I began to write this for the Kurt Vonnegut thread but then it became long and tangly and went off in non-Vonnegut related directions, so I decided to start a new topic on what I percieve is a major issue that is worth talking about.
I have tried to be as factual, and non-angry as I possibly can; however, it will be clear that I have no love for Fox and I am in the camp of those who believe that Fox does a great disservice to those who watch it and place their trust in it.
Warning: Long Vehicle.
I think many people see a particular dislike of Fox News as an attack on their beliefs. However, I think that the animosity towards Fox News is not necessarily the view point it espouses (although of course no news source should really have such a strong viewpoint- more on this later) but its general lack of class (this obituary, the breaking news story front pages "HANGED", many of O'Reilly's comments), its population with rather bizarrely unbalanced and angry pundits, and an inability to report the news truthfully- or, indeed, to focus on what is important rather than what is entertaining or flashy.
In the Vonnegut thread, people mentioned CNN and MSNBC. I have no experience with MSNBC but in my opinion, even if CNN is a poor news service it is a better, more truthful one than Fox.
Fox tends to report the news, as we all know, with a heavy right wing bias. I do not think many people would disagree with this assessment although I think many would consider that a good thing, or perhaps a thing that balances out a left wing bias news station.
However, I don’t want to get into an argument about bias. It is very hard to come to a consensus about what is appropriate for news to report, and it is clear that most news sources have some kind of bias. What I want to talk about first is manipulation of the facts, bad reporting, and introduction of tenuously related or unrelated associations in order to further an outside cause. In effect, what I think we should discuss is where bias not only colours but changes the news, resulting in untruthful and poor journalism.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
The title of this article is: “Republicans Blast Harry Reid for Saying War is Lost” and it’s about a speech Majority Leader Harry Reid made saying that the war is lost and that various leaders know this. However, it is tough for me to know exactly what he said because the amount of article space given to the original speech is limited. The article itself opens with the counter attack before giving a short quote of what was said.
It is clear to me the bias at work here, but ignoring the bias, like I said, and focusing on the way this news is reported, I think this news is presented backwards. Surely, the original news is the original speech and the response is secondary:
The Fox News opening paragraph:
quote:WASHINGTON — Republicans blasted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comments that the Iraq war is 'lost,' saying it sends the wrong message to U.S. troops fighting in Iraq.
Mine:
quote:WASHINGTON --- Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said yesterday that he believes the war in Iraq is ‘lost’, drawing support and criticism.”
It should the go on to give and explain what the Senator said, before giving the responses- which Fox does give both sides of, although, because of their bias, they naturally give precedence to the Republican side. Again, this is not what I am worried about here. What I am worried about is the construction of the news and the reporting of it being inverted, changed etc. by this bias.
I picked this article because I do not think people would regard it as particularly badly written normally- biased, of course, but badly written, no. I would like to draw people’s attention to the fundamental errors with reporting that Fox makes to present the news in not only a biased way but also an inverted way.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
So let us now take a walk on the wild side away from this news into the op-ed sections of the site, where, I’m sure you are all quite aware, Fox draws its strongest criticism. I have picked an article by Jerry Bower, which appears in the Neil Caruto part of the site. It does not hold any “Editor” or “Opinion” titles but I think its position off the normal main portion of the site assumes this. It is worth noting that I linked to this article from the regular news section.
The headline is “On Hating Rich Kids… and More: The Virginia Shooter’s America Problem.”
Don’t laugh, what I have to say is not exactly what you think. Again, we’re going beyond bias here and into where bias distorts truth.
The article discusses a play that Cho Seung-Hui, the killer in the recent Virginia tragedy, wrote entitled ‘McBeef’, an obvious play on MacBeth, and, as Mr. Bower points out, to McDonalds. Mr. Bower calls the play “viscerally anti-American.”
I have read the play; I read it before I read this article. The play is about a step-father, and a stepson who accuses him of being unable to support his family and of pedophilia. In the end, the stepfather kills the son. Hear me out.
The anti-American conclusion is drawn from two (or three) points in the play. First, the link between the stepfather and McDonalds: “The play also makes constant reference to the evil stepfather’s obesity; in the eye of the author we are all fat Americans who eat at McDonald’s.” The second link is the son calling his stepfather “a Catholic priest”, meaning, a pedophile. The stepfather having previously been an athlete is also seen as an anti-American statement.
Although I can see a certain cultural dissatisfaction in the son’s words, I think that focussing this and calling it a “hatred of America” is wilfully misinterpreting the play and the two above comments. He paints this killer as a hater of America and I think that is an untruthful manipulation of the evidence. The play, McBeef, is not an anti-American diatribe. Making it into one is merely serving to support a bias that later becomes visible in the article:
quote:But I will go this far: There is a rising tide of resentment in our country against the so-called “rich,” and Christianity, and a Big Mac with fries. Talk-show hosts, op-ed writers, documentarians, and authors of all stripes take part in it. They speak to psychologically healthy audiences, although the bent and wicked are listening in too.
The writer of this piece has taken a piece of writing that has a tenuous link to a dissatisfaction with clearly problematic areas of North American culture and made it into something that it is not. This, to me, is a problem.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to clear up the interpretation of the play. Until now I have been assuming the interpretation that the Mr. Bower assumes: that the son is in fact the mouthpiece of the play. It is my opinion that this is not entirely the case. This re-examination is brought about by the comments that Mr. Bower makes about the fact that this play is ‘anti-rich’ where the stepfather’s inability to support his mother and the series of small, low-income jobs he has had are insufficient and shameful. This does not seem like an anti-rich statement, but an anti-poor one. This fact seems to undermine Mr. Bower’s interpretation.
