Monday, August 30, 2004

Fair & Balanced VS. Liberal & Biased

The moniker ‘Fair and Balanced’ has been much debated by the detractors of the Fox News Channel. As I explained in a very early post, I was always a CNN girl –until some MAJOR faux-pas forced my resignation from the ‘News that American Trusts’. I switched to FNC about a year ago and haven’t looked back. Do I believe that it deserves to use ‘Fair and Balanced’? Absolutely.


The American people have had news that leans to the left for so long that a channel that actually presents both sides is deemed to be ‘right’. What prompted me to write about this came in the form of a glaring example that illustrates that very point. I saw John Glenn on three different networks –one major, one cable and Fox. He had the same talking points on each and was saying that Ginsburg leaving the Bush campaign was proof to the American people that the Bush Administration was behind the SBVFT ads (this is accusing them of a crime BTW), and that since Bush’s lawyer was counseling the vets it proves coordination. CNN and the major network ended the report there. Full stop. The average American who is not following this controversy would, understandably, be rattled…wow, I guess it does prove that Bush put these guys up to it! Why would they think any different –that is all that was presented to them…the reporter did a disservice to the folks. BUT Fox continued the story by pointing out that 3 or more of the Kerry campaign lawyers are advising various ‘Bush Bashing’ 527 groups along with prominent members of the party sitting on the boards of these groups. That is not right-leaning. That is doing your job and reporting the WHOLE story –not skewing it to your advantage. It is a journalist/reporter’s job to report ALL the facts to their audience...it’s what they’re paid to do.

A new Zogby poll listed the statistics (or profile) of the ‘undecided voter’. This voter gets his (% of men is significantly higher) news from Fox News more than any other channel (40% of the undecideds -as opposed to 13% CNN and even less for the other channels). If Fox was the whore for the GOP that it is proclaimed to be --why the undecided voters? If Fox presents such a rosy view of this administration –why the undecided voters? Both Geraldo and Bill O’Reilly have dismissed the SBVFT with a broad stroke. Sheppard Smith could hardly be considered ‘right-wing’. Hannity & Bones is the same as Crossfire –two different views presented. I have never seen a report on Fox where they present one side without the other (Unless of course the other chooses not to come… “We asked the Kerry campaign if they wanted to be here tonight, but they declined”.

Anchors are supposed to be non-biased and non-partisan…

Tom Brokaw was being considered as a VP for Kerry

Christiane Amanpour’s husband is a KERRY ADVISOR!

Dan Rather has made his views of the President clear in no uncertain terms

…and if you saw Chris Matthews on Bill Maher this week you have no doubt who he wants to win this election. “If you want no health coverage and no middle class then you know who to vote for”…OMG!

Barbara Walters has been at Moveon.org events –as a guest.

Katie Couric is a close friend of Hillary Clinton

Britt Hume has even been quite lenient regarding Kerry (they have known each other since they were boys).

(Must I go on?)


A poll taken a few months ago illuminated what we all knew…34% of journalists consider themselves liberal (percentages were higher in the Washington Press core)–and only 7% consider themselves conservative. Compare this to the population where 33% consider themselves conservative and 20% liberal. Is that fair or balanced?

If the country is so evenly divided and Fox is a right-wing outlet…why are Fox’s ratings so high?

Don’t say that the mainstream media isn’t biased and left-leaning –that’s ridiculous.

Don’t fault Fox for filling a void and being wildly successful at doing so. And don’t fool yourself into thinking that 93% of journalists can make editorial and story decisions without falling into a ‘group think’ of the liberal agenda and a supposed idea of what the general public ‘really thinks’ or wants to know.

...also, on a more shallow note, Fox has the best-looking anchors/reporters...

I have backed up my opinions with a definitive example –John Glenn, polls from 1996 until the present and a run-down of the various anchors and their glaring conflicts of interest…don’t argue if you are not going to address these blatant truths.

42 comments:

RBP said...

Well, the so-called liberal media had no problem covering President Clinton's Monica Lewinsky affair. Don't you think he would have been given an easier time of it, had their been this liberal bias. I remeber seeing Tom Brokaw speculating about the number of days until Clinton would be forced to resign. I guess his speculation all those years ago, damaged Brokaw's prospects for getting on the ticket with Kerry now. (Now that's funny!)
And if Clinton's lying about his affair with Lewinsky was covered so thoroughly, by the so-called liberal media, why hasn't Bush's lies about going to war in Iraq been covered more thoroughly. Or Dick Cheney's secret energy policy meetings, why doesn't the liberal media demand answers about that. The administration won't even list the names of the people who attended these meetings.
So why don't we read about this stuff everyday in the liberal media. I'll tell you why, cause there is no liberal media.
I just watched a fluff piece on CNN called, "The Mission of George Bush". Liberal bias indeed!
If the truth were known, if we really did have a free and independent press, instead of these huge corporations feeding us news, the President's poll numbers would not be what they are today.

ALa said...

JFM...well, at the end of the day, money will win over any bias or political leaning...

this we'll defend said...

Your premise rests on the assumption that because a reporter has a party affiliation he must be biased in his reporting. That's simply not true.

A reporter should have something called "journalistic integrity" and report the story fairly regardless of which candidate or party they support. Not all do, but most do. And Fox never, ever, ever does.

Your John Glenn example proves my point, not yours. Senator Glenn gives his opinion, and 2 networks then move on. Fox news, you say, reports the "whole" story. But no, they don't.

The Bush campaign has denied that they have any connections to Swiftvets. The resignation of the top lawyer and 3 other people from the Bush campaign seems to contradict this. Fox news "continued the story" and informed you that the Kerry campaign has 3 lawyers and maybe more advising some pro-Kerry 527s, the only one (you say) to present a "fair and balanced" report. It certainly showed the dems are doing the same things as the republicans, right?

