FOXNews vs Aljazeera

[Fishteacher73]

Biochemist brought up this idea in a diferent thread, and it sound interesting to me so I thought I might see what we had to say.

 

Is myth of the liberal press really a myth?

 

Have the extremes balanced each other out?

 

Is there any truly non-biased media outlets out there?

 

 

What do you all have to say?

[bumab]

Great title! :)

 

An interesting read on this subject is "Manufaturing Consent."

 

One of the questions it raises is this (HIGHLY simplified): Most rich folk are bussiness folk. Rich folk tend to support conservative agendas, because conservative governments are traditionally kinder to the rich, in the forms of tax cuts. All the major news outlets are owned by a few rich people (Turner, others) and thus, want to maximize profits. So why offend your sources and your support? Thus, skewing coverage to give conservative agendas a positive light is not a suprise- after all, they want to make their supporters happy, right?

 

I do think as the media gets more and more big business-y, it will become more conservative- just as everything else has. Once the bottom line gets more important then the actual product, it's an obvious and simple step towards conservative reporting.

 

Again- the major source for new outlets is the government, in the form of press releases and others. Why annoy your sources, and risk losing that source (not getting to ask questions or whatever).

[Fishteacher73]

I agree whole heartedly bumab.

 

One aspect of the internet is that it has provided a huge oulet to release and gain information at VERY LITTLE cost. There are many grass roots organizations that disperse information from the ground up (such as the Independent Media Center, http://www.indymedia.org ). To a degree this has made distortions of the truth a bit trickier than it was in the past. But it takes an active listener to be interested in delving further than what the talking heads tell us. Granted these outlets have their own view and emphasize its points and downplay contadiction.

 

Along these same lines you have many cable chanels, each with a specific demographic that it aims towards. There is a good movie called Control Room that is a documenrary about Aljazeera durring the Iraqi invasion. At one point CEO of Aljazeera compares his station to FOXNews, but instead of being biased to American ideals it is biased towards Arabic ideals.

[Biochemist]

Great title! :)

I agree. It got a loud chuckle here.

Thus, skewing coverage to give conservative agendas a positive light is not a suprise- after all....as the media gets more and more big business-y, it will become more conservative...

Hmmm. But the rise of FoxNews (and Rush Limbaugh for that matter) was mainly in reaction to the REVERSE. That is, the mainline media (e.g., New York Times, all three network news broadacasts and anchors, LA times, PBS) were solidly left leaning. Every survey of print reporters shows that upwards of 90% vote democratic. Negative/positive reporting on presidents in the above outlets is far more positive for liberal causes or politicians than for conservative ones.

 

FoxNews and Limbaugh were the beneficiaries of this, because there were (then) so few conservative outlest that the HALF of the country that is conservative poured into them.

[bumab]

Negative/positive reporting on presidents in the above outlets is far more positive for liberal causes or politicians than for conservative ones.

 

I'm not sure I agree about that. Virtually all major news stations were very, very light on the current President in regards to the war, the economy, his DUI business awhile ago.

 

Clinton, on the other hand, got attacked over and over for some smaller indiscretions, although I will admit that since Clinton's involved sex, it was more "media worthy." Ha ha...

 

Although I was not clear, I think I should have said "conservative in regards to maintaining the status quo" or existing power structure. It's in the media's best interest to leave things as they are, because as they are, things are going pretty good for the media (i.e. the owners, the rich investors, etc etc).

 

No longer does the media have anything to prove- the "freedom of the press" is so sacred, that to even question that the media does not live up to that responsibility is almost treasonous (I'm exagerating, but only a little).

 

So... maintaining the status quo is usually regarded as a conservative trait, but in certain instances you mentioned- sure, the media can be liberal.

[bumab]

It would be an interesting study to look into the changing role of media throughout recent history. Early on, the media really was a watchdog for the public- but the world was an optimistic place, really. America was growing fast, people were employed, the only threat was an obvious, concrete one like Russia. The media did it's job well, or at least better.

 

Seems to me that now, the media is mostly concerned with reassuring everybody that things are ok. Sales are up, sales are down- but the system works! Terrorism at home, terrorism abroad- but our policy is working! Climate change may happen, may not- but your lifestyle is OK!

 

That sort of thing. Is the media still functioning as a public watchdog?

[Biochemist]

Is the media still functioning as a public watchdog?

I think they still do. The disappointing element is that there are so few unbiased sources. The reader/viewer always has to know who he/she is getting content from. Bias is rampant.

 

But I think it always has been. There is (fortunately) a lot more public discourse about it now, and that helps.

 

Sensationalism is still rampant, and I think that has increased, mostly because of the need to fill 24-hour news channels with something. I don't think that the New York Times (left) or the Wall Street Journal (right) are any more sensational than they used to be, but they retain their leanings. I personally think that the NYT (in particular) got more consistently leftist over the last 10 years, but that is hard to quantify.

[bumab]

I think they still do. The disappointing element is that there are so few unbiased sources. The reader/viewer always has to know who he/she is getting content from. Bias is rampant.

 

Can something be biased and a public watchdog? A watchdog media would simply alert the public to various issues and indescretions. A watchdog with it's own motives is something else entirely...