But let us, then, re-examine the play in further detail. Reading the play, it is apparent that the stepfather character never puts a toe out of line. The claims of pedophilia and the consumption of vast amounts of MacDonalds are claims made by the stepson only. Now, this alone is meaningless- the stepson could be right. However, what makes me stop and question this one-sided interpretation of the play is the last line: “Out of sheer desecrated hurt and anger, Richard lifts his large arms and swings a deadly blow at the thirteen year old boy.”
Now. I know I’m kind of going down a rat hole here but ‘desecrated hurt and anger’? I do not think that is the language of an evil act- “desecration” is the language of religion- the desecrated is the holy one. I think the author of the play intended to, in some ways, justify the actions of the stepfather- to imply, as in MacBeth, that the main character was somehow coerced into his evil ways. I believe this is the way that the author of the play viewed himself as a Christ-figure, in that he said that there were a “billion opportunities” to avoid his actions, he was in fact relating himself- probably unconsciously- to the stepfather and not to the boy. Just because we view this killer as a ‘son’ figure doesn’t mean he would make the ‘son’ figure the protagonist.
This is made complicated by the fact that the rant does belong to the stepson.
You may read the play, if you wish to do so, here. Please do so, I would like to know if my interpretation, which is not only contrary to the author of this article but to most people’s holds any water. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0417071vtech1.html
This inverts all the assertions in the article, except the unfounded anti-rich statement, which now fits into place. I think that the statements made by the stepson, against the poor, his assumption of MacDonald’s consumption and the stepfather’s inability to hold down a series of low-wage jobs is in fact supposed to represent the ‘bad’ side.
If this is true, the anti-American statement is reversed, and revealed to be rather unfortunate. Using the Mr. Bower’s logic, this killer was in fact influenced not by the liberal media- as Mr. Bower asserts- but by the conservative ones. Now we see how ludicrous the article is. Of course he wasn’t: he was seriously disturbed, frustrated, murderously angry and completely mad.
The article ignores and manipulates facts and information- such as the name ‘Ismail Ax’ which the author considers to be ‘Muslim’ where the killer clearly identified himself with Christ- in order to lay the blame (although he’s very adamant that he’s not blaming anyone). He also perpetuates the anti-American myth.
The fact that Fox would allow this to be published demonstrates to me their interest not in reporting the news or the facts but instead creating a story for readers to latch on to. Not many people are going to want to read the play of a killer so they will assume that the statement of anti-Americanism is correct: it is inverted news.
This is a problem.
Thoughts?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:This is a problem.
Thoughts?
If it's a problem, it sure isn't a problem for Fox, since the company is not technically interested primarily in the transmission of facts.
Murdoch is an entertainer first and foremost. His metric for success is viewership and sales, not objectivity. It's why he imported so much of his tabloid business and tabloid methodology to American television.
The business strategy was pure and simple. Find the group of American viewers who least liked what they were seeing in the news, and then give them news that was easier for them to digest. Feed them ideological sympathy, as it were. It was a resounding success.
Of course, if you change the metric for grading a news channel to "how accurately it portrays the news," then Fox News is at the absolute bottom of the barrel. Fox does not give 'the other side' of a story, it gives a bald, ideologically corrupted distortion of news. The end result is that viewership of Fox News is ever-so-strongly correlated with being greatly more clueless or wrong than people who use other news sources.
quote:Pew judged the levels of knowledgeability (correct answers) among those surveyed and found that those who scored the highest were regular watchers of Comedy Central's The Daily Show and Colbert Report. They tied with regular readers of major newspapers in the top spot -- with 54% of them getting 2 out of 3 questions correct. Watchers of the Lehrer News Hour on PBS followed just behind.
Virtually bringing up the rear were regular watchers of Fox News. Only 1 in 3 could answer 2 out of 3 questions correctly. Fox topped only network morning show viewers.
I guess it's easy to have a real problem with it. Me, I think that Fox News' bias is just hilarious. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, I mean it's a problem in that Fox News has the word "News" in it. If it were not selling itself as a News station, they could broadcast what they wanted.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
To be honest, none of the news companies interest me. All of them seem more interested in grabbing market share than informing the public accurately and correctly. Lately it seems like most news companies use Wikipedia and various blogs as sources of information, rather than searching through primary sources like government or court documentation. Modern Journalists, in general, seem lazy to me.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I get all my news from Fark and The Onion anyway.
Posted by Kasie (Member # 3100) on :
quote: All of them seem more interested in grabbing market share than informing the public accurately and correctly.
Not us!
The AP is a non-profit news cooperative.
Posted by Kasie (Member # 3100) on :
Also, for some comparison, AP's lede on the Harry Reid business.
quote:WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday the war in Iraq is "lost," triggering an angry backlash by Republicans, who said the top Democrat had turned his back on the troops.
The bleak assessment - the most pointed yet from Reid - came as the House voted 215-199 to uphold legislation ordering troops out of Iraq next year.
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: the breaking news story front pages "HANGED"
What does this mean, exactly? I am confused.
In response to your general theme, it seems odd to me that it just happens to be the leading network that people are saying is biased. Why don't people care about MSNBC's crazily left slant? Because NOBODY WATCHES IT.
For you and me and some people we know, I think yes, it is about politics. For the elite, though, the journalists and execs and other people whose bread and butter are the networks which regularly get humiliated in polls and viewership numbers by Fox; well, for those people, it's money. Don't buy into their rhetoric--they just want another beemer.
Another thing--everybody loves to whine about Fox's bias. Let's assume hypothetically that Fox News' actual news pieces were in fact biased. What then? Are we supposed to boycott the network? Shut it down? What?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Kasie,
AP isn't without its problems. When the AP screws up, misinformation spreads like the plague through the wires. And they have a really bad history regarding admitting mistakes and running corrections when called on it.
I think they've gotten better lately since they finally got around to adopting a public set of standards they can be held to, though.