No. It is another example of bias on the part of Fox and good, honest, unbiased reporting on the part of the other two networks. I'll tell you why.

It is not against the rules for a lawyer working for a campaign to also advise a 527. And the Kerry campaign has not denied having some lawyers on the campaign that do that - and neither has the Bush campaign. It doesn't mean that the 527s are coordinating with a campaign - outside counsel is called "outside" for a reason. Both campaigns thus have lawyers who do that, have a campaign and a 527 as clients, and it isn't against the rules and hasn't been denied by the campaigns - except for once. When the Bush campaign denied that they had any lawyers who also advised 527s. And it wasn't one of the many lawyers that both campaigns have hired as outside counsel from time to time either, it was the top lead counsel for the Bush campaign. Oops. Wonder how they missed that. Along with the other 3 members of the campaign staff that resigned as well, including one who WAS IN THE COMMERCIALS.

You might think that before a denial of NO connection was issued the TOP lawyer might remember he was connected as hell, but he apparently "forgot," for days, as Swiftvets and the Bush claims of no connection were big news all over the media, until a reporter kindly reminded him. He then resigned from the campaign.

There is a pretty big difference between
1)reporting that BOTH campaigns have outside counsel who also have 527s as clients, which really doesn't show anything either way since the Ginsberg story wasn't about that but about a denial that turned out wrong,

and reporting, as Fox did,

2)that "3 or more of the Kerry campaign lawyers are advising various ‘Bush Bashing’ 527 groups." Especially when it is used to counter the story, isn't put into context, and suggests both campaigns are doing the "same thing" and only Bush's camp did the right thing and had a lawyer resign.

The 2 networks didn't report it because it was misleading, and Fox did, because it was misleading.

So the only accurate news was from the 2 networks you lambast for not reporting the "whole" story and the only obviously partisan and slanted one was from Fox - and you, a fairly well-informed person, swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

And "news" is different from talk shows. I don't blast Fox for having a right-wing talk show like the O'Reilly Factor - its infotainment, and anybody who watches that for five minutes that doesn't know he's a Republican is too stupid to vote anyway. I blast them because they are partisan all the time, all day long, from news program, to talk show, to Brit Humes "let's worship at the foot of Bush" interview show. No spin zone indeed.

And imagine if the tables were turned - same story but in this hypo Bush went to Vietnam and Kerry was in the Guard. Glenn accuses the dems of coordination due to the resignation of Kerry's top lawyer. What would happen? 2 networks would end the story there, and, in this hypo, so would Fox.

Finally, the line "along with prominent members of the party sitting on the boards of these groups." Wow, those scheming dems. Except, again, both parties do that, it is having prominent members of the party sit on those boards AND work for the campaign that is the issue - and illegal. Guess "fair and balanced" Fox forgot that little important-as-hell detail, huh?

As to your list of "conflicts of interest," here goes:

Anchors are supposed to be non-biased and non-partisan…
- in their reporting, not their personal lives. In their reporting.

…Tom Brokaw was being considered as a VP for Kerry …
- so? Give me examples of biased reporting, not that Brokaw was being considered as VP.

Christiane Amanpour’s husband is a KERRY ADVISOR! …
- she is without a doubt one of the best, most honest, most unbiased reporters out there. Please show me where she reported something in a biased way. I would be really interested in you finding that. Good luck, you'll need it.

Dan Rather has made his views of the President clear in no uncertain terms …
- I don't know. If he did it while reporting the news that would be wrong. I don't know anything about this.

and if you saw Chris Matthews on Bill Maher this week you have no doubt who he wants to win this election.
- Chris Matthews doesn't report news, he hosts a talk show like Bill O'Reilly. Guess what? Newspapers can have "editorial pages" that slant one way and report news in an unbiased manner. So can networks.

Barbara Walters has been at Moveon.org events –as a guest. - proving what? That she likes them and what they say, or that she is a biased reporter when she does interviews of movie stars and speaks on the View? Or on 20/20? Show me.

…Katie Couric is a close friend of Hillary Clinton …
- Again, so? If she were a close friend of Laura Bush I wouldn't care. And, do you get much news from Katie Couric?

Britt Hume has even been quite lenient regarding Kerry (they have known each other since they were boys). - well, he shouldn't be if he is treating one candidate differently than another, but are you actually suggesting that Brit is leaning left? Give me a break.

You like Fox news because it tells you what you want to hear. Great. But that isn't the job of the news.

Fox news: simple solutions to complex problems.

ALa said...

See...you lied -or are just misinformed...the man in the commercial was not 'campaign staff' but a Volunteer. I am a volunteer...does Karl Rove know who I am? Have I ever spoken to Bush or Cheney...or Ed Gillespie? Uh, no. If I had something to say that people needed me to would I do a commercial against Kerry tomorrow -YES! This doesn't mean anything. They don't or won't know who I am, yet you and the press would have a headline the next day "Bush Campaign worker does 527 ad!!!"
This is silly. This whole argument is silly and YOU GUYS are the ones who wanted the campaign finance reform...YOU wanted to reign in free speech...YOU asked for it BUT YOU were fine with it while 87% of the money was benefiting you...a measly million goes to Bush and everyone's panties are in a bunch...
Are you gonna take your dolls and dishes and go home?

Jamie said...

FNC is tightly tied to the GOP, not just a 'news' channel trying to make a buck. Rupert Murdoch is on the board of directors of the Cato institute, one of the most influential think tanks in DC credited for playing a key role in forming ideas and policies of the new Republican majority in Congress and congressional committee chairman look to the Cato scholars for testimony.