 

 

I personally think that the NYT (in particular) got more consistently leftist over the last 10 years, but that is hard to quantify.

 

Going back to my "maintaining the status quo" argument, sure, it could have leaned a little left with all the success Democrats were having under Clinton. If you look at the coverage since 9-11, I think they've swung strongly back right. But, you are right- it's hard to quanitfy. :)

[Biochemist]

Can something be biased and a public watchdog?

Sure, because separate biased parties watch each other. I think that is how is probably ought to work.

 

And I really don't think the NYT moved back to the right after 9/11 except for about two or three months. I don't mean to single them out, but they are sort of a bellweather. They are, however, undeniably less influential than they were 10 years ago because of cable and the web.

[Fishteacher73]

It seems to me that an intrinsicly unbiased media would almost have to lean to the left. Generaly liberal policies are more openminded than those of the conservitive. By default it would seem that the media should lean to the left.

[Biochemist]

It seems to me that an intrinsicly unbiased media would almost have to lean to the left. Generaly liberal policies are more openminded than those of the conservitive. By default it would seem that the media should lean to the left.

This is true by definition (that is, the definition of "liberal" and "conservative"), but it does not seem to be true in reality. I honestly believe that a clean reading of the Wall Street Journal is less biased than the New York or LA Times. The Journal uses better fact bases, and routinely incorporates more intelligent opposing counterargument on their pages. Most folks (including me) would characterize the Journals as "right leaning", but that means a different thing here than in, say Iran. Compared to Iran, we are ALL liberals. We believe in freedom of the press, the rights of individuals, and public scrutiny of all things governmental.

 

Oddly, the genesis of "politically correct" language is the special interest elements of the Democratic party. Any set of behaviors that is designed to quell dissent or stifle conversation is, by definition, either reactionary or conservative. So we have the Democratic party pushing to stifle terminology (as the Republicans probably did in the 20s, for example) and yet carrying the "liberal" label. Sort of an oxymoron.

 

Side note: It is fair to say that our use of descriptors in the political discourse has been sullied over that last 50 years. It is not useful anymore to use "Leftist", "Progressive", "Liberal" or even "Democrat" to describe a set of the body politic. When we contrast those with their opposites (e.g., rightist, reactionary, conservative, Republican) they are really only useful (and then only slightly) when describing a particular issue. Party labels are particularly useless.

[Fishteacher73]

Maybe it is because I am a raving liberal, but in the states the only news that I find at least somewhat reasonable is the various shows on PBS (From NOW, News Hour, to The Tucker Carlson Show, Frontline, etc.).

 

These shows seem to be the only safe haven from gossip columns and Michael Jackson and seem to at lest to a degree present reasonably balanced views.

.

[Biochemist]

Maybe it is because I am a raving liberal, but in the states the only news that I find at least somewhat reasonable is the various shows on PBS...These shows seem to be the only safe haven from gossip columns....

Goodness, you certainly don't have to be a raving liberal to like PBS. It is usually good reporting. I usually listen to PBS radio. It is probably the only radio news I listen to. But is is certainly biased. Bias is not bad. It just ought to be recognized.

 

Cable news is generally on the brink of vacuous. 24-hour news is intrincisally redundant, and the sensationalism in perpetual news is probably unavoidable. There are a handful of (daily) news shows on cable that are worth a watch. But only a handful. Just an opinion.

[Fishteacher73]

It's always good to watch The Daily Show...

 

One thing that always amazed me (Esp. durring the elections) was that the news would go to each camps spin room(and actually refer to it as a spin room) for information, like it was there so the observer did not have to think or make decisions. We had these nice people (sometimes in funny hats though) that would let us know what we were supposed to think. It was great!

[Biochemist]

One thing that always amazed me (Esp. durring the elections) was that the news would go to each camps spin room(and actually refer to it as a spin room) for information.....

It does seem like news reaches its content nadir during an election cycle. Oddly, I watch news more then, and like it less.

 

Hey, this is my 300th post.

[bumab]

I still do not think a biased media can function as a governmental watchdog. That post implies some trust in the media to get things right. One must trust a watchdog to guard against all transgretions, not just some.

 

Side note: It is fair to say that our use of descriptors in the political discourse has been sullied over that last 50 years. It is not useful anymore to use "Leftist", "Progressive", "Liberal" or even "Democrat" to describe a set of the body politic. When we contrast those with their opposites (e.g., rightist, reactionary, conservative, Republican) they are really only useful (and then only slightly) when describing a particular issue. Party labels are particularly useless.

 

Very true. It's a pain for discussions like this, especially.

[Biochemist]

I still do not think a biased media can function as a governmental watchdog. That post implies some trust in the media to get things right. One must trust a watchdog to guard against all transgretions, not just some.

I think this is a valid point, but the media (particularly with the web) is so multi-faceted that I can't think of an issue that someone has not "caught". Whether it is the Wall Street Journal underlining Tom Delay's questionable character, or the bloggers catching Dan Rather with transparently forged documents, the communication ether looks pretty robust, all things considered.

 

I can think of issues that I think are consistently unfairly represented. The notion that raising federal tax rates increases federal income tax revenue comes to mind. But the issues are not secret, and are frequently debunked in the sectors of the media that care about it.