I just checked and two AP reporters have made it to NDY's Journalists' Hall of Shame. Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: clearly problematic areas of North American culture
Again, not really understanding you. Are you saying that rich people, McDonald's and Christianity are "clearly problematic?"
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kasie:
quote: All of them seem more interested in grabbing market share than informing the public accurately and correctly.
Not us!
The AP is a non-profit news cooperative.
So when AP reports spin and fabricate news, you can rest assured it's for pure ideological reasons rather than for profit Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:In response to your general theme, it seems odd to me that it just happens to be the leading network that people are saying is biased. Why don't people care about MSNBC's crazily left slant? Because NOBODY WATCHES IT.
Keith Olbermann is definitely biased toward the left. Chis Matthews is maybe slightly left of center - he seems to like Rudy better than any of the presidential candidates of either party, so I'm not sure how far to the left.
But the remaining primetime shows are these on MSNBC:
Tucker - who was most often the conservative rep on the show "Crossfire."
For the record, the shows I watch on MSNBC are Hardball, Countdown, and (if I'm staying up past 8 pm) Scarborough Country.
Frankly, I think it's kind of hard to frame MSNBC as a leftist showcase, considering the diversity of the lineup.
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: Keith Olbermann is definitely biased toward the left. Chis Matthews is maybe slightly left of center - he seems to like Rudy better than any of the presidential candidates of either party
Of course Olbermann leans left. He runs around on talk shows giving the Seig Heil.
Matthews "maybe slightly" left? Sure, and Bill Gates is "maybe slightly" wealthy. He likes Rudy, you say? Rudy is the John McCain of 2008. (I know what you're thinking, but no--John McCain is the Ross Perot of 2008.)
I really don't see why people get their hackles raised, though. So Fox slants right. So MSNBC, CNN, CBS, AP, CSPAN, etcetera slant left. The best test of what people want is in the ratings. And you know, I seem to have forgotten--which of those I just named is on top and has been for years? Whichever one it is, that must be the one people want to watch.
I feel compelled to add at this point that using which news network people prefer as a guage of intelligence, as was attempted a few posts ago, only reinforces the suspicion that people who do this tend to be elitist snobs.
Posted by Kasie (Member # 3100) on :
sndrake,
The Washington Bureau has a different - higher - set of standards on correctives than the rest of the AP, and I will say that every time a mistake has been pointed out it has been corrected, down to misspellings. It has been the end of careers here. (This is not to say that the rest of AP doesn't have strong accuracy policies, just that I don't know how they are applied/enforced or even what they are.)
Frankly, with the blogosphere the way it is, it is impossible *not* to be that way. All political stories are absolutely picked apart - it's happened to me a number of times - and 99 times in 100 the accusation isn't founded or the reader makes an assertion that would have been clarified by little more than a closer reading of the original story.
We're all human, that's certainly true, but from my vantage point I have never seen anything but a complete and total commitment to accuracy above all (we won a Pulitzer in 2000 because we didn't call Florida for Gore).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
MSNBC doesn't really seem to have anyone in the real middle ground. They're either on the left or the right, while FOX has seemingly everyone on the right.
CNN I think has a few unbiased reporters. Lou Dobbs obviously isn't one of them, but then again, Dobbs tends to bash EVERYONE rather than just Republicans.
Personally, I have to support that Pew test that was taken. I trust Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert more than anyone else in news. They pick on both sides equally and HARSHLY, and only rarely have I seen them pull any punches, in fact the only example that comes to mind is when Stewart had Jon Kerry on his show in 2004, and I thought the interview was very weak.
Other than that, I really don't bother to watch ANY of those stations. I read my news on CNN, and I get some of it from the BBC, but no one really watches MSNBC, they're I think dead last in viewership for the cable news channels.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: So Fox slants right. So MSNBC, CNN, CBS, AP, CSPAN, etcetera slant left.
Well, you can only make that statement if you ignore the rest of my post. Both Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough are conservatives -- and they aren't pretending to be something else now that they are on MSNBC.
And Rudy and McCain only seem "lefty" if you are fairly far on the right . To lefties like myself, they don't appear "lefty" at all, just less right of center than the rest of the field.
*Edit to more accurately reflect my views on where Giuliani and McCain sit on the right/left spectrum (simplified version).
[ April 20, 2007, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Kasie (Member # 3100) on :
C-SPAN slants left?!? Are we watching the same channel?? C-SPAN slants *boring.* They spend so much time on primary sources I don't quite see how their editorial judgment even exists, let alone slants.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, but everyone knows that reality has a distinct, left-wing bias.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Again, not really understanding you. Are you saying that rich people, McDonald's and Christianity are "clearly problematic?"
Nope, I'm saying that bad eating habits and pedophilic priests are clearly problematic.
quote:Again, not really understanding you. Are you saying that rich people, McDonald's and Christianity are "clearly problematic?"
When Saddam Hussein was executed, Fox News' website had huge letters "HANGED" with a skull and bones- very crass stuff.
quote: So MSNBC, CNN, CBS, AP, CSPAN, etcetera slant left.
I don't think that this is true. Also, like I said, it's not the bias that bothers me necessarily, it is when the bias interferes with the reporting or the facts. When the story is about the bias. I see this most pronounced in Fox News. Their "news" is about the bias, not about the reality of the situation. That is where problems arise.
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kasie: C-SPAN slants left?!? Are we watching the same channel?? C-SPAN slants *boring.* They spend so much time on primary sources I don't quite see how their editorial judgment even exists, let alone slants.
I'm thinking of the hours and hours of "Book Chat" or "Book World" or whatever the block is called, where socialist and other leftist authors come on and give speeches and read excerpts from their books.