Murdoch brought in Roger Ailes to run FNC when he started it in '96, Ailes, a Republican advisor for Reagan and Bush Sr, and credited for the Horton campaign against Dukakis in '88. One TV source was allowed to follow Bush to Iraq for his infamous 'turkey' thanksgiving photo-op, FNC.

To look to further ties demonstrating the GOP ties to FNC, Gingrich joined as a senior advisor ("contributor") since '99, of course a network having a political advisor is not unheard of, but this man sits on the advisory board of the Secretary of Defense's National Security Study Group, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institution, a neo-con think tank from where GW has recruited 20 people to serve in his administration.

I know a couple of anchors have flubbed their lines exposing their political affiliation, but mostly the media as a whole has a "social" bias, pro-life, pro-choice, health care reform, etc. What FNC does is consumer fraud every night claiming they are 'fair and balanced', when it is widely known they are not in the industry. An example of that danger is tainting all corporate media, the 2000 election most glaringly.

You think the rest of the media is biased? FNC implies that everytime it says 'fair and balanced' then show me direct ties to Presidential cousins, political think tanks, military councils and high ranking Presidential administration positions at CNN, NBC, ABC, or any cable network. MSNBC is run by Murdochs old cronies btw.

And you can't forget the memos....

this we'll defend said...

Ala71, Ken Cordier was a member of the Bush-Cheney campaign's veterans' steering committee. Are you on a steering committee? Yes, Ed Gillespie knew who he was. No, Ed Gillespie doesn't know who you are.

so not only was I not misinformed, you did the typical right-wing trick of answering with another allegation.

get back to the point - Fox News is biased and slanted, and it is not justifiable due to some non-existent "liberal media bias." You know I'm a bulldog that isn't easily distracted. Why try?

this we'll defend said...

GREAT post Jamie. Super.

ALa71, do you even know about the memos that dictate the Fox "message" of the day? Or understand how that abandons every tenet of journalistic ethics?

But your response is predictable - "what journalistic ethics? all journalists are slime." Similar to the crooked lawyer who claims "all lawyers are crooked."

No the aren't all crooked, and yes Fox news is.

ALa said...

Does this mean that you both spent the $9.95 on OutFoxed? Moorestyle hack job done by a top Democrat –has John Kerry denounced it?!

Jamie: You are from Canada --a quasi-socialist government that will let Al Jazeera on the air but not Fox...what are they afraid of? How can you comment about Fox when you aren’t allowed to see it?

TWD: Talk about avoiding --you all completely ignored all the 'conflicts of interest' with major anchors!

I do not believe that Fox is working for the GOP because they say things that I don't agree with all the time. They let on guests that I wouldn't have and -like I said -O'Reilly and Geraldo have completely dismissed the SBVFT…and you know from the conservatives here that we think it is a very big deal and a travesty of journalism if it isn't thoroughly vetted!

this we'll defend said...

No, I didn't buy "Outfoxed." But I've seen it. I thought it pretty boring and it didn't show me anything I didn't already know. But it didn't lie. And why would John Kerry denounce it - is Fox running for office? Oh, maybe.

Your attacking Jamie for being from Canada was, well, "unilateralist." This isn't Free Republic, I thought you respected the views of those who disagree with you, especially when she (he?) related relevant facts.

How you think I "ignored" the "conflicts of interest" is puzzling. Did you read my entire post? Well, here it is again:

As to your list of "conflicts of interest," here goes:

Anchors are supposed to be non-biased and non-partisan…
- in their reporting, not their personal lives. In their reporting.

…Tom Brokaw was being considered as a VP for Kerry …
- so? Give me examples of biased reporting, not that Brokaw was being considered as VP.

Christiane Amanpour’s husband is a KERRY ADVISOR! …
- she is without a doubt one of the best, most honest, most unbiased reporters out there. Please show me where she reported something in a biased way. I would be really interested in you finding that. Good luck, you'll need it.

I'LL STOP THERE. you can read the rest above in my original post. No, I didn't ignore anything.

And you merely repeat your assertion that YOU believe Fox is fair, but you don't address what I showed above, a biased report you thought was fair.

Jamie said...

Before I leave I'll just say I have seen Fox News, I've been to more places than just Canada. You should try it sometime. The deal with Al-J in Canada is a complicated one, but I highly doubt you would be able to comprehend since anyone who reads Drudge loses iq points. First, the CRTC has a certain criteria a channel must adhere to or you won't even be considered. What criteria you ask, well, for starters, if they are a channel directly competing with a Canadian based channel, they must dedicate a certain amount of Canadian content. This protects our 'wireless' borders from the juggernaut of Corporate American News. Every other American station has followed this guideline and has been allowed. FNC will not, so adios! They will be considered again in time though.

Al Jazzera does not directly compete with CRTC Canadian content standards and gained ONLY access to Canadian airwaves, no one has picked it up yet.

ok later, thanks for the non-rebuttal, I won’t be coming back to your lame argument. geez

ALa said...

Jamie: Sorry, I wasn't trying to be exclusive. I have been other places (all over Europe actually -another 'American myth' de-bunked) and your fellow countrymen have given me a bad taste for Canadians (I guess it snuck through the polite meter)...I know--I know, I shouldn't judge on the 50 or so that I met...I have a post about it...somewhere. My point was if you don't watch Fox you can't comment on Fox...that seems fair to me. I wouldn't review a book that I hadn't read...

TWD: Let's say Fox is shilling for the GOP. That still means that it is helping to even out the rest of the coverage and (combined with talk radio) finally helping to make the media as a whole "fair & balanced".

As for you thinking that example (John Glenn) helps your point just makes me think you are...deep into the spin. It would be unfair to leave the public with the impression that the Bush campaign is being shady and not point out that it is mirrored in the DNC ten-fold.

this we'll defend said...

