Fox News is Un-American

[wuapinmon]

There is no such thing as an objective press outlet. Some try, but the human senses perceive things in certain ways. The AP is about as close as we can get. Sure, it has a bent, but it's cleaner than any other outlet.

If I want balance and a quick understand of all sides of an issue, I read:

The Week; they try and give all sides.

https://www.theweekmagazine.com

[TripletDaddy]

I think you are missing the point of the discussion. Of course there is bias. That is unavoidable. But shouldn't there at least be an effort at balance? There was a major shift around 100 years ago in US journalism towards a more independent media that serves the people. It has not been perfect, but the aggregate effect of the movement was positive. Would you prefer a return to 19th-century style journalism where each media outlet is explicitly owned and operated with a specific political or corporate objective?

I am not sure the media has changed dramatically over the years. All media outlets have a payroll, so ultimately they are motivated by money. I think what changes over time is that we grow older, more entrenched in our ideas, and more protective of that which we hold to be true.

These Fox news shows are ridiculous, but if you just go to foxnews.com and read news articles, there isnt anything overly offensive going on. A murder in Chicago, bad weather in the Rockies, a crazy doctor running over cyclists in California....how do these things lean right or left? Sometimes the CB knucklehead majority get so paranoid that they sound ridiculous...."I won't read the NY Times!" why not? Most of the NY Times consists of ads, classifieds, sports, weather, obituaries, entertainment, etc. Same with fox news.

As for efforts to be balanced, these talking heads shows will never be balanced because there is no such thing. Every writer, every producer, everyone has an agenda. Church media is also biased. All media has bias. With the proliferation of online journalism and lower barriers to entry into the media circle of influence, TV shows have to become MORE sensationalized, not less, in order to get ratings and make payroll.

This final sentence confuses me. What was this ever NOT the case? When did we ever abandon this model? You seem to think that at one time we had a largely agenda-free media?

Would you prefer a return to 19th-century style journalism where each media outlet is explicitly owned and operated with a specific political or corporate objective?

[Jeff Lebowski]

This final sentence confuses me. What was this ever NOT the case? When did we ever abandon this model? You seem to think that at one time we had a largely agenda-free media?

Your analysis is overly simplistic. You imply that there is no middle ground and that all levels of bias are equal.

Prior to the 20th century, newspapers were viewed primarily as tools for propaganda. Politicians and corporations purchased or created newspapers with the explicit intent of promoting a specific political objective. There was no attempt to even hide that agenda. Around the turn of the century there was a significant shift in that the media evolved away from direct propaganda role and towards the ideal of an independent vehicle that serves the people. Clearly that never works perfectly (you can stop harping about bias - nobody argues that there is ever a complete lack of bias), but the concept of an independent voice is good thing and worth promoting.

[TripletDaddy]

Your analysis is overly simplistic. You imply that there is no middle ground and that all levels of bias are equal.

Prior to the 20th century, newspapers were viewed primarily as tools for propaganda. Politicians and corporations purchased or created newspapers with the explicit intent of promoting a specific political objective. There was no attempt to even hide that agenda. Around the turn of the century there was a significant shift in that the media evolved away from direct propaganda role and towards the ideal of an independent vehicle that serves the people. Clearly that never works perfectly (you can stop harping about bias - nobody argues that there is ever a complete lack of bias), but the concept of an independent voice is good thing and worth promoting.

I agree with what you are saying. I guess I am suggesting that we already have what you are describing. It only seems like things have shifted because as you get older, you pay more attention to the news and you are more entrenched in your own political views.

Much like driving your first baby home from the hospital...all of a sudden everyone is driving like a maniac and the world is a more dangerous place. The only thing that has changed is our perspective.

I don't really buy the right-wing paranoia about Obamamania. You are old enough to remember the media fascination with Reagan. He received as much love as any President and he was conservative. Today he has been elevated to Sainthoot.....youngsters like John Lingo that weren't even really born when Reagan was Pres have been taught by their elders that The Great Communicator was one of the greatest presidents we have ever had. There is a cult of reagan, much like there is a cult of JFK.