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
Sorry, guys, I still don't see your point. Even IF Fox is biased, so what? That's only the first half of the sentence. The second half begins: "so we should--" ....we should what?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
So we should not watch it. So we should demand better. So we should stop allowing Fox to change the news to support the story.
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: So we should not watch it. So we should demand better. So we should stop allowing Fox to change the news to support the story.
Not to be a jerk, but who is "we?" You got a mouse in your pocket?
Fox has an enormous viewer base, far outstripping any other network. And I generally don't put much faith in surveys (they have incorrectly predicted the last two presidential elections) but I read about some survey on politico.com that said that Fox viewers who self-identify as liberal or moderate outnumber TOTAL viewers of any other network.
Again, not to be a jerk, but refuse to watch Fox all you want; to ignore its power or its impact is shortsighted at best. Let's assume that Fox IS a conservative network and that its viewers are conservatives. These Democrat Party candidates who refuse to debate on Fox are therefore idiots. I always thought the idea of campaigning was to win new voters to your side. Apparently they only want to preach to the choir.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Battler03, I don't see any socialist authors on C-span's http://www.booktv.org/ this weekend. I see
An editor and a writer for that bastion of socialism, the Wall Street Journal (Stephanie Capparell, Gregory Fossedal)
Mark DePue, formerly served with the U.S. Army and the Army National Guard
assorted dull historians
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)& Teresa Heinz Kerry. . .
Ok, maybe you've got a point with those last two.
But seriously, even if there is an occasional socialist, doesn't an editor for the WSJ kind of balance that out? Does having one socialist on-air brand a network as forever biased? Because if so, there's no need to assume Fox is conservatively biased--it's a given.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
George Carlin: "Have you ever noticed how everyone who drives faster than you is a maniac, and everyone who drives slower than you is an idiot?"
Fox News, while being the New York Post of cable news, is only as right-leaning as your left-leaning perspective makes it seem. There are some right-wing nutjobs out there who despise Fox News for its liberal bias. Your criticism of Fox News, Teshi, pretty much illustrates where you sit on the spectrum. There's nothing inherently wrong with where you align yourself ideologically. I just want to point out that, if you consider yourself middle of the road, you're not very self-aware. And that, I find, is a major source of personal conflicts. Know thyself.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There are some right-wing nutjobs out there who despise Fox News for its liberal bias.
I don't disagree. But there are no sane people on the right wing who think Fox News slants liberal.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Teshi,
Thanks for writing up the obviously thoughtfully considered OP.
With the play: Firstly, it sure sucks something awful. Secondly, you definitely have a point. It was not an anti-American diatribe. And frankly, I don't think 'unAmerican' and 'anti-American' are words that should exist in regular discourse anyway, except in news reports to identify which guerilla/terrorist groups are fighting US troops, and which are on the coalition's side.
Bowyer's reasoning is tenuous at best; the play is ambiguous and more accurately described by CNN as 'disturbing', 'graphically violent', or 'angry'. Taking a look at Cho's other play, Mr. Brownstone (warning: rampant profanity and metaphors which even George Carlin could never come up with), and the video he sent into NBC, it should be clear that this young man was confused at best; a rebel without a cause. He really has more in common with a teenager who joins campus socialist groups because it seems like the counter-cultural thing to do, rather than a person with any semblance of clear politics, or even a specific grudge against American culture. No doubt he was offended by, or wanted to appear as if he was offended by, capitalist society and unchecked consumerism, but that doesn't make you anti-American. (And I know that McDonald's is a common symbol of capitalism and is self-professedly America's Favorite Laxative™, but everyone should be free to criticise that franchise.)
If he did have any clear political views, I'm guessing he would have drifted far to the left. Left by the way isn't an absolute marker for 'Liberal', it's a broad umbrella term covering pretty much anyone who wants to change the status quo; the right being the conservatives who wish to maintain the status quo, or in the case of reactionaries, roll back changes.
I'm no behavioural psychologist though, so I won't try to speculate on his motives.
Getting back to the play, I think Bowyer simplistically equates anti-consumerism, a hint of criticism of Christianity, and anything relating to the struggle of the working class, with anti-Americanism. When I read the reference to Catholic priests on page 4, I saw it only as a reflection of the pervasive popular media association between the clergy and paedophilia. He mentioned Michael Jackson too. My immediate thought was that the character's understanding of the world was largely shaped by tabloids.
And sure enough, on page 5, there is "an old tabloid titled 'The cover-up of Marylin Monroe and John Lennon!!'" on the table.
And I'm willing to bet that the very words "government cover-up" helped considerably in edging Bowyer towards his presumtive conclusion; "This was a man who hated the American regime — our very way of life."
CNN did a much better job of covering this, but in their usual cluttered and crass style; the article is punctuated with dozens of uninformative videos in which the American flag figures prominently in the graphics, and a reporter notes with profundity that a 9mm round is smaller than a .45 calibre but is not really "small" and still kills people.
Battler03,
First off, welcome to Hatrack.
So it isn't a problem that Fox reports news in a distorted fashion to suit preconceived biases, as long as they get their ratings?
I'm sure that's the way Fox execs might see it, but in a democracy in which a vast proportion of the population is uninformed or misinformed, the net results can be serious. Obviously no one here is advocating a forced shut-down of the network. What most of us are doing is demanding higher quality journalism and boycotting Fox news and its ilk.
I have a problem with most US and many non-US news outlets though, in that they have, as Samprimary said, evolved into a form of pseudo-entertainment where journalistic substance is rare. News tickers displaying irrelevant information, the incessant emphasis on sensationalist footage, animated graphics, dumbed down news, and 'talk shows' which replace any semblance of intelligent discussion with pure vitriol. Any network which airs stuff like this is unworthy of respect. And let me tell you, that trash would never have aired on an Australian current affairs talk show, and I'm happy for it.