Well, of course I disagree that the DNC is doing what the RNC is doing "ten-fold." But I have to admit that when you go to Spinsanity or Factcheck.org that Kerry ads are inaccurate as often as Bush ads are. Of COURSE they mislead - they are sales pitches. Both parties do it. I think - no, I KNOW that Swiftvets is beyond the pale and should be condemned. Just like the Hitler spot should have been condemned - and was.

But that doesn't change the fact that Fox news is (obviously) biased, and it doesn't "even out" the rest of the coverage. Truth is not "relative." That is a slipperly slope you shouldn't start down - or you should get away from if you are already sliding. That kind of reasoning is how people get in trouble with ethics. "It's ok to take these office supplies from work. They don't pay me what they should anyway." "It's ok for me to take a bribe, public service doesn't pay enough and besides, everybody does it." Or a 3rd grader saying "He started it."

If you lived in a nation where the govt controlled all channels (say in pre-invasion Iraq) and you KNEW they lied to you, would you want another channel telling the opposite of those lies, or would you want a channel telling you the truth? IF there is a "liberal media bias" in news reports a "conservative media bias" isn't any better - they are both wrong. How about one with no slanting, one telling the truth? I don't see a "liberal bias" in our media, but you do. Fine. That doesn't mean you should conclude Fox is "fair and balanced" if they slant the other way. That doesn't mean you should try to convince yourself that slanted is straight. It isn't.

I think you should start reading the Economist. It supported Bush for President, and supported the war in Iraq, and it is NOT partisan. I respect it. You should check it out. I don't always agree with it, but it isn't slanted.

Tom said...

Somebody here said, "Well, the so-called liberal media had no problem covering President Clinton's Monica Lewinsky affair. Don't you think he would have been given an easier time of it, had their been this liberal bias."

He did have an 'easier time of it' with liberal media. First, Newsweek was going to spike the verified story until the editors found out Drudge was going to break it. They were shamed into running that story; had it not been for the competition with the internet and conservative talk radio, the left-wing press would have covered up Clinton's sleaze as they did John Kennedy's. So, how did liberal media balance its loyalty to the Clintons and the Democrats with its commercial interests? That was easy: Slant every aspect of the story with the image of the poor, misunderstood, first Black president of the US besieged by nuts, sluts, and an overzealous prosecutor investigating the great man's 'sex life'.

Liberal media dutifully printed or broadcast all of the Clinton White House faxes accusing Ken Starr, Linda Tripp, and all of the other Clinton "enemies" of being part of the vast right wing conspiracy against the President while at the same time got to sell their magazines and newspapers and amass ratings playing up the tabloid elements. They ignored or downplayed the lying under oath and the operation of a White House smear machine that, had it been run by a Republican, would have resulted in the most impassioned pleas for impeachment to be found in the liberal press since Richard Nixon and Watergate, all the while portraying the Independent Counsel's office and House Republicans as panty sniffers.

Hey, that's politics. Congressional Republicans knew what they were getting into when they pursued the impeachment. But, please, don't give us the line that the liberal media gave Clinton a "hard time". Yeah, sure. Six months from now, you'll be telling us they gave Kerry a hard time over his Nam Service simple because they reported on the Swift Boat Veterans' allegations, and you will totally ignore the smear campaign they launched against those veterans in order to help Kerry.

this we'll defend said...

TYAAPA.

cheeky monkey said...

Ala-- In the fabulous words of one crazy teen dance off movie, "You Got Served."

Thanks to all those who wrote it better and faster than I could.

Fox News is an abomination and those who watch it religiously should have their vote count by half.

PS-- having hosts like Sean Hannity screaming over the remarks of guests does not mean the "other side" gets a fair chance at acutally commenting. It's his anger managemenr therapy.

PPS--Colmes is a moderate. Hannity is very right wing. If you really wanted fair and balanced you have really left leaning, not middle of the road in the debate. That is, when he's allowed to speak by almighty overlord Hannity.

~Jen~ said...

I prefer Fox News, and I don't have to justify that preference to any of you.

I'm perfectly fine with all your angry posts. The way I see it, you wouldn't be angry and bashing Fox if there wasn't some truth in what they are reporting. There's a reason it's the number one cable news network people!!!I have noticed the last two months that libs get very hostile when confronted with the truth. So, like I said, I'm fine with it.

I don't care if it leans left, right, upside down or sideways. Anything that makes libs so hysterical and defensive is ok in my book.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Cheeky: "Fox News is an abomination and those who watch it religiously should have their vote count by half."

Thank you for your support of the 1st Amendment. You are a perfect poster-child for what's wrong with the left.

Have you sued a Swiftvet today?

leftyjones said...

Well, its the "NUMBER ONE news NETWORK" because it's the only one that actually doesn't try to hide that it has a bias and it leans heavily to the right. Does anyone think that Hannity or Rush would endorse it if it actually was "fair and balanced"? As a result, people who lean a bit to the right, a lot to the right or in ALA71's case...people who find the anchors to be better looking, go to Fox. People who are looking for news and not an overwhelmingly obvious viewpoint are split amongst all the other channels depending on whose shows they like or what anchors they are attracted to.

Personally, I do watch Fox occasionally and I almost always enjoy it.
I mean of course, in the way one enjoys a sitcom.
You've got the "TERROR THREAT LEVEL "ELEVATED" on the scrawl going past about every 8 seconds....I enjoy that one. I keep waiting for Tom Ridge to jump up from the bottom of the screen and scream " Alert level Extra Orangey....People Grab Your Duct Tape!!!!!"

Then there is HANNITY AND colmes. At least on Crossfire you have actual conservatives and liberals going at it.....people with respect and a reputation.
In this case, you have Hannity's hand picked combatant..colmes.
This show is great....colmes is a total tool punching bag with no backbone and a skeletor-like face. Sure he seems like a nice guy but he couldn't win a debate with my dog much less stand up to the guy that gave him the job.....Mr. HANNITY. It's like watching Political Roadrunner and colmes is the coyote every time.
The show provides some serious amusement if you will allow yourself to watch it. Personally, I'm a big fan.

