| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > TV News Corner > Topic: Ideology VS Fair Reporting |
Topic: Ideology VS Fair Reporting
| Author | Message |
| Ryan M | Posted – 1/17/2008 10:58:48 PM | show profile Please share your thoughts on this and feel free to tear this argument apart: I strongly believe that fair reporting in politics (on both sides) officially ended in 2004. It seems that both side have staked their claims in selected cable networks and no longer report both sides of the issues - not because they can't but, because they don't feel the other side plays fair and with the stakes so high for this presidential election, they see the "fairness compromise" as completely justified. One thing I love about reading the posts on Media Bistro is the feeling of reassurance that people on here are very well read on the issues. It's the masses who base their vote on soundbytes cranked out daily by the ideological machines that is truly scary. |
| chucho | Posted – 1/18/2008 4:11:35 AM | show profile I think there's two important areas: #1.) The explosion of opinionated, character-driven "news" programming. There once were FCC rules that helped keep vested parties from posting hours upon hours of programming of one guy's opinion each and every week in an endless cycle of bellicose stupidity. One of these laws was the Equal Time rule, created in 1934 when the FCC determined that the the type of radio programming that was airing was having a huge unfair influence on election outcomes. That rule was repealed in 1983, thank you Ronald Reagan. And thanks to the "let's drown the government" types that categorically hate government regulation as one of their holy commandments, that law no longer exists, media is becoming controlled increasingly by fewer people, and were back to a modern version of the often-one-sided politically motivated programming that prevailed during the time of the Great Gadsby. There really isn't anything new about this phenomenon; just like what Ellis (played by Barry Corbin) tells Sherrif Ed Tom Bell (played by Tommy Lee Jones) toward the end of "No Country For Old Men": there ain't nothin' new in this game, yer problem is vanity. (I'm paraphrasing that.) I think what you end up with is a whole lot of outlets run by very few people who have the freedom to take public airwaves and turn them into political vehicles. Also, since: a.) pro-business types run the media, and b.) politically conservative people (if not that: people most likely to be swayed by what they see on the boob tube) watch more television and listen to more radio; then the opinionated, character-driven politically motivated programming is going to target the widest audience of people that are more likely to watch and be motivated and influenced politically by what they see on television. NOTE TO THE RIGHT-FIGHTERS (- http://www.familyresource.com/relationships/communication/are-you-a-right-fighter -): When I say "politically conservative people watch more television and listen to more radio" I am basing this opinion on personal observation. All of my life I have observed progressive express aversion to television (even if they secretly watch Seinfeld or whatever), and deep skepticism of what they see on TV, and they tend to read more and achieve higher educational levels, own a passport (and therefore see things for themselves) and etcetera. It's no jump of logic to say that television dumbs things down and therefore it would have an interest in targeting viewers that live in that dumbed-down world. Stayed tuned for #2.). . . |
| chucho | Posted – 1/18/2008 4:35:11 AM | show profile #2.) Setting aside the opinionated drivel and just focusing on the actual hard news presentation, I stick with the theory that the media is a product of the mainstream culture, which is consistently slow to move. The media follows the mainstream, not the other way around. (Remember: people who watch Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olberman already have their opinion and watch these charlatans of character roles to AFFIRM what they already think to be the truth.) In J-School I recall reading an interesting book (whose title has long been lost to me) on media coverage of Vietnam and how it was boldly for the war until the mainstream leviathan began to change tack thanks to protests and body bags. The body bags didn't start showing up in the media until after incidents like Kent State around 1970. Before that the news was essentially pro war. I recall a vivid picture of a of a typical Walter Cronkite broadcast int he 60s showing him presenting news with a map on the wall behind him of Southeast Asia that had the words "Red Menace" scrawled across the top. Todays media seems to follow similar trends: hawkish coverage of foreign policy and slightly more progressive coverage of national news (health care, etc.). This fits the mold of the mainstream. But overall hard news panders to the mainstream, not to the truth. A recent example is how much attention the "MSM" gave to the controversy of the of Hillary's primary victory in New Hampshire: in an artificial attempt to pander to the viewers expectations of conflict, the MSM incorrectly hammered in the false notion that the polls said Obama would win. In fact, the polls said 40% of the electorate was undecided. But there was something going on here: the media created a news item by slanting the facts toward conflict to appeal to the viewers desire for controversy, then these incorrect claim enter the so-called "echo chamber" and what you end up with is a news item created by the television news media so that, in part, it would have something to fill its 24-hour-cycle (in the case of cable news), but mainly to appeal to the viewer's desire for drama. |