Crossfire would have been another example, where complex political situations were crudely rendered in black and white, and people with a colourful variety of views were pegged into square holes. CNN viewers owe thanks to Jon Stewart for cleaning up that mess.
Samprimary,
You're right about Murdoch. While in the US Fox is working to make climate change sceptics appear more credible, over here (where we don't have too many sceptics and most people outside of the Liberal--conservative--Party want to sign Kyoto) his papers are turning environmentalism into a media advertising campaign, even sponsoring Earth Hour; an hour when Sydney was encouraged to turn off its non-essential lights, so that Sydney Morning Herald photographers could get nice 'before and after' photographs for the next morning's paper.
Unfortunately for the Herald, Media Watch caught on that the images were Photoshopped or otherwise manipulated to make the contrast in photos more dramatic.
I'm willing to bet that most people just switched on their television for that hour.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Battler03:
Again, not to be a jerk, but refuse to watch Fox all you want; to ignore its power or its impact is shortsighted at best. Let's assume that Fox IS a conservative network and that its viewers are conservatives. These Democrat Party candidates who refuse to debate on Fox are therefore idiots. I always thought the idea of campaigning was to win new voters to your side. Apparently they only want to preach to the choir.
Actually, it has more to do with the way Fox misrepresents and skews the arguments of Democrats. Interviewers, editors, and cameramen have certain powers over the interviewee.
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Battler03,
First off, welcome to Hatrack.
So it isn't a problem that Fox reports news in a distorted fashion to suit preconceived biases, as long as they get their ratings?
I'm sure that's the way Fox execs might see it, but in a democracy in which a vast proportion of the population is uninformed or misinformed, the net results can be serious. Obviously no one here is advocating a forced shut-down of the network. What most of us are doing is demanding higher quality journalism and boycotting Fox news and its ilk.
I have a problem with most US and many non-US news outlets though, in that they have, as Samprimary said, evolved into a form of pseudo-entertainment where journalistic substance is rare. News tickers displaying irrelevant information, the incessant emphasis on sensationalist footage, animated graphics, dumbed down news, and 'talk shows' which replace any semblance of intelligent discussion with pure vitriol. Any network which airs stuff like this is unworthy of respect. And let me tell you, that trash would never have aired on an Australian current affairs talk show, and I'm happy for it.
Crossfire would have been another example, where complex political situations were crudely rendered in black and white, and people with a colourful variety of views were pegged into square holes. CNN viewers owe thanks to Jon Stewart for cleaning up that mess.
Thanks for the welcome; been an OSC fan since I found a dog-eared copy of Ender's Game in a barracks day-room when I was 8.
Look, I'm not saying that we should ignore Fox's right-slanted bias. But neither should we ignore CNN or other networks when they call terrorists "insurgents" or suicide bombers "homicide bombers." There's a reason that they only show FOX News in DFACs in Iraq, and it ain't just because of the much-hotter infobabes. (Incidentally, the most-watched network in Iraq is ESPN, but that's neither here nor there.)
I think it is wise for media consumers on ALL sides of the spectrum to consume from as many different diverse sources as they can. I myself just cannot stomach sites like DU anymore; but there are other places that aren't so vitriolic.
I also think it is kind of scary to infer that the majority of Americans are uninformed or shallow or something because most of us prefer FOX News. I myself rely on NO television news channel for actual news; I just watch Fox for the analysis. I get my news from the internet, which at this point is so diverse and cacophonous that any "bias" only reflects reality. But like I was saying...to say Americans are dumb because we like a network that you yourself do not--well, I think that says more about you than it does about Americans or any one network.
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
Sorry to keep on, but honestly...Geraldo and O'Reilly fighting? I'd rather have that on my news network of choice than some memoranda "proving" Bush was AWOL from Vietnam which are so fake you can still see the Kinko's letterhead.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Battler03:
I think it is wise for media consumers on ALL sides of the spectrum to consume from as many different diverse sources as they can.
That's one way to try and piece things together, but occasionally, most if not all the networks are wrong. Like with the WMD scare.
quote:I also think it is kind of scary to infer that the majority of Americans are uninformed or shallow or something because most of us prefer FOX News.
Not just because of Fox. I didn't say shallow - I said the majority are ill informed or misinformed, and that's very different. A simple look at surveys like the one Adam (Lyrhawn) noted shows that by Hatrack's standards anyway, most Americans really are ill informed about politics.
quote:I get my news from the internet, which at this point is so diverse and cacophonous that any "bias" only reflects reality.
Nope, adding up all the bias doesn't necessarily add up to the truth. This misconception has led many people to believe that anthropogenic global warming might be true about half the time but is probably wrong in most cases; a reflection of the media's net bias in the US. In fact, the evidence is fairly conclusive on the matter, and we are heavily exacerbating global warming.
Journalism in quantity raises the chances of someone out there getting it right, and in terms of editorials and op-eds, gives the reader a more complete cross-section of public opinion. But what America (and the rest of the world) needs more of right now is quality journalism rather than quantity.
[Edit: redundant word]
[ April 21, 2007, 03:03 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
The thing about FOX News that differentiates it from other news programs is that it clear that a fundamental purpose of FOX News is to present news in a conservatively slanted fashion. Whether or not other networks tend to lean one direction or another, they all at least appear to try to present things fairly. FOX does the opposite - it tries to be biased.
And what is especially annoying about it is that they then claim to be the only "fair and balanced" network. It is akin to McDonalds claiming to be the only healthy restaraunt around.
The solution is not to watch it, and support those who choose not to appear on it.
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: That's one way to try and piece things together, but occasionally, most if not all the networks are wrong. Like with the WMD scare.
The WMD "scare?"