I think as a society we are doomed to not receive or recognize REAL news. Somewhere along the way, we decided that if we didn't like what was reported then it must be wrong or slanted. As a result people wind up looking for news that reflects their view of the world....which truth be told...is frigging wacky.

Now there is no truth to any news, there is merely your view and the other view. When the distrust runs this high it serves no one and that's the greatest shame of all.

People, watch whatever newsview show you like. It makes no real difference.
You are a commodity.
Cable network chiefs are concerned with viewers. That's all.
The networks will continue to carve out a base for themselves to advertise to because they are not in the business of news, they are in the business of selling consumers advertising.
Do not forget that.
The truth has become whatever viewpoint you choose to believe, rather than an undisputable fact and news programs are no different from sporting events or sitcoms, they are a tailored product to keep a viewer tuned in.
Sad thing is, it works and it is only getting worse.

cheeky monkey said...

Ouch! CSM was not digging my humor today. You seem to be a smart person... cut me a break for some sarcasm will you?

this we'll defend said...

Jen writes: I don't care if it leans left, right, upside down or sideways. Anything that makes libs so hysterical and defensive is ok in my book.

That says it all. "I don't care if they lie to me as long as it is what I want to hear."

Of course you can watch whatever you want (bringing up the 1st Amendment was just silly). You can believe whatever you want. You can also ACCEPT everything you are told by a news shown. But if you choose to do so, to accept blatant bias as truth because "the other side is leaning the other way" you aren't balancing out, you are lying.

3 statisticians are shooting at a target. The first misses one foot to the left. The second misses one foot to the right. The third immediately starts jumping up and down yelling "I hit it! I hit it!"

I prefer he shoot first.

You don't solve the problem of slant and disinformation from the "liberal media" (again, something I don't see) with right-wing demagoguery.

If you watch Fox, fine. Many do. But don't post a claim that it is actually "fair and balanced" and become unhinged when so many people show you it isn't. Don't tell me up is down or that lies are truth. Competing lies are not truth. They are lies.

Read the Economist.

Paul G. said...

Happy anniversary?
ABC, CBS, CSPAN, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, Al-jazzera, VNA, Pravda and Fox didn't cover it today, I did.
While you were watching the distractions

~Jen~ said...

TWD - "I don't care if they lie to me as long as it is what I want to hear."

WHAT?!!?!?!?!?!?!? I did NOT say that nor have I EVER said that.

TWD, I don't put words in your mouth. Don't you dare put them in mine.

redleg said...

OK, so the liberals have gone back to Vietnam. Nuff said on that.

From my foxhole, having seen the US and international journalist at work in the combat zone. I can tell you most of them don't deserve the money spent on them. Many are too lazy to 1) find the story or 2) venture far enough outside the safe zones to actually report on it except from afar. CNN has been particularly egregious at this. The closest we have gotten to good reporting over in Iraq has been the embedded reporters during the inital part of the war. For the most part, in OEF particularly reporters would show up (if they would even bother to show up- several were covering the area from their home countries by telephone and email) look around to find some stories that would back up whatever kind of story they were supposed to write at that point and then disappear. We would see their byline a week later. This is true for both liberal and conservative reporters. A few, a very few were actually dedicated to their job as a profession. Tom Ricks is a good example of one of the few journalists that gets out there and actually reports on the issues and events.

The liberal bias in the media is real and prevalent. Dissenting points of view don't often have an outlet in most news organizations. Believe what you may but at least Fox News puts both sides of an issue up and lets you choose. You may not like it, but at least both sides go out to the viewer. That explains its popularity, as it does the popularity of blogs in general. The continued denial of the presence of the bias reminds me of newcomers in therapy sessions. Denial. Many liberals have forgotten what it is like to actually have to debate and defend your point of view and Fox makes that perfectly obvious. Many news programs will only bring up one side of an issue and allow their "expert" to present unchallenged fact, or challenge only those that the reporter wishes to highlight. Ala71s example highlights this well. The left bias of the media (which no liberal will admit to anyway) naturally makes Fox seem slanted to the right, when in fact it is more centrist than anything else. There are some interernet studies to debate the bias, but I will find them and post them later. This is only my 2 cents worth. The bottom line seems to be is that the media is doing a poor job of reporting, and usually only reporting what they want you to hear. So I read multiple sources, everyday. And I make my own decisions. So don't just read the Economist, though that is a good publication. Read many different outlets for news just as you do when writing history. Take many differing viewpoints, compare them and decide for yourselves. If you don't, you cede your vote (whoever you vote for) to the slickest mechanandiser of information.

CylentBob said...

That's interesting Jamie, I didn't realize that Canada still required some channels to have "Canadian Content". Do you realize that this law resulted in the creation of Bob & Doug McKenzie's old "Great White North" skit on the old SCTV? They were haggling back & forth over what would serve as "Canadian Content", when Thomas & Moranis came up with the idea of throwing all the stereotypes of Canadians into one blender of a skit & turning the volume up to "eleven".

Maybe FNC could direct Sean Hannity to say "eh" at the end of each sentence. Bill O'Reilly could slam a six-pack of Elsinore Beer during his show. Alan Colmes could wear a "touque" and tell Hannity to "Take Off, Eh!" every time he disagrees with one of his points. Brian Killmeade & Steve Doocy could cram bearclaws & crullers into their pieholes during the morning show (sorry, I think they already do that - nevermind).