The common link amongst all these media charmers is charisma. Reagan had it. JFK had it. Clinton had it. Obama has it. W does NOT have it. Bush Sr did not have it. Carter did not have it. McCain does not have it. The media will gravitate towards anything that moves the needle.

We may disagree in that you seem to be saying that there was once a time when the media was not really motivated by money, but rather by a desire to serve the people. Who was paying the salaries during this news Renaissance? how did the media make money and survive?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I agree with what you are saying. I guess I am suggesting that we already have what you are describing. It only seems like things have shifted because as you get older, you pay more attention to the news and you are more entrenched in your own political views.

Much like driving your first baby home from the hospital...all of a sudden everyone is driving like a maniac and the world is a more dangerous place. The only thing that has changed is our perspective.

Yeah, that's it. I am just a grumpy old man. (sigh...)

You still aren't following me. I am not saying that we don't have an independent media. I was just posing the question that should we be concerned that the media is becoming increasingly partisan? UD chalked it up a longer (24-hr) news cycle that has to be filled somehow. That's a good argument. I am not saying that we are anywhere near 19th-century levels of bias, but I think there is more bias now than 10-20 years ago. On both sides.

I don't really buy the right-wing paranoia about Obamamania. You are old enough to remember the media fascination with Reagan. He received as much love as any President and he was conservative. Today he has been elevated to Sainthoot.....youngsters like John Lingo that weren't even really born when Reagan was Pres have been taught by their elders that The Great Communicator was one of the greatest presidents we have ever had. There is a cult of reagan, much like there is a cult of JFK.

The common link amongst all these media charmers is charisma. Reagan had it. JFK had it. Clinton had it. Obama has it. W does NOT have it. Bush Sr did not have it. Carter did not have it. McCain does not have it. The media will gravitate towards anything that moves the needle.

Agreed. But I think that is a different discussion.

We may disagree in that you seem to be saying that there was once a time when the media was not really motivated by money, but rather by a desire to serve the people. Who was paying the salaries during this news Renaissance? how did the media make money and survive?

No, that is not what I said. Again, you are over-simplifying. Being independent doesn't mean that you can't make money. It simply means that you view your primary role to be a watch-dog, and not a propaganda machine. It means that your writers and editors have some freedom in what they choose to report and how they write the stories. It means that you don't have a corporate board or political party boss that controls every bit of information that gets published in your paper. As was the case in the 19th century.

[JohnnyLingo]

For the record, I'm with Lebowski on this one.

Part of the problem is the corporate influence, yes. But I also believe it is more difficult (and more boring) to write without injecting your own bias.

I propose an exercise: everyone write two 300-word news article about a recent current events story. For the first one, don't worry about being biased. Let your own opinions influence the piece. For the other, work at keeping your opinions out.

Then post them here and we'll discuss.

[TripletDaddy]

I propose an exercise: everyone write two 300-word news article about a recent current events story. For the first one, don't worry about being biased. Let your own opinions influence the piece. For the other, work at keeping your opinions out.

Then post them here and we'll discuss.

when is this assignment due? do we have to use college-rule paper? I have a dentist appointment tomorrow so I can't turn it in on time.

[TripletDaddy]

No, that is not what I said. Again, you are over-simplifying. Being independent doesn't mean that you can't make money. It simply means that you view your primary role to be a watch-dog, and not a propaganda machine. It means that your writers and editors have some freedom in what they choose to report and how they write the stories. It means that you don't have a corporate board or political party boss that controls every bit of information that gets published in your paper. As was the case in the 19th century.

I do see what you are saying. I just don't think it was ever as you described.

Also, you have said that the media is "becoming increasingly partisan." How so? Compared to...say.....10 years ago. Or 30 years ago. How is it "more partisan?"

[Art Vandelay]

I propose an exercise: everyone write two 300-word news article about a recent current events story.

Can I just open mouth kiss landpoke instead? I've never been a big fan of essays and rumor has it once you get past the taste of tequila and Skoal long-cut, poke is a great kisser.