| chucho | Posted – 1/18/2008 4:41:12 AM | show profile To sum it up nicely: the ideology here is money. Media works as a for-profit venture. Media will do ANYTHING to increase profitability, because viewers are more important to them than dry facts. |
| Baile | Posted – 1/18/2008 7:45:40 AM | show profile Chucho you are absolutely right and I agree with you. The media follows the masses. This present war in Iraq was a media delight when it started and was fully supported as was the first Gulf war. The first night of the Iraq invasion saw empty malls throughout the country as people flocked to the TV to get the "good" news about the war that everyone was caught up by. There was no left or right on the issue at that time. It was only when it all dragged on, the insurgency became real, troops were being killed in large numbers that everything went sour. People began to feel uncomfortable about the wisdom of it all and THEN the media changed. CNN is a case in point. Remember the "America's New War" tag that they so delightfully entitled it as the embedded journalists gave us "exciting" details of what appeared to be success at first? Let's get real here - money is what is running the show - advertisers want people to tune in and so the publkic gets what it wants. The vast majority of people tune in to affirm their own point of view NOT to be educated into new thinking. |
| Baile | Posted – 1/18/2008 7:35:11 PM | show profile I agree that the left / right so called "division" is a joke. There really is no such thing on news. They are simply following what they think will get them good ratings and earn them dollars from precious advertising. Anyone who falls for the notion that cable news is "leading" public opinion is mis informed IMO. People tune in to have their own views affirmed. Remember that dreadful show "Crossfire"? Idiots would tune in to see their "side" shout down the other side. It really is all about money - advertising revenue. The big guys win again and the little guys keep letting them. |
| stvj57 | Posted – 1/20/2008 9:56:10 PM | show profile People tune in to have their own views affirmed. is that so baile. then i presume that more people who watch cable news agree with the views pesented by fnc. |
| chucho | Posted – 1/22/2008 10:30:36 AM | show profile I'll answer, even though I wasn't asked: Sure, but be careful: a mistake is often made that assumes that what is popular on television is a reflection of public polticial opinion. You have to keep in mind that when one points out that BOR is king of cable news, it doesn't men that BOR's political views are the prevailing polticial views of all Americans. It means that BOR's political views are prevailing among the opinion-driven shows on cable news in the 8 p.m. timeslot. Making any further implications is equivalent to sayign that all Americans love Hanna Montana because Hanna Montana is the No. One most watched show on cable. (Because the show is really popular among young teen girls or whatever.) This is why it's almost pointless to argue with the BOR junkies, because they constanly make the mistake that because three million (mostly 60+) viewers tune in at 8 p.m. that somehow this translated into a reflection of real American values. That is wrong: BOR's popularity is a reflection of the values of the three million, mostly 60+ viewers that watch him at 8 p.m. |
| JIMBO99 | Posted – 1/22/2008 11:32:15 AM | show profile Oh my God Libs...No Lib bias my ass! In a poll taken a while back,84% of the White House Press Corp said they voted for Democrats for president and 11% said Republicans 5% no Com.(Info @ media Research)...Nuff said. I think Roger Ailes,veteran TV producer and FoxNews CEO, has long heard charges that the network leans to the right...His response to those charges says it best: "We're not programing to conservatives," we're just not eliminating their point of view." But the MSM sure as Hell is. |
| chucho | Posted – 1/22/2008 12:40:35 PM | show profile I didn't say there wasn't a liberal bias. I don't even debate in those terms because I spent four years in a highly conservative society in the Middle East and I know what conservatism does to culture and society. America is a LIBERAL WESTERN DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY, as it should be, as it was intended to be by the founding fathers. If you want a conservative media: move to Iran or Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Malaysia. |
| chucho | Posted – 1/22/2008 12:41:54 PM | show profile Again, as I said: US Media isn't LIBERAL ENOUGH. If it were as liberal as it should be it wouldn't have reported and bullhorned and amplified and supported the lies perpetuated by the Bush administration that got us into a mess in the Middle East. |