The comment that Alan Colmes is Hannity's "house liberal" is laughable. Colmes is liberal, he's just not a rude bastard like Carville. Did anyone hear the clip of O'Neill on "Crossfire" a couple of weeks ago, when Carville & another stooge kept asking O'Neill questions, then talking over his answers, and they finally had the chutzpah to berate O'Neill for not "answering the questions"? Most of the conservatives on talking head shows are sacrificial lambs, but on Fox they're allowed to set the tempo themselves. How is that wrong?

I'm a fan of FNC, but I do watch MSNBC or CNN occasionally. Dennis Miller's show on MSNBC has potential, even though it's still pretty ragged, and I like Chris Matthews for his gruff style, even thought he's only about 6 inches to the right of Michael Moore.

CNN had to admit they hid facts & spun the news regarding Saddam's regime in order to keep their exclusive status in Baghdad. The claim of "wanting to insure the safety of their employees" was pure bunk. They went in the tank for a monster to get raw footage from Baghdad, and their status as a "non-partisan" purveyor of news is forever gone IMHO.

The fact that every soldier I've ever talked to about their time in "the big sandbox" has told me that FNC is the closest thing that we have to a "fair & balanced" news service just helps me validate my opinion.

As far as the assertation that the media is unbiased because they FINALLY broke the story on Clinton's philandering goes, they were just reporting what was already out there on the internet & talk radio - they didn't chase the story with even 10% of the gusto they would have shown if the POTUS in question had an (R) behind his name. The media reported that Republicans won the 2002 elections, but that doesn't mean that they had to show any enthusiasm about it.

Paul G. said...

Redleg,
The piece I wrote on Vietnam is a seperate issue, I only brought it up to show that the media is not providing full coverage.
You cannot discuss the Texas ANG, swiftboat veterans and Kerry medal tossing issues without examination of the history of the story, not just the emotional components that Conservative/Liberal politics would like us to.

Your disparagement of the reporters themselves is shameful.
There have been more than 27 journalists killed in Iraq since March 20th 2003.
In almost every case they died without weapons, only cameras and tape recorders.
With the mission of gathering information for thier employers, who then decide for better or worse what bits there are room for in the limited attention span of the mindless masses.

If these reporters are hiding behind bunkers, they aren't doing a very good job of it.
And the incentive isn't simply a paycheck, you cannot pay people enough to die, just to get a story.

I've seen numbers that indicate that the death rate for reporters in Iraq far exceeds that of any other conflict the United States has been in.

this we'll defend said...

Jen, my apologies.

You did NOT say that.

I was trying to imply that is what your words meant, but the quotes gave the opposite effect. When you said "I don't care" and "anything... is ok" I was saying that you didn't care how accurate the reporting was. But the quotes were a mistake. I didn't mean to imply you actually said that, but that your attitude towards bias led to that result.

My bad.

liberalweiner said...

Paul, You are exactly right. Twenty seven reporters have died in Iraq. Fourteen deaths resulted from asphixsiation because they had their heads up their asses for too long. There were four broken necks caused by the strain of stretching to look at another reporter's notes. Three died of heart attacks while running to be first in line at the chow hall. Four died while having sex. With each other, who else? Two brave and decent reporters actually died in combat situations.

liberalweiner said...

I'll bet none of you liberal whiners and apologists has read Bias by Bernard Goldberg. You probably shouldn't waste your time. If you won't believe someone who has actually served in Iraq and observed first hand what passed for unbiased reporting by the alphabet networks, you won't keep an open mind long enough to learn anything from the book. Save your money.

redleg said...

Paul

I have been there and seen them do their job. Have you?

Some are dedicated. Some, like Tom Ricks actually get out there and do the job. The embedded reporters did a very creditable job after they overcame their bias and that of their institutions. But the vast majority, since the end of major combat are very lazy "reporters" who don't do a damn thing to stretch the envelope. Who broke the Abu Gharaib story? Oh yeah, the US Army. Who did the investigation? Oh yeah, the US Army. Who is trying and convicting those responsible? Oh yeah, the US Army. Some of these journalists have died, most of them in accidents or by violating coalition press rules that allowed them to get shot at by both sides. But maybe I didn't see and experience what I did and they are a merry band of reporters out doing their job. But I didn't see them doing it. I lived with the Brigade PAO for 7 months. But, that's my opinion.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

In the argument over "liberal bias" in the media, I think what it boils down to is a discrepancy between left and right over what constitutes "media", to begin with. In talk radio, the examples left-wingers cite of "balance" or even "right-wing bias" in the media, are all editorial and opinion shows--Rush, Hannity, et al. A leftist considers all "media" to be "media", while a right-winger's complaint is more specific than that.

It would probably be more appropriate to say, instead of "media bias", "NEWS bias". Those outlets that report the news as if it were news, which is supposed to be fact-based and taken as a neutral presentation of what's really happening, THAT is what gets the left-wing slant in most outlets besides Fox. Assertions to the contrary are simply examples of people trying to get us to disbelieve our own eyes and ears. "Pay no attention to that leftist editor behind the curtain."

When a leftist voices his opinion, he calls it "unbiased news". When a rightist voices his opinion, he calls it "a talk show". Either way, opinions of both major strains and some independant ones are available all over, and especially on the Internet. But the precise complaint which has the most merit is that Judy Woodruff can't be called anything other than an editorial pundit when she fires off an interview question like "do you think Republicans can get away with mentioning 9/11?" GET AWAY with it? That's unbiased in the phrasing of a question? But she isn't presented as an editorial columnist, or a talk show host, but rather, a JOURNALIST. That's the disingenuous core of the problem. Journalism schools are such leftist reeducation camps that they probably don't even know the bias in their "reporting" for what it is.

Paul G. said...

redleg,

You said; "I can tell you most of them don't deserve the money spent on them. Many are too lazy to
1) find the story or
2) venture far enough outside the safe zones to actually report on it except from afar."

