ)
21
Oh yeah! The AZ Star as an authority on what the Right did wrong during WWII.
Posted by: Darth Vag at June 10, 2006 08:05 AM (+nlyI)
22
Pixy Misa: The job of the media -- any media -- is to do a helluva lot more than report facts. They gotta FOLLOW UP with interpretations of what those facts mean so the public has a context to place events in. Just walking around repeating things that happened today isn't journalism or media. That's stenography.
Use Zarquawis' death as an example.
We can all pretty much agree he was killed by two five hundred pound bombs and will have to be replaced in Al Quaida by a new thug. That is the fact and it was reported as such in every media outlet from Air America to Matt Drudge.
Now, what does that death mean? This is where the supposed "bias" comes in. Well, I've read where it's going to be the turning point in the war, that it means nothing in the grand scheme of things, that it exonerates Bush's execution of the war, that conservatives are using it as a diversion from their failures ... all from the same set of facts.
People who feel the MSM is biased just don't like the interpretations. And they want them to admit these "biases" as bloggers — including Bluto —gladly admit theirs.
The fact is industry-wide bias is a fallacy, reinforced by guys like Limbaugh who make a boatload of cash capitalizing on partisan frustration. Well, he too interprets and you happen to like his interpretations. Just don't walk around thinking you've found the "truth."
Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 08:10 AM (oxMjD)
23
Gore: Well, I certainly misspoke when I chose my words about the Internet.
What I said to [CNN's] Wolf Blitzer, "I took the lead in the Congress in
creating the Internet," was an awkward way of saying that. And I regret it,
because yes it did appear to exaggerate my role. But fundamentally it was an
effort to try to describe the leadership role that I did in fact take in
getting the funding and also in evangelizing the idea and using the metaphor
of an information superhighway to help congeal thought about what was
possible. It is not after all an unknown phenomenon for politicians to tell
the voters what they've done and, in the process, try to put the best face
on it.
Crap... I lost the url to this interview... I just recall it was in Time magazine.
Posted by: h0mi at June 10, 2006 08:20 AM (Ncvk6)
24
Glenn,
What motivates simple-minded partisan hacks like yourself to come to the comments section of MY PET JAWA on a Saturday morning and post long-winded and dry rants?
Why are you and the Markosites so obsessed with gang-raping America?
Posted by: Darth Vag at June 10, 2006 08:32 AM (+nlyI)
25
glenn,
90% of MSM journalists surveyed reported being Liberals. You're telling us to ignore what we can plainly see with our very own eyes in favor of your nonsensical diatribes about "Rush Limbaugh" and "Fox" news. Yes, Rush is partisan, but he admits it. And "Fox" is no more slanted right than all of the MSM is slanted left. But we just have "Fox" (and Newsmax!), while you have the rest of the MSM.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 08:51 AM (8e/V4)
26
I believe we have a breakthrough with Glenn here! Glenn, where does the MSM get off on presenting ANY INTERPRETATION???
They're supposed to be fair and impartial. They are supposed to JUST REPORT THE FACTS! Limbaugh is a commentator and Fox News hires commentators like O'Reilly, Fred Barnes, Juan Williams, and Alan Colmes. We expect interpretations from them because COMMENTATORS make COMMENTS. REPORTERS are supposed to REPORT. Yet nowadays, REPORTERS INTERPRET. I just think that the MSM should quit claiming to be impartial, that's all. It is insulting when they pretend to just be "reporting" when in fact they are deliberately trying to affect policy and voter attitudes with the perspective of their stories.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 09:16 AM (DYb4r)
27
(because of the size constraints I'll have to break this up)
It's not fair to equate some of the names submitted here as counterparts.
The difference is reporters vs. commentators. You can't equate Rush Limbaugh with Dan Rather. The jobs are clearly defined as reporting or commentating. One is expected to show bias, actually claiming it, the other not. Let one person here tell me that the majority of "reporters" aren't politically left leaning and that their reporting isn't affected by that and I'll say you're fooling yourself, but not the rest of us. Is there bias on the right? Why yes! But most of the bias on the right comes from "commentators" as clearly shown by many of the names submitted here.
Then Glenn throws Sean Hannity's name in there without mentioning that Alan Colmes is on the same TV show with him.
Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 10:19 AM (YudAC)
28
(Well, Thrill already said it for me.)
But to continue...
"If you don't like what the other citizens like to watch or listen to then change the channel." Well, duh. But does this mean if one doesn't "like what the other citizens like to watch" they should change the channel and remain silent?
"And of course if you don't like what they have to say then just censore them or ban them." Didn't you just imply that simply changing the channel was the appropriate measure? No one, I repeat, no one has suggested censoring or banning anyone. On the flip side would it be fair for me to say, "Of course if you don't like those who claim there is bias then just censore them or ban them." ? Certainly not. That would be just as ridiculous. This is a debate; not an attempt to censor anyone.
Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 10:21 AM (YudAC)
29
Actually, it has always been, since the dawn of journalism, the job of journalists to not only report the facts, but to place them into a larger context. Imagine a news account of Sept 1st, 1939. Germany invades Poland. What does this mean for the US? For France, for Britain? What might it mean for Poland's Jews? How does it reflect the impact of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Treaty? What will Stalin do next?
Speculative, yes. But clearly within the ambit of journalism. When Lippmann wrote his seminal text about journalism, he called for this as a core function of journalists. If all they do is report "Germany invaded Poland..." they are failing to do their duty.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 10:22 AM (DQYHA)
30
JC: What poll is this? What journalists were polled? Who sponsored the poll? What was the methodology? As far as "what you've got" in the way of media, see my first post. You're no victim.
Thrill: I don't know where you get your understanding of reporting, but hard news is and always has been BASED upon analysis of facts, and stories based upon that analysis.
You think news is supposed to be bland presentations of the obvious by coiffed talking heads, and only then turned over to "commentators" who get to say whatever they want about it, ala Fox News (though Fox "reporters" like Rita Cosby were egregious in handing out their opinions in the course of the build up to Iraq). C'mon.
Classical reporters have always dug for the story and presented the facts they've assembled in the form of stories--interpretations if you will-- approved by editors. If public opinions are changed by the results, as they were in Korea, Vietnam and Watergate, maybe its because they got the broader understanding they needed to change them. Thank God for reporters who have the brains to analyze.
You think right media--itself made up largely of commentators who according to you aren't bound by the same obligations as reporters -- present the facts? You may by fooling yourself.
Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 10:40 AM (oxMjD)
31
The problem with JD is he thinks his own countrymen are too stupid to know the significance of news events unless some liberal reporter is there "to place them into a larger context."
This is quintessential liberal arrogance, and also, the reason for the downfall of the main-stream-media. Sorry Dumbass, but Americans are not as stupid as you imply.
Posted by: Darth Vag at June 10, 2006 10:47 AM (+nlyI)
32
jd, yes a certain amount of speculation and broader context is expected. There's a fine line between speculation and opinion.
About your earlier comment:
That advise "not to cover the anti-war movement intensively" was ignored by news outlets and they went apes**t over the anti-war people. That's a loose interpretation of this advice as "conservatism". While they were given "conservative" advice to help with the market share and ratings, their ratings consequently tanked by ignoring it. Even though, in Sheehan's instance, they tried very hard to selectively quote her pretending she didn't make some pretty wild statements. The way I see it is why is it considered conservatism to advise anyone that the majority of Americans, even those against the war, may not take kindly to being equated with the fringe whack-jobs like Code Pink, Sheehan, etc? Do you really think the advice came as simply as you state it without the "broader context"? Regardless of what one may think, too many people against this war don't like the coverage they get for their cause being represented by these kooks. If they wanted to cover it intensively they should have just stuck with the people with better credentials and credibility. It would certainly have made for a better argument to have only sane people on both sides of it. IMHO there is not a bit of conservatism in that advice. It was advise not to sensationalize.
Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 10:51 AM (YudAC)
33
Advice/advise. Who cares? ;-) Even Microsoft Word didn't care.
Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 10:56 AM (YudAC)
34
Actually, this was before Sheehan existed as a media figure (because her son was still alive). This was advice given in the lead in to the war. The reason that some in the anti-war movement feel that the coverage has been less than it should be is that compared to a similar point in the anti-Vietnam war movement, the numbers are STAGGERING. It took us years to have a real anti-war movement against vietnam, but this one was ready before the war began. The largest demonstrations in world history preceded the war (if you added everyone around the world). The coverage here was Pfft.