What do you mean by that? Both sarin and chlorine bombs have been not only discovered but detonated in Iraq. Chlorine bombs are actually being used pretty frequently even now. But hey, let me guess--those "don't count" for some reason.
Sure.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
No, they don't count as WMDs. For obvious reasons.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Battler03:
What do you mean by that? Both sarin and chlorine bombs have been not only discovered but detonated in Iraq. Chlorine bombs are actually being used pretty frequently even now. But hey, let me guess--those "don't count" for some reason.
Actually, Bush and his administration consistently referred to nuclear weapons.
What about a mortar round containing sarin gas? Or a US cluster bomb? Are those WMDs too? If so, a rather large proportion of US military hardware, including the weapons which have been and are currently in use in Iraq, falls under the category of 'weapons of mass destruction'.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But neither should we ignore CNN or other networks when they call terrorists "insurgents" or suicide bombers "homicide bombers."
Uh, there are insurgents in iraq. They technically outnumber terrorists, if one is to look at the motivations and methods of most of the real violence in Iraq.
Plus the two terms are not mutually exclusive!
Also, the ONLY news network to use the revisionist term 'homicide bombers' was Fox. Period. They picked it up the minute Ari F. started using the newspeak term in news briefings. Of course they quit after a long time of being told that the revision was a stupid one.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Here's a thought.
If you believe that one news service might be slightly biased in one direction, and that every other news service is completely biased in another direction, than maybe, just maybe, the center isn't where you think it is.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: If he did have any clear political views, I'm guessing he would have drifted far to the left. Left by the way isn't an absolute marker for 'Liberal', it's a broad umbrella term covering pretty much anyone who wants to change the status quo; the right being the conservatives who wish to maintain the status quo, or in the case of reactionaries, roll back changes.
Well, I want to stress that I think his "political affiliation" is unimportant in the modern sense; I agree that he was a radical which traditional puts him in a liberal camp, but I doubt he really affiliated himself with a party- he probably saw the whole political system as flawed and evil.
What I was trying to get at by my rat hole about the play was something kind of unrelated to Fox News, so I won't pursue that here. It was only part of my comment about what I perceive as a total misinterpretation of the facts to support the bias.
I think the second play you linked to does strengthen the view that it seems that no one is 'good' in the world of a killer.
And thanks for responding, Euripides to that particular point.
quote:anthropogenic
Good word. I haven't seen this before.
I generally agree with all of what you're saying, Euripides. The world, especially North America needs better journalism. I think in order to do so either news sources need to check themselves or the people need to wake up and demand better.
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: No, they don't count as WMDs. For obvious reasons.
Of course. You don't want them to, because it makes Bush right. But this isn't a WMD thread, and I'm sorry if it was me that brought them up.
I don't see why it makes a difference in someone's life whether or not Fox is biased. I watch and read plenty of news and opinion which I consider leftist, and it doesn't make me go over to the dark side or anything. I also watch O'Reilly or Hannity every other day or so. Come to think of it, even though I call myself a Fox viewer, I watch more of other networks.
I just can't understand why people get so worked up about it. Just don't watch it. If enough people agree with your point of view and don't watch it, then it will eventually go out of business. If not, then hey, at least you don't have to watch it, and you can retain your sense of superiority over us unwashed rednecks here in the Bible Belt. End of story.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
sndrake, how do groups like NDY deal with groupthink and errors of bias? Or is it not a problem with activist groups?
---
Edited to add: Went for coffee, thought about it, and realized that would likely be readable as a bald challenge. Didn't mean it that way.
It's just that I know you have been exploring this idea in your own thoughts and writings lately, and I think of activist groups as generally having to be very wily and savvy in working the game, especially in a soundbite world. I was interested in your own reflective thoughts about how that fits into this sort of discussion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I would propose a simple way for determining if something is a weapon of mass destruction: has it, when used as intended, caused mass destruction?
So, Battler, are what have been used in Iraq weapons of mass destruction?
And no, it would not prove Bush right even were they classified as such. Bush's claims were not so simple.
The man the Bush administration appointed to evaluate the situation concluded the Bush administration's claims about WMD were almost entirely incorrect.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: sndrake, how do groups like NDY deal with groupthink and errors of bias? Or is it not a problem with activist groups?
---
Edited to add: Went for coffee, thought about it, and realized that would likely be readable as a bald challenge. Didn't mean it that way.
It's just that I know you have been exploring this idea in your own thoughts and writings lately, and I think of activist groups as generally having to be very wily and savvy in working the game, especially in a soundbite world. I was interested in your own reflective thoughts about how that fits into this sort of discussion.
Didn't see this til just now, but I don't think I would have thought of it as a personal challenge even without the further explanation.
There's no simple solution with the situations we deal with - tactics vary according to context. And not all tactics are successful.
And my take on it is a little different - Fox has a different bias, but it is often operating with the same (and inappropriate) framing of a story as mainstream and "left-wing" media. Not to belabor the point, but I know I complained that Fox, MSNBC, the NY Times, etc. all shared the same "culture wars" framework in covering the Schiavo story - and that Framework meant they *all* left disability groups out of the story because we didn't fit. We were part of the advocacy and legal proceedings, but not part of the shared script.
I'm just getting ready to leave the office. I'll try to get some thoughts together and post in the morning (I try not to do any serious typing at night or I won't get to sleep at a reasonable hour).
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I just can't understand why people get so worked up about it. Just don't watch it.
The trouble is that it is not enough to just not watch it. The trouble is also that other people watch it and then become misinformed, which in turn leads them to make misinformed decisions about who to vote for, etc. For that reason, it is important to try and get those people to realize the danger in watching a news program that is intentionally trying to slant the information they put out.