[ERCougar]

So if it's impossible to be unbiased in your reporting, and I believe that it is, why do we care if something's unbiased? I think that I could learn more about an important political issue by hearing each side give its fully biased argument than by hearing from some referee his/her interpretation of the issue. Again, this is what our legal system is based on, right? We don't just find some guy to go investigate the conflict and then come up with a judgment--we give each side the opportunity to make its case.

Obviously, this is meaningless when we're talking about routine AP news wires about traffic accidents and such. But if I want to see an issue analyzed, I don't mind hearing fully biased opinions as long as both sides get their time.

[SeattleUte]

So says Jacob Weisberg in this op-ed piece:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192

That might be SU-style hyperbole, but he makes an interesting argument about how Fox news is undergoing a disturbing return to a 19th century-style partisan press. And other networks are starting to mimic it out of desperation.

Speaking of the New Yorker:

In 2008, half the people who watched the Fox News Channel were over sixty-three, which is the oldest demographic in the cable-news business, and, according to a poll, the majority of the ones who watched the most strident programs, such as Sean Hannity’s and Bill O’Reilly’s shows, were men. All that chesty fulminating apparently functions as political Cialis. Fox News shows should probably carry a warning: Contact your doctor if you have rage lasting more than four hours.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2009/11/02/091102taco_talk_menand#Replay

I guess that explains Fox's popularity on CB and with some here. (Unfortunately, the linked article steadily gets less interesting after this opening paragraph.)

BTW, I agree with 3D. Regardless of my agreement or disagreement with any position taken on Fox, I find it totally unwatchable.

[TripletDaddy]

So if it's impossible to be unbiased in your reporting, and I believe that it is, why do we care if something's unbiased? I think that I could learn more about an important political issue by hearing each side give its fully biased argument than by hearing from some referee his/her interpretation of the issue. Again, this is what our legal system is based on, right? We don't just find some guy to go investigate the conflict and then come up with a judgment--we give each side the opportunity to make its case.

Obviously, this is meaningless when we're talking about routine AP news wires about traffic accidents and such. But if I want to see an issue analyzed, I don't mind hearing fully biased opinions as long as both sides get their time.

i totally agree. this is the same question I posed to byu71 a few pages back. why is it so critical that biased people receive unbiased news clippings?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I do see what you are saying. I just don't think it was ever as you described.

In addition to your writing assignment from Mr. Lingo, I hereby assign you to read any bio on the founding fathers. I recommend this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Hami...7363895&sr=8-1

Hamilton and his enemies were particularly skilled in their use of newspapers as a vehicle for propaganda. No holds were barred in terms of insults, allegations, etc. It makes Fox News and MSNBC look downright quaint.

I want a ten-page report, double-spaced, 12-point font. Due in two weeks.

[Jeff Lebowski]

So if it's impossible to be unbiased in your reporting, and I believe that it is, why do we care if something's unbiased? I think that I could learn more about an important political issue by hearing each side give its fully biased argument than by hearing from some referee his/her interpretation of the issue. Again, this is what our legal system is based on, right? We don't just find some guy to go investigate the conflict and then come up with a judgment--we give each side the opportunity to make its case.

Obviously, this is meaningless when we're talking about routine AP news wires about traffic accidents and such. But if I want to see an issue analyzed, I don't mind hearing fully biased opinions as long as both sides get their time.

Clearly my nuance is not getting through. I am going to throw in the towel.

In closing I will refer you to this excellent post by PAC:

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpost.php?p=164990&postcount=6

[TripletDaddy]

In addition to your writing assignment from Mr. Lingo, I hereby assign you to read any bio on the founding fathers. I recommend this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Hami...7363895&sr=8-1

Hamilton and his enemies were particularly skilled in their use of newspapers as a vehicle for propaganda. No holds were barred in terms of insults, allegations, etc. It makes Fox News and MSNBC look downright quaint.

I want a ten-page report, double-spaced, 12-point font. Due in two weeks.

ha...no, sorry. I definitely agree with that. no wonder you thought I was up in the night.

I meant that I don't think that the media was every really interested in a serious shift towards balance at the turn of the 20th century.

ps 10 pages? no problem...time to widen the margins and header/footers.....