Now, since then, as a majority of the populace in this country turned strongly against the war, the coverage has picked up. But it still isn't comparable to the coverage the anti-war movement got in the late 60s. I don't know why that is.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 10:59 AM (DQYHA)
35
You know how to argue Glenn, but you don't know how to make a point. You're just arguing for the sake of it now. I'll try to educate you.
You are reduced to arguing semantics. ANYTIME reporters start offering their own OPINIONS or expectations or hopes to a news story, they have moved away from "reporting" and are now "editorializing". Yes, "reporting" a story would be just stating the facts as they occurred and nothing else. What's worse are the editors. They decide what stories get run and how to characterize them. Isn't it interesting that the attitude of the press is that Iraq is a quagmire and troops are dying and dying but it's going on? All the coverage is through that perspective because that's the story the editors want. They think it sells. Imagine if the press was the opposite and actually wanted the US to win the war. Instead of reporting on each soldier who died, maybe you'd hear something like this: "Yesterday, an Army NCO received a silver star for gallant actions against an enemy ambush...". If they were impartial, they would do both.
The MSM is against the Iraq War, has been since the start, and the evidence is the coverage. They are trying to portray it as unwinnable so that we will pull out and a Republican administration will be harmed. Anyone who says otherwise is in the worst kind of denial.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 11:01 AM (DYb4r)
36
"The problem with JD is he thinks his own countrymen are too stupid to know the significance of news events unless some liberal reporter is there 'to place them into a larger context.'
"This is quintessential liberal arrogance, and also, the reason for the downfall of the main-stream-media. Sorry Dumbass, but Americans are not as stupid as you imply."
DARTH, THIS IS HILARIOUS AND TRUE!
Posted by: Cletus Hogg at June 10, 2006 11:09 AM (+nlyI)
37
For someone hoping to educate, your lesson is a meandering one.
Yes, I've heard the "guilt by omission" arguments a hundred times as proof of bias. And no, I cannot answer for the decisions of editors at every newspaper. However, I googled "Silver Star Iraq" and came up with 6,670,000 results, including articles on winners from the Boston Herald, the Arizona Republic, the Washington Post and several TV news stations.
MSM enough for you?
(Sigh) my original point was simple: people who don't want professional reporters to contextualize events either don't understand the purpose of the media or plain don't like the facts they see.
I graduated with a double-major in journalism and political science. Though my career path took me to the corporate communications side, I had great respect for a professor who had also worked for the Chicago Trib and several other papers large and small. He said, "News is what people don't want you to know. The rest is PR."
(I'm trying to imagine an Ernie Pyle or an Edward R. Murrow "reporting" in the fashion you think appropriate. They'd be as forgotten as the anchor who left our local news station.)
Whether you agree or not, every example you pointed out can
Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 11:52 AM (oxMjD)
38
glenn,
the fact that MSM journos are OVERWHELMINGLY Liberals is common knowledge to conservatives. Begin your education here, and then do your own research. It's all over the web:
"A survey of his colleagues by a White House correspondent has confirmed that the Freedom Forum poll, showing 89 percent of Washington reporters voted for Clinton and 50 percent identify themselves as Democrats, but just four percent as Republicans, matches how they've voted since 1976."
http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/mediawatch/1996/mw19960601p8.html
"In 1995, Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report, polled 28 of his fellow White House correspondents from the four TV networks, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Copley, Cox, Hearst, Knight-Ridder, plus Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report, about their presidential voting patterns for his 1996 book "Feeding the Beast: The White House versus the Press." As reported in the MRC's June 1996 MediaWatch, Walsh counted 50 votes by White House correspondents for the Democratic entry compared to just seven for the Republican."
http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/MediaBiasBasics.html#HOW%20THE%20MEDIA%20VOTE
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 11:54 AM (8e/V4)
39
Glenn exemplifies the arrogance and cluelessness of journalists who self-identify as "objective"...
Posted by: Cletus Hogg at June 10, 2006 11:59 AM (+nlyI)
40
So..........you're a liberal guy and a journalist? Oh, THAT Liberal Media! That's precious that we have a card carrying leftwing would-be reporter instructing us that the biased MSM is a myth.