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: The trouble is that it is not enough to just not watch it. The trouble is also that other people watch it and then become misinformed
Maybe I'm misreading this; but this sounds to me dangerously close to "we should shut it down." Which is no better than silencing political discourse with which you disagree. That's scarily reminiscent of some kind of USSR tactic.
Does it not occur to people that those of us who watch Fox news...well, that we APPROVE of the slant they put on news?
And, to be a little more cynical, I ask again: without Fox News, what would elitist liberals have to feel superior over? Come on guys--we give you lots of great ammo for convos at your black-tie cocktail parties.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What about liberals who aren't elitist?
Battler, why do you APPROVE of slant? You really wouldn't rather just get the news and then form your own opinion?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
umm
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
What is this about "we" and "you"? Politics isn't a team sport.
And no, I didn't say anything about shutting it down. I said I think we should persuade people to understand that it is foolish to allow yourself to be misled, so they will voluntarily choose to not watch it anymore. I understand that you might approve of the slant, but I think that if you do then you are mistaken.
The thing about being tricked into believing false things is that it is much easier to be tricked into believing something you are already inclined to believe. It makes people feel good to have their views justified. It feels better to watch a news program that tells you what you'd like to believe. But ultimately what feels good isn't always good for you. It is better to hear the truth now even if it means you are mistaken, than to hear only what you'd like to hear and end up basing all your decisions on faulty beliefs.
That's why conservatives are the ones who should be most concerned about Fox News. They are the ones most likely to be tricked. And I suspect it has already seriously hurt conservativism in America. Fox News is a part of what led many conservatives to mistakenly push for the war in Iraq, which in turn has to a large degre led the Republican Party to defeat in recent elections. And more generally speaking, I suspect that if the Bush administration and Republicans in general had gotten better information rather than hearing only what they wanted to hear, they'd still controll Congress right now.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
With the regards to the PEW study Samprimary cited: the point you're trying to make is unfounded. Check out the the data. Viewers of Bill O'Reilly did nearly as well as viewers of Colbert/Stewert. They were statistically more knowledgeable in 2/5 categories, equal in one, and less knowledgeable in 2 categories. From a statistical perspective I'd say the data indicates that they are every bit as well-informed.
Sure, when you begin to compare viewers of Stewart/Colbert with the viewers of an entire network, you can paint a different picture. People who watch Colbert/Stewart are a self-selecting crowd. I'd expect them to be more knowledgeable about the news than the average Fox News viewer. That's entirely logical, and says little to nothing about the quality of Fox News. Statistical manipulation, pure and simple.
Of course, I can't stand watching Fox News--I've always been a Chris Matthews guy myself. And Stewart/Cobert are a riot.
Edit: Directed at wrong poster.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Battler03:
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: The trouble is that it is not enough to just not watch it. The trouble is also that other people watch it and then become misinformed
Maybe I'm misreading this; but this sounds to me dangerously close to "we should shut it down." Which is no better than silencing political discourse with which you disagree. That's scarily reminiscent of some kind of USSR tactic.
Battler, you're putting words in other people's mouths, as you did by bringing 'unwashed rednecks in the Bible belt' into the thread. The Soviet reference is hysterical at best.
I'm also puzzled; why would you ever approve of slant?
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: I'm also puzzled; why would you ever approve of slant?
I don't see a slant; but to have this conversation (about the slant of Fox News) you sometimes feel as if you have to go ahead and concede that there is one, if only to further the dialogue. Maybe this is lazy of me; but it is my experience that to go with my first inclination, which is to deny that any such slant exists, is to doom any thread to a devolution into "he said, she said."
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What about liberals who aren't elitist?
Battler, why do you APPROVE of slant? You really wouldn't rather just get the news and then form your own opinion?
Sorry, but I've lived in both worlds; I moved from Texas to New England a few years ago, and it's my experience that most liberals tend to categorize conservatives as "rednecks." The implication being that redneck is somehow a derogatory term, which I've never thought that it was, etymologically speaking.
As far as approving of slant...I'd rather know that my network of choice is slanting, and approve of it, than have no idea (or realize it but refuse to admit it, as is the case with CNN viewers or NY Times readers) that my network or news venue of choice is slanting.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Battler03:
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: I'm also puzzled; why would you ever approve of slant?
I don't see a slant; but to have this conversation (about the slant of Fox News) you sometimes feel as if you have to go ahead and concede that there is one, if only to further the dialogue. Maybe this is lazy of me; but it is my experience that to go with my first inclination, which is to deny that any such slant exists, is to doom any thread to a devolution into "he said, she said."
No not lazy, it's fair enough to temporarily concede a point in order to further discussion--I do it a lot too--, but when you say; "Does it not occur to people that those of us who watch Fox news...well, that we APPROVE of the slant they put on news?" with APPROVE in all caps, I start to wonder. Maybe you were just being unclear.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Battler03:
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: I'm also puzzled; why would you ever approve of slant?
I don't see a slant; but to have this conversation (about the slant of Fox News) you sometimes feel as if you have to go ahead and concede that there is one, if only to further the dialogue. Maybe this is lazy of me; but it is my experience that to go with my first inclination, which is to deny that any such slant exists, is to doom any thread to a devolution into "he said, she said."
quote:Originally posted by Battler03: Does it not occur to people that those of us who watch Fox news...well, that we APPROVE of the slant they put on news?
Instead, it devolves into "he said, he said" and you lose all credibility. So you approve of a slant you don't see or don't believe exists? That's like Gonzales remembering a decision but not where or when he made it: it makes no sense.
Let me guess: you also don't see the liberal slant on C-Span/BookTV, even though you complained about it.
edit:Euripides is nicer than I am. I should try harder.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Again, although bias/slant exists on most news channels- everyone has an opinion- Fox takes the bias and undermines the news itself in order to further it.