| JIMBO99 | Posted – 1/22/2008 3:06:42 PM | show profile Name them Lib! "amplified and supported the lies perpetuated by the Bush administration that got us into a mess in the Middle East." |
| chucho | Posted – 1/22/2008 3:26:43 PM | show profile Oh my. So let me guess. As soon as I mention all the fearmongering on media outlets from FNS to The New York Times and every single attempt by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld ("We know where they are. They're in the areas around Tikrit") and Rice ("Nobody ever said they knew where the WMDs were located") to tie Saddam Hussein to Al_Qaeda, you're going to say "but define these LIES. They're not LIES! That's what the CIA told them!" Give me a fucking break. If you aren't being honest enough to know exactly what I'm talking about, then you're beyond redemption -- one of the sad-sack 22 percenters that will go to their fucking grave with their ill-conceived convictions. Have a nice day. |
| chucho | Posted – 1/22/2008 3:32:24 PM | show profile And not that I don't think Donald Rumsfeld flat-out lied when he said the White House knew the location of the WMDs, but let me remind you that regardless of your personal and convenient interpretations, there's a Jewish proverb that says: "A half-truth is a full lie." And EVERYONE whether they want to admit it or not, knows what this means. Every person that has ever cheated on a lover; every person that has ever broken something and worded it to make it sound like it was an accident; and everyone that has wanted so badly (for whatever motive) to oust a dictator knows what this means. So, even if we debate within half truths and "creative editing" of intelligence reports: there are all the moral equivalents of being dishonest, of lying to the American public about what was known about Saddam's threat level. You know it. I know it. I don't care whether you're honest enough to admit it. I have faith in you. |
| JIMBO99 | Posted – 1/22/2008 3:32:50 PM | show profile ("Nobody ever said they knew where the WMDs were located") That would include Bill Clinton... read his speech to the Pentagon December 1998. |
| stvj57 | Posted – 1/23/2008 1:34:16 AM | show profile you libs are a roit you guys post that the media is driven by the mainstream and that the media presents what the people want to see and that the media does not drive their points to the people,that the people control what the media presents. we all know that is not totally true. the media HAMMERS it's point of view to try to convince whoever it can to agree or believe it. if most of the media is liberal or left leaning(which it is),and their point of view and/or their version of the story is repeted across all media forms in so much as to exclude other views, you will end up with the predominant amount of people believing what the media is telling them. if you are predominantly told and led to believe something and that is all you have to go on, then that is what you tend to believe. it is like brainwashing. if it was they way you guys describe it as being, that the people drive what and how the media reports you would not have so many news media trying to discredit and slam fnc. the media has been dominated by the left forever and now they have a disenting voice and it is driving them crazy. so much for freedom of the press in the eyes of the left. just like you guys here, you were all up on your soapboxes preaching about how the media just follows the crowd and gives them what they want and how people seek out what they want to hear untill i suggested that if that were true it would explain why the majority of cable news viewers watch fnc. then you started trying to change your story. thanks for showing what dickwads you really are. you guys post on here and you want folks to listen to what you say on here and have some respect for you and you pull crap like that. |
| stvj57 | Posted – 1/23/2008 2:03:30 AM | show profile People tune in to have their own views affirmed. that was the jist of this thread according to the posters that were discussing the topic. that was even a direct phrase used by one of them. as soon as i mentioned fnc the scope of the media was narrowed to cable tv news (which by the way is what i had stated i was talking about). it then got narrowed more to 8 o'clock on week days and to BOR specifically. it seems that whenever fnc is brought up and it's ability to capture the majority of the cable news crowd, we have folks here who automatically try to write fnc off as a one man or one program sucsess when in reality you could take factor out of the ratings and fnc shows still outperform the competition. i am not pushing fnc, just repeting my observations. i have said before that folks may not be watching fnc because they like it more, as much as they may be watching it because they like the others less. msnbc has gotten real bad about knocking conservitive views. cnn has gone from knocking consevitive views to pretty much ignoring them. fnc mat lean right but at least they don't try to ram it down your throat 24/7. |