So your no expert in the civilian MOS of journalism.
Most is a harsh statement based on your small sample, and there is more to reporting than what you percieve as some sort of mad dash to 'find the story'.
It often takes 30 or 40 people in different places asking subtle questions and listening to thousands of hours of chatter from those involved to get a story.
The problem is, you want them to tell your story your way.
In an earlier part of my life I was a photographer covering Formula 1 racing.
I can tell you from my personal experiance that the actual participants in the events had much the same pespective of me that you have of war reporters.
I was "in the way",
"leeching off the event",
"not getting the pictures of thier team, car, owner"
What they didn't realise was that my eyes and ears were also open and the print journalists, editors and I all talked to each other during the 'event' and after in debrief.
What we heard and saw at all levels became our view of the story.
You want a journalist to tell your chosen side of the story?
Tough luck, it isn't going to happen unless your side of the story fits the rest of the story and has a appeal to the audiance, positive or negative appeal.
The only certain thing is that if you BS the reporter, or F with them, they are going to develop a natural bias against you.

Journalism is a marketplace, and like any other marketplace reporters that do not do thier job (draw an audiance to the advertisers) don't "succeed".
But there is a type of reporter that the general public does not recognise, those are the little guys that don't get faces on TV, voices on the radio or bylines in the paper.
They are often the feeders for the names you know, the ones who provide the back story that fleshes out and gives credibility to the 'big story'.
You don't go out to get that it, you quietly listen and ask stupid questions to get the information that inadvertently comes with the response to the stupid question.

Like law, undertaking, and dishwashing journalism is field that isn't appreciated until you need it to work for you.
Unlike the others it is hard to buy your story into the information race and harder yet to buy the services of the leader in the market.

Who broke Abu Gharaib?
Well until you said it was the Army, the conservatives had blamed CBS for it, this should make the entire conservative movement look at the Army in a whole new light.

The Army did everything it could to bury the story, a civilian news agency 'Broke it' after months and months of administration attempts to cover, hide and obscure the story.
Only now that the story has been broken, by the media and Spc. Joseph M. Darby is the Army moving on prosecution, and it's one story that no member of armed forces past or present is happy to have out there.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Paul,
"So your no expert in the civilian MOS of journalism."

If the experts in the civilian MOS of journalism would spend a tad bit more time teaching the different homonyms like "your" and "you're", and somewhat less toward grandstanding about how it's every journalist's duty to seek "social justice" and redress the wrongs of evil Capitalists, your head might clear up just enough to understand that you don't have to be an astrophysicist to know which way is up.

"The problem is, you want them to tell your story your way."

If you tell a story in any particular "way" besides NEUTRALLY, it's not journalism--it's an editorial. There's a page for that in a newspaper, and its number is not "1".

"I can tell you from my personal experiance that the actual participants in the events had much the same pespective of me that you have of war reporters.
I was 'in the way',"

I think the complaint from the right is spun news stories, not physical obstruction to war-fighting. If you want to dodge some bullets in Najaf, go right ahead. If you characterize the bullets in Najaf as "the horrible war crimes committed by the imperialist capitalist forces of the evil George W. Bush, as he tramples on the human rights of poor, poor Mujaheddin who only want what everyone else in the world wants: a Sharia-governed theocracy like Iran..." and so on, then don't expect that not to be criticized as "biased".

Capiche?

"Only now that the story has been broken, by the media and Spc. Joseph M. Darby is the Army moving on prosecution, and it's one story that no member of armed forces past or present is happy to have out there."

It's a bit of bad news that led to necessary fixes. I can appreciate that. But when it's paraded and obsessed over and chanted repeatedly as the latest slogan in a "Bush is Hitler" campaign foisted by these so-called "journalists", don't be so utterly sanctimonious when thinking Americans push back from it and sigh, "get real".

Paul G. said...

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files,

"your" - belonging to you
"you're" - attributes ascribed to you
Ok, English ed lesson finished, anytime you read someone use them wrong get very, very pissed.

"every journalist's duty to seek "social justice"
The first duty is ethics.
I'm afraid that ethics are something that our society no longer places any importance on.
Ethics are not 'tell the truth', and they are not 'be honest', ethics have become "the end justifies the means" and "don't get caught".


"The problem is, you want them to tell your story your way."
If you tell a story in any particular "way" besides NEUTRALLY, it's not journalism--it's an editorial.

And how is opposed to what I wrote?
Oh by the way the only neutral news is a bus schedule.


"I think the complaint from the right is spun news stories, not physical obstruction to war-fighting."
No it is not, and it's not what I was writing about.
Redleg was talking from the soldiers perspective and I was responding to it.
>perspective of me that you have<

"the horrible war crimes committed by the imperialist capitalist forces of the evil George W. Bush, as he tramples on the human rights of poor, poor Mujaheddin who only want what everyone else in the world wants: a Sharia-governed theocracy like Iran... and so on, then don't expect that not to be criticized as "biased". "
Excuse me. Where did this get into the conversation? Nothing I said implied it.

"But when it's paraded and obsessed over and chanted repeatedly as the latest slogan in a "Bush is Hitler" campaign foisted by these so-called "journalists","
When did you see any mainstream media outlet do this?
Oh the prison story got lots and lots of play, with little increase in content I'll agree.
The "Bush is Hitler" crap didn't happen in mainstream.

redleg said...

Paul

OK, so it doesn't matter what I saw, did and experienced.

It still doesn't make those "reporters" objective.

They weren't professionals. They were fellows wo had sold their souls to shill their words and film.

It was remarkably easy to sell journalists a line, but we didn't do that. We would give them access and information but it was rarely used except as a basis to spin their story. Which is why many of us could not watch, without humor, the mainstream news. It was so far disconnected from the reality on the ground.