This is bad news. Pun intended.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:As far as approving of slant...I'd rather know that my network of choice is slanting, and approve of it, than have no idea (or realize it but refuse to admit it, as is the case with CNN viewers or NY Times readers) that my network or news venue of choice is slanting.
This is one of the stranger rationalizations of "watching terribly misinforming news" I've heard!
You're basically saying 'Well, I want a news channel that gives me the confounding bias that I want!"
[ April 22, 2007, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
(Further reply to CT's earlier question)
Discussions like this make it clear just how different my reality is from a lot of others.
There's plenty of bias out there - the bias that Fox News exhibits is pretty straightforward.
Any notion that there's a consistent "liberal" bias in the mainstream media should have been (at the very least) been thrown open to question in watching the shameful performance of NBC and MSNBC covering their own role in the Imus situation.
Just yesterday, I had to turn off Tim Russert's interview show in disgust. His guest was Bernard Goldberg, a sort of "reformed liberal" who now rails against what he sees as liberal bias in the mainstream media.
In their discussion of Imus, they talked *exclusively* about Al Sharpton bring Imus down. No mention of Al Roker, Gwen Ifill, or the National Association of Black Journalists. Just Al Sharpton.
Limiting the dynamics of Imus's fall to Sharpton made it easy to avoid discussing the sort of white men's locker room that the show was for the most part - and how people like Russert gave Imus and the show respectability.
Just last week, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson answered the question "who made Sharpton a spokesperson?" with this answer:
"The media did." When this came up, they went mostly to two black men with a lot of baggage - and do so for most race stories.
The thing I have to deal with in work is the reality is that news coverage really isn't about who can do the best job covering the news - it's all about who can present stories that draw the most viewers or readers. Those two are often mutually exclusive.
So if you want to get recognized, you often have to resort to tactics that at the same time open you up to scorn. Going back to Schiavo, when disability organizations were filing legal briefs and issuing press releases, we were ignored.
When we got some people down to Terri Schiavo's hospice and some people threw themselves out of themselves out of their wheelchairs, we suddenly and briefly became part of the public discussion.
Don't know how coherent this is, but it's really hard to relate to discussions of the relative merits of any facets of the news media. They all stink pretty much in terms - and it's mostly because they're in the business of getting viewers rather than getting rewarded for accuracy, depth and thoughtfulness.
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This is one of the stranger rationalizations of "watching terribly misinforming news" I've heard!
You're basically saying 'Well, I want a news channel that gives me the confounding bias that I want!"
All news is biased, because all networks are run by humans, and all humans are biased. I'd rather watch a network that slants the way I do. People who prefer CNN are no different; they prefer that network because it reinforces their preconceived notions about the world. Saying "it's just better news" is ridiculous when we're talking about networks that have 30-second "stories" interspersed with Cialis ads.
Every network is guilty of this. Which is why, like I said, I get most of my news from a wide range of sources via the internet. But to try to denigrate a network's journalistic integrity simply because you disagree with its slant is dishonest at best.
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: The thing I have to deal with in work is the reality is that news coverage really isn't about who can do the best job covering the news - it's all about who can present stories that draw the most viewers or readers. Those two are often mutually exclusive.
Very well put. To quote Homer Simpson tuning in to Kent Brockman: "Aaahhh...info-tainment!"
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: So if you want to get recognized, you often have to resort to tactics that at the same time open you up to scorn. Going back to Schiavo, when disability organizations were filing legal briefs and issuing press releases, we were ignored.
When we got some people down to Terri Schiavo's hospice and some people threw themselves out of themselves out of their wheelchairs, we suddenly and briefly became part of the public discussion.
Is it that way for you here at Hatrack, too? *interested
Edited to add: I mean, do you have trouble getting your voice heard unless you use particular tactics, or do you find yourself listened to even without those tactics (or some mix of the two)?
[ April 22, 2007, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Battler03:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This is one of the stranger rationalizations of "watching terribly misinforming news" I've heard!
You're basically saying 'Well, I want a news channel that gives me the confounding bias that I want!"
All news is biased, because all networks are run by humans, and all humans are biased. I'd rather watch a network that slants the way I do. People who prefer CNN are no different; they prefer that network because it reinforces their preconceived notions about the world. Saying "it's just better news" is ridiculous when we're talking about networks that have 30-second "stories" interspersed with Cialis ads.
Every network is guilty of this. Which is why, like I said, I get most of my news from a wide range of sources via the internet. But to try to denigrate a network's journalistic integrity simply because you disagree with its slant is dishonest at best.
But there are degrees to bias; it's not an all or nothing game. Some networks and newspapers, despite being run by humans, do their utmost to present an objective-as-possible overview of events, and succeed more often than Fox--if Fox is trying.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'd rather watch a network that slants the way I do. People who prefer CNN are no different; they prefer that network because it reinforces their preconceived notions about the world. Saying "it's just better news" is ridiculous when we're talking about networks that have 30-second "stories" interspersed with Cialis ads.
One of the problems with journalistic integrity is that it's NOT a zero-sum game: there are degrees involved, and diminishing returns. CNN clearly has more integrity than Fox; however, someone who believes -- as Battler does -- that the media lacks integrity in general places a vanishingly small value on the relative difference between the two stations.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But to try to denigrate a network's journalistic integrity simply because you disagree with its slant is dishonest at best.
Which is why it's a super awesome good thing that we haven't actually done that!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Sorry, but I've lived in both worlds; I moved from Texas to New England a few years ago, and it's my experience that most liberals tend to categorize conservatives as "rednecks." The implication being that redneck is somehow a derogatory term, which I've never thought that it was, etymologically speaking.
Funny, it's been my experience that anyone on the right uses "liberal" as a derogatory term unto itself.
Besides, I'm much more likely to use "Bible Thumper" than "redneck." Must be a midwest liberal thing, I don't know.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)