Since we're discussing resumes here, I'm a private investigator, Glenn. My reports consist ONLY of the facts. I do not "interpret" or "contextualize" or offer my opinions because it would not be objective of me to do so. I would rightly lose my job if I only reported those events and statements that aided a favorable outcome to my cases while willfully ignoring or downplaying things that did not. This is what the MSM does, Glenn. They are portraying the Iraq War as Vietnam because they favor American defeat. Yes, when a soldier dies, it's a fact. Broadcasting that death is reporting it. It's when they try to use that soldier's death and keeping a running tally to somehow show that the war is wrong that they cross a line. Facts can be manipulated, and the MSM absolutely does for the benefit of the Democrats and (probably unwittingly) for our enemies. They have lost credibility and so the New Media has risen. Deal with it.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 12:05 PM (DYb4r)
41
Glenn and JD are intellectually dishonest.
Posted by: Cletus Hogg at June 10, 2006 12:09 PM (+nlyI)
42
>>>>I graduated with a double-major in journalism and political science.
lol! case close.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 12:09 PM (8e/V4)
43
>>>Glenn and JD are intellectually dishonest.
Nah, jd is honest, but you gotta work hard for it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 12:12 PM (8e/V4)
44
JC: I'll take a look.
Thrill: >>>>My reports consist ONLY of the facts. I do not "interpret" or "contextualize" or offer my opinions because it would not be objective of me to do so.
And that would make sense for a private investigator as you're job is that of a vendor, no insult intended. Journalism requires a different standard.
Thrill, all I can tell you is keep looking to find the reporting that tell you what you need to hear. You'll learn little new. Your pre-conceived notions will be validated. Your fears of the MSM bogeyman will be confirmed. But what the hell do I care, that's your problem.
Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 12:15 PM (oxMjD)
45
Yes, journalists have a "different standard". And it is a lower standard that they adopted for themselves. Journalists swapped integrity and objectivity for political partisanship.
The problem with your perspective that journalists should contextualize and interpret events is that you make the (surprisingly) foolish assumption that all journalists are fair minded, impartial, and disinterested all the time when we have seen that they are not. Your hero, Dan Rather comes to mind.
This is my problem? I don't think so Boo-Boo. MSM newspaper subscriptions are falling and viewership of MSM news shows is worse every year. This is THEIR problem, not mine and they brought it on their own heads by abandoning objectivity.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 12:26 PM (DYb4r)
46
Actually, cletus, while I may be a dumbass (does it make you feel better to include an epithet in your argument? It makes your case look weaker), I certainly don't think the American people are dumb. By contrast, you seem to think that if the media includes contextual reporting, that they will bedazzle and fool the people. Which of us thinks the people are stupid, again? Not I. I think that when journalists put facts in the wrong context (say, for example, the media that blithely accepted the case for war in 2002-3), many people are smart enough to reject that contextual reporting.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 12:51 PM (DQYHA)
47
Sure as human beings, journalists are just as likely to have personal biases and political leanings as those in any other profession. You and JC say they're all lefties. JC's even got research. OK, they're all lefties.
You, however, are the type that equates a leftward/liberal leaning with an industry-wide loss of objectivity and the inability to report because of that. You don't point to any particular facts, but you make the claims. OK.
At the same time, you're more than willing to give the right-wing press a pass because as so many on this blog like to state, right-wing commentators put their political leanings and their own personal biases on display. There's is an honest kind of bias, which is supposed to be some sort of defense I guess!
So how is it again we get the objective story from the right?
Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 12:53 PM (oxMjD)
48
No Glenn, I do not think that liberal journalists shouldn't be allowed to report, it's just that I think that if they wish to "report" in a manner that allows them to "contextualize" and "interpret" according to their own worldview, they shouldn't pretend to be objective. Yes, The Jawa Report, the Rush Limbaugh Show, the O'Reilly Factor, and Sean Hannity are all subjective. They wish to influence events, opinions, and political outcomes and they apply available facts to support their conclusions. The only difference between them and the NY Times, WaPo, or CBS News is that they don't pretend to be anything else.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 01:00 PM (DYb4r)
49
So then a complete lack of objectivity is OK, as long as you strike your colors?
Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 01:09 PM (oxMjD)
50
No, you can't have a TOTAL lack of objectivity or else you would lose your audience even faster than the MSM is now. Bill O'Reilly is actually my ideal of what a journalist should be. He identifies his viewpoint (traditionalist), acknowledges that his intention is to usher in a populist and reformist movement, debates issues, is willing to change his mind when he is shown to be wrong, asks good questions, researches events in person, and acts in the best interests of the community. He does consider himself to be fair and objective although many on the Left (you and yours) do not.
I'm just sick of arrogant and egotistical journalists trying to tell me what to think while condescendingly telling me that they're not.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 01:20 PM (DYb4r)
51
Sure, when O'Reilly's not telling people to shut up and pimping his books and radio programs, he makes some interesting cases.
Well evidently a lack of objectivity doesnt' lose you an audience faster than the MSM as Rush can attest.
But I always find it telling that people like yourself who harp on the MSM for their lack of objectivity (see Bluto's original challenge) are in reality harping on them for masking their subjectivity.
So from all you've said, you don't want objectivity at all; you want revealed subjectivity. And that's not journalism. Journalism involves finding out things you want to know as well as those you don't. You're not supposed to be a customer getting what you've asked for, you're supposed to be a participant getting what you may need.
Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 01:42 PM (oxMjD)
52
Glenn, what I'm trying to say is that it all comes down to one word: credibility.
Dan Rather lost his credibility and resigned shortly afterward because it appeared that CBS News attempted to sway a presidential election based on manufactured evidence. The entire MSM has a credibility problem because they have never come to terms with their own subjectivity. They only pretend that it doesn't exist and that's a mistake. The New Media DOES have credibility with a sizeable portion of the American public. As a liberal, you will no doubt claim that it's because "they're dumb" but you'd be wrong as usual. The credibility comes from shared values and an agreement that the objective is worth attaining. We trust the New Media because they speak for us, not down to us. I would like to say that it's been an honor to argue with you on this issue, Glenn, as you have such a distinguished background in the subject.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 01:57 PM (DYb4r)
53
As to your point about being a "customer", I'm afraid it's unavoidable. Journalism is a business. Newspapers and news programs are in business to make a profit. Part of the reason they give their analysis is because just reporting dry facts is boring.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 02:25 PM (DYb4r)
54
>>>>> The entire MSM has a credibility problem because they have never come to terms with their own subjectivity.
Then you have nothing to worry about Thrill... they will either come around and declare their existing bias, at which point they will be welcomed as the subjective shill that New Media already is or they will finally be "outed" as liars, become irrelevant and fold.
Either way, no more objective journalism will be found. Now there's a great thought.
Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 02:42 PM (oxMjD)
55
As if there ever was any. It is and always has been about profit and politics. You could lament that, Glenn, or you could be happy that Americans are now aware of it and thinking for themselves about the information they receive. The fact is that people do go to a variety of news outlets when they want to stay informed and they believe what they will based on their own knowledge and experience. I don't have a problem with that. An elitist bunch of journalists telling us how we should feel about the issues of the day that are judged for importance and chosen by these despotic editors with no discussion or disagreement has never sat right with me or any of the conservatives here.
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 02:51 PM (DYb4r)
56
I like Bluto's update. He admits he asked a question that he had no intention of being persuaded about. He has already decided the media is biased, always. Conclusions first, discussion second. Open minded hero to us all.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 03:53 PM (DQYHA)
57
And what's wrong with that? Aren't there certain opinions you won't be persuaded to change? Incidentally, this could be construed to mean that one who is open to be persuaded on anything or everything is one who is perpetually on the fence. If Bluto hasn't changed his mind it's because no one has given him a compelling enough argument. No one here has persuaded me to change my mind about our contemporary media. An argument about some conservative bias 20 years ago set against a background of what we see today is hardly inspiring.
He invited others to try and persuade him. You didn't win the argument so that means Bluto had no intention of being persuaded?
Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 05:21 PM (YudAC)
58
"Actually, this was before Sheehan existed as a media figure (because her son was still alive). This was advice given in the lead in to the war." Why should that make a difference? The media is pretty predictable in it's coverage. I think it's more telling that this advice was necessary.
"The reason that some in the anti-war movement feel that the coverage has been less than it should be is that compared to a similar point in the anti-Vietnam war movement, the numbers are STAGGERING." What numbers? You're unclear.