The issue Paul, is not that they were in the way. It was that they weren't there at all. What I wanted was for them to take what we had been doing and the locals and the terrorists had been doing and place it objectively in perspective. At least a little. They could not, and still can not do that. All they can report is "an IED exploded in Baghdad today, 2 US soldiers wounded..." no context, no explanation of what those soldiers were doing when it happened. The first duty of a journalist, as I was taught was objectivity, not ethics. Our media fails miserably on this account. Tell the story, not just the story you want told.

War isn't like formula 1 racing in any case.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Paul,
"'your' - belonging to you
'you're' - attributes ascribed to you"

I hate to keep picking at a nit, but, uhm, NO. Attributes ascribed to you still belong to you, and "your" fits both cases. "You're" is a contraction of the two words "YOU" and "ARE", as in:

YOU'RE going to the store today.
Why?
To get YOUR share of the groceries.
And what attribute pertaining to you does it portray?
It portrays YOUR responsibility toward your roommates.

I know that photography doesn't really require much expertise in this, but it's just one of those little things in Internet lingo that drives me crazy, to see the two intentionally mixed up, time after time.

"Ok, English ed lesson finished, anytime you read someone use them wrong get very, very pissed."

Use them improperly. "Wrong" is not an adverb.

"every journalist's duty to seek 'social justice'
The first duty is ethics."

The first duty is to report the NEWS. You are not priests. You are not Dr. Phil. You are not Oprah. You are not here to lecture us on what's right and what's wrong. You are here to tell us what is going on. That's it. And when you're done, BEGONE already.

"I'm afraid that ethics are something that our society no longer places any importance on."

The ethics of tearing down this nation just to tear down George W. Bush--that doesn't bother you at all?

"Ethics are not 'tell the truth'"

I think you have the wrong ethics if they are inompatible with the truth. Don't you?

"the only neutral news is a bus schedule."

That is extremely lazy thinking, which journalism school is supposed to remedy in its curriculum. But they don't, because they've been hijacked by people with an agenda. The result is ersatz news "journalists" with an agenda.

"When did you see any mainstream media outlet do this?
Oh the prison story got lots and lots of play, with little increase in content I'll agree."

You just answered your own question.

"The 'Bush is Hitler' crap didn't happen in mainstream."

Not overtly, but subtly. Every story supporting the hypothesis gets extensive play, and every story detracting from said hypothesis gets buried. You may be able to fool chain-smoking trailer trash that it's "unbiased" to pseudoreport in that manner, but when the IQ level gets above Florida summer temperatures, your ruse ceases to be very effective. It's easily seen for what it is.

Paul G. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Paul G. said...

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files,

Is working for Ron Popiel on your resume?

You slice and dice my words for the sake of your own arguments without regard.

When did Dr. Phil and Oprah become priests?

"You are not here to lecture us on what's right and what's wrong."

No, I'm not but apparently you are.

this we'll defend said...

the ethics of tearing down the nation just to tear down George W. Bush -

That is the scariest of all. Why? Because nobody is doing it, but Republicans see it a lot. They see attacks on the President and his failed and disastrous policies as attacks on the nation.

The French (FRENCH) had a leader that thought he was the state too once. They cut off his head. France survived.

Attacking W is not the same as tearing down the nation. But thinking that way is.

Paul G. said...

TWD,
This convention is the first time I've heard that charge .
I find it painfully like the same statement made by Clinton supporters of the last administration.

Has the Republican party become the new whiners?

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

And there's TWD right on time with his haughty sanctimony:

T: They see attacks on the President and his failed and disastrous policies as attacks on the nation.

C: You don't think screaming to the world how evil we are, AS A NATION, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, is detrimental to our posture of opposing groups aligned with al-Qaeda?

T: The French (FRENCH) had a leader that thought he was the state too once. They cut off his head. France survived.

C: And they replaced him with Napoleon. Funny that you should go there. (I see a lot of Corporal Napoleon in Lieutenant Kerry--especially the way Napoleon spun the HELL out of his exploits in Egypt and Palestine.) But here in America, at about that same time frame, printing presses that would have demonized the American cause and championed that of its enemies, would have been rightly shunned by the thinking people. Now, due to a paucity of thinking people, the mendacious and treacherous press becomes the determinant of reality to the pot-smoking losers who saw some illogical "hate Bush" polemic on MTV and now think they're Patrick Henry. 2 + 2 = 5 because the New York Times says so. It remains to be seen if that twisted creeping disease of American journalism will have had its intended effect.

this we'll defend said...

THEY are screaming to the world how evil we are?

THEY are pot-smoking losers?

THEY believe 2+2=5?

Yes, he is a uniter, not a divider.

He bravely takes a stand for, uhh, good, and against, uhhh, bad. Nobody ever thought of doing that before.

Except of course for THEY.

And THEY are still taking that stand.

That you think the French Revolution a failure because it later led to Napolean and yet more tryanny says everything about you. France is a republic today. But then, you probably hate all things French.

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. Or the Statue of Liberty.

But, then, you would have been a Tory and fought against those rabble-rousing losers in our country who dared to criticize the British Empire. But THEY won.

I heard George Washington didn't even see combat. There was this group, Delaware Boat Veterans for Truth, that said he was nowhere near Trenton either. They were on the Delaware River that Christmas and they didn't see him. He couldn't prove otherwise, so it must be true. You should vote B. Arnold for Prez instead.

Amanda the Great said...

ALa71 -- The libs get really hostile towards the right when they know they're wrong. Whatever anyone thinks of Fox News, fine, but it's ONE fucking channel that isn't liberal. Can't we just have our one channel, and have you leave us alone? One channel, against all the other hundreds of channels and periodicals and newspapers and so forth that are liberally biased.