| chucho | Posted – 1/23/2008 4:45:49 AM | show profile *Sigh* Jimbo, Jimbo. Why the digression? I said they lied. You ask who lied. I say who lied. You say, well Clinton also denied saying he knew where the blah blah blah WTF?? Are you doing that on purpose? Let's start over: DONALD RUMSFELD: "We know where they are. There in the areas around Tikrit." CONDOLEZZA RICE (A FEW DAYS LATER): "Nobody ever said they knew precisely where the weapons were located." If you don't see the lie here, then you are beyond redemption: a member of the 22 percenters that the rest of us have to put up with in order to stay true to our liberal Western democratic values. Have a nice day. |
| chucho | Posted – 1/23/2008 12:42:04 PM | show profile I still stand by that one. Don't see you're point. Perhaps anohter pointless digression? Let's start over until you admit one in your life that you are wrong and that this administration has lied many times. It's amazing you bring this up on the same day the Center For Public Integrity has compiled a great list of bullshit that has come out of the mouths of your heroes: http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/ LIES, baby. Not F*R*E*D --- L*I*E*S! "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' " "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction ? an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it. In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear." On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons. On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax." On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]." |
| chucho | Posted – 1/23/2008 12:43:50 PM | show profile 935 lies just on building the case for Iraq, to be exact. 9 3 5 Repeat after me: "Nine hundred and thirty five lies." |
| jazzreport | Posted – 1/23/2008 1:57:38 PM | show profile Lied 935 times???? More liberal propaganda http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/01/23/ap-bush-lied-study-not-revealed-funded-george-soros Another Soros funded hit job..AP and the NYTimes fail to mention the partisan financial backers of this study. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 1/23/2008 2:23:40 PM | show profile What a bunch of idiots. Chucho why do you waste time answering these assholes? The truth is something out of their grasp. Where's Fred today? |
| chucho | Posted – 1/23/2008 2:27:56 PM | show profile What does that have to do with the quotes? I don't give a crap if Satan funded the Center for Public Integrity -- you can't whine about Geroge Soros in light of: "We know where they are. They're in the areas around Tikrit." George Soros didn't put those words in Donald Rumsfled's mouth, did he? You see, the problem with the 22 Percenters is that ya'll think you can utter the words "George Soros" and somehow this magically make issues disappear -- POOF! without a trace. As far as Clinton: I don't know or care. He's not president TODAY. I didn't vote for him then, and, to be quite frank, Clinton didn't fucking invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein, so you're whole point is irrelevant. If Clinton thought Saddam Hussein had WMDs, he obviously didn't think he was an imminent threat because Clinton was too busy bombing suspected chemical weapons factories in Sudan (that people like you said was Clinton's way of trying to distract people from the Monica scandal). So, as usual, you're showing yourself to be completely ideologically convicted and utterly unwilling to admit that you're ever wrong. But you are wrong. The Bush administration did lie to us. We went to war and killed 171,000 Iraqis (according to the WHO; according to Iraq Body COunt: 85,000; according to that stupid Lancet estimete, 750,00 and according to that equally stupid White House estimate, 40,000) and displaced millions more in our nation-building exercise. Do you really feel like standing on the deck of that sinking ship? That's pretty pathetic. They lied to us. If you don't recognize that, then you are part of the lunatic fringe: that section of American society that would stand by Bush even if he bashed the heads of kitten in on the White House lawn. It's completely pathetic an embarrassing to know that so many Americans are that foolhardy and unwilling to recognize these things. |
| chucho | Posted – 1/23/2008 2:33:58 PM | show profile By the way, this Warner Todd Huston jackass that writhes for your little right-wing media blog. this is the kind of shit he writes: "The best course of action is to make public displays of Islam . . . illegal in Western nations. Are we fast approaching a time when Mosques will be closed and banned?.. . It is looking like yes is the answer to these queries." http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/huston/060219 What a nauseating prick. Anyone who aligns himself with this type of shit really is part of the lunatic fringe. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 1/23/2008 3:14:31 PM | show profile From a new study: "The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both. "It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003." Chucho - I hope these clowns choke on these facts! |