"It took us years to have a real anti-war movement against vietnam, but this one was ready before the war began. The largest demonstrations in world history preceded the war (if you added everyone around the world). The coverage here was Pfft." I'll answer this further in the next paragraph, but your choice of words is curious.
"Now, since then, as a majority of the populace in this country turned strongly against the war, the coverage has picked up. But it still isn't comparable to the coverage the anti-war movement got in the late 60s. I don't know why that is." It's a matter of perception. Could it be that in the late sixties and early seventies we were relegated to speaking to each other in person, or that in the late sixties and early seventies our "letters to the editor" were more easily monitored? Also...no Internet. But it's not just that ...
Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 05:37 PM (YudAC)
59
And what's wrong with that? Aren't there certain opinions you won't be persuaded to change?
Not jd. lol! God love him.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 06:23 PM (8e/V4)
60
I think everyone holds views of varying strengths. Some things I am on the fence on. Some things it would take a lot of evidence to convince me I was wrong on. What is wrong with what Bluto said is that he said: name three people as conservative as these three. Give incidents comparable to these. And then says--trick question--there were NONE possible.
It's not that big a deal. I've found from earlier discussions with Bluto that he believes a lot of very illogical things, and is absolutely unable to admit the smallest error.
Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 09:04 PM (DQYHA)
61
"Statistically speaking, three examples indicate a trend;"
Two points make a line though.
Posted by: actus at June 11, 2006 12:01 AM (nnhSu)
62
My 2 cents - how about something we can all agree on ...
The MSM is incompetent, inept, shallow, self-grandizing, poorly researched ... I could go one without even touching "biased".
Posted by: hondo at June 11, 2006 06:54 AM (MVgHp)
63
Nice to see you back actus.
Posted by: hondo at June 11, 2006 06:55 AM (MVgHp)
64
Anyone who thinks Bluto is right about "three examples" having any statistical substance at all needs to take a basic stats course. Three examples has no statistical significance whatsoever, absent any further analysis. For example: I can find you three fundamentalist Christians who voted for Kerry. That would indicate what, statistically? Nada.
In previous dialogues with the dread pundit, he has shown himself to be utterly at sea about statistics and polling. It's a record he has kept unblemished. More than three examples,let's say.
Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 07:22 AM (DQYHA)
65
"Three examples has no statistical significance whatsoever, absent any further analysis."
No dude. He said 'statistically speaking' That means its more than if he wasn't statistically speaking. You're wrong, because he was 'statistically speaking.'
Posted by: actus at June 11, 2006 02:56 PM (CqheE)
66
Huh? I don't understand you at all. If I say, "legally speaking, OJ faces no further criminal penalty." I'm clearly making a legal comment, about the nature of the law. "Sexually speaking, Roseanne Barr is repulsive." how do you read the clause "adverb speak-gerund"? It is traditional to think that someone is making a comment about that field of knowledge. Bluto's comment had no relevance in statistics, statistically speaking.
Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 07:32 PM (DQYHA)
67
"Bluto's comment had no relevance in statistics, statistically speaking."
I know. He's full of shit.
Posted by: actus at June 11, 2006 07:55 PM (nnhSu)
68
Don't you guys get it ... the Blutos of the world are the New Media: they don't have to be objective because they freely admit they're biased. The MSM however has to be objective, but that objectivity will always be measured by these guys' highly subjective standards. Heads I win, tails you lose.
And of course if all else fails, use insulting epithets.
Posted by: glenn at June 12, 2006 12:21 PM (UHKaK)
69
Yup, 100% Glenn. It's like what a former RNC head finally admitted--that crying media bias was like criticizing the refs in NCAA basketball. Even if you believe the foul on your guy was legit, you still howl, in the hope that they'll second guess their treatment the next minute.
And then, if the media does print something negative about a liberal, you say EVEN the liberal MSM thinks this is bad...if they print something good about a liberal, you can say, typical liberal media crap. It's perfect.
Posted by: jd at June 12, 2006 05:00 PM (aqTJB)
70
This isn't lost on them ...
Posted by: Glenn at June 12, 2006 06:29 PM (oxMjD)
68kb generated in CPU 0.5883, elapsed 7.809 seconds.
119 queries taking 7.791 seconds, 319 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 7.791 seconds, 319 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
