Media Bias Busted
Ooh, boy. No denying this one. On the front page, too. I guess The Washington Post was…well, I don’t know. Editorializing on the front page of a national newspaper in a caption just isn’t professional.
Of course, it’s not as bad as Fox was back in November. But it’s still bad.
Why Not Bail Out Buggywhip Makers?
I’m a little behind the times on this one- I had National Guard duty this past weekend- but late last week Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) supported the idea of bailing out newspapers. As a guy who likes newspapers- you know, printed instead of online- I sympathize with the fact that newspapers are going out of business quickly. Unfortunately for my personal desires, that is part of the beauty of creative destruction. As we improve technology, we eliminate inefficiencies in our system, and that is what newspapers increasingly represent.
There is some argument that losing newspapers would lose the generally quality, in-depth reporting that papers pride themselves on. After all, blogs and other online media are not generally renowned for their quality of reporting or in-depth research; they have other strengths, instead. That said, Huffington Post, Fox News, CNN, The Foundry, CNS News and many other sites and news sources are doing a good job of changing that stereotype through hard-hitting reporting, opinions and interviews. As advertising swings more and more online, I suspect old-fashioned reporters will be doing their fine reporting online instead of on paper more and more often. Best of all, they will be able to do it without the government’s money hanging over their heads, subtly or not-so-subtly influencing every decision that is made.
One other flaw with Waxman’s argument: ?There needs to be a consensus within the media industry and the larger community it serves? before the government acts, Waxman said. ?We have to figure out together how to preserve that kind of reporting.? Which media industry will he stop at? The television industry? The online industry? Talk radio? Newspapers? Magazines? Movies? Pornography? Mixed Martial Arts? CNN’s IReporter? If you bail out one, you open the floodgates to bail out the rest. Who’s to say The Economist is more important to society than Sports Illustrated? Both have large readerships, after all, and both represent industries worth billions to the American economy. They provide valuable news to America’s citizens.
Huffington Post has written numerous pieces this year alone defending the value they bring to news and decrying people like Rupert Murdoch for not adjusting to what consumers want. As much as I hate to say it, its writers are correct. Print newspapers provide news a day late, they update once a day and they are just one more thing to carry. Given their support for environmental legislation such as cap-and-trade and fuel standards, liberals such Waxman should be ecstatic that this is happening. Going online saves trees, lowers emissions from vehicles and saves on printing press use (though the servers would need electricity, which causes some harm), among others. The argument that going online will cause harm to our republic is a false one- who says online sources can’t (or don’t, or won’t) continue to use professional journalists? The transition is from print to online- news is still news, though to be fair Americans prefer shorter, less detailed news articles than we used to. But that has been happening even before Twitter and blogs became household names.
Hey, Fox, This Isn’t News
Col. Van T. Barfoot, a 90-year old Medal of Honor winner from World War II, has an issue that made the huge?top-of-the-fold photo on Fox News. The article was of grave importance to America: the Colonel moved into a new neighborhood this year, and his flag pole violates the homeowners’ association’s regulations. (Did you feel the ground shake with that one?)
The article was unprofessionally written, used language unbecoming of a conservative news source- comparing, for example, the mettle he showed in battle to the mettle necessary to overcome the board of the association- and just didn’t belong where it was placed. Fox, we deserve better. Colonel Barfoot is a genuine American hero, and deserves every honor for being so. This, however, is not about a flag being hung or violating the Constitutional freedom of an American citizen. It’s about?a flag pole that violates the association’s rules, rules that were in place before the colonel moved in.
Surprise! Jon Stewart “Reports” News Before News Channels
According to Fox News, Jon Stewart commented on the so-called “Climategate” before ABC, CBS and NBC. Note to news channels: when comedians are “scooping” you on major breaking news, you’re toast. Period. (Though perhaps you already knew that.)
Real News Left Behind
It was 10:10 on Sunday evening, and I decided to see what the leading?news stories were on CNN?s and Fox?s respective websites. Having seen Yahoo News? top story being about Tiger Woods? car accident the other day, I suspected I knew what the answer was. Turns out, I was right. The stories were in spots designed to get major, first–or-second-glance attention.
Now, to be fair, Fox and CNN also had big stories about the police shooting (both), a woman who is helping women get mammograms (CNN), a story about AIDS guidelines (Fox) and Fox had its required “Support a Republican” story about Senator Lugar (R-IN) and his?thoughts about delaying health care reform until?”next year, the same way we put cap and trade and climate change, and talk now about the essentials: the war and money.” However, Fox had the Woods “story” on its top four list on its site, and CNN had it first on its “Latest News” list. (Oddly enough, MSNBC had the Woods “story” listed as third in its Sports section, and I actually missed it the first two times I scanned the page. MSNBC’s main section covered the police shootings, the economy, Afghanistan, Detroit’s economic needs, where investors are focusing this week and the Steelers-Ravens game. Not too bad for a liberal rag of a “news” source.)
Money drives news, as it should- news needs money to survive, after all- but once again our news is showing just how misplaced American priorities and dollars are. Stories that cover Honduras, Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, China, the recession, the police shootings, health care reform efforts and other important news should be at the top of the list the vast majority of the time. Instead, they are pushed aside by non-news and entertainment.
This is an old rant, and says nothing new (except that MSNBC actually did a good job at something). Should those of us who care keep hammering at America’s lack of real world knowledge and news awareness, or are we wasting our time? Will we as a nation pull our heads out of *the clouds* and at least try to be aware of the world around us? Please?
Weekly Team-Up: Dobbs & Fox A Match Made for Democrats?
Lou Dobbs has suddenly resigned from CNN effective immediately.? Given the recent?Biblical exodus of sorts of conservative journalists from all the major networks to Fox News in the last 12-18 months, will Dobbs be the next to make his arrival on Rupurt Murdoch’s ever growing conservative juggernaut?
MarketWatch seems to think he is headed to Fox Business Network, which would most likely be very fitting.? It would also allow for him to be a guest commentator on Fox News, and do drop in segments on Fox News from the Fox Business studios.
We have to ask once more: is?this a good thing? Sure, it’s great for Fox News Network and its profits, but is it good to be pulling all conservative influence from the other networks? Check out Dustin’s articles on this?here and here.
-nick
———————————————————————————————————————-
Following up on Nick’s comments, a liberal friend made a point recently?that made a lot of sense- namely, that with Lou Dobbs on Fox, the Republican Party and conservatives will further be known as the “white party” and the “white movement.” If Dobbs is brought onto Fox News, conservatives and Republicans stand to lose a massive number of potential voters and supporters they are already struggling with- minorities in general, and Hispanics in particular. Dobbs is despised by many Hispanics, and if he comes to Fox, this will do great damage to the conservative movement and its ability to convince minority voters to support its candidates and policy viewpoints.
Before the accusations start, no- I am not saying we should be politically correct. I am saying, however, that good tactics are needed to spread a message, since many people associate a message with the messenger in both positive and negative ways. Example: my friend Rachel Sheffield, a researcher at The Heritage Foundation, is a much better representative for?social conservatives?than someone like Rhode Island Governor Carcieri, for many reasons. These include the fact that Sheffield comes across as sincere and constructive when supporting heterosexual marriage (full disclosure: she’s a friend of mine), whereas Carcieri is appears bigoted and hateful in his most recent defense of heterosexual marriage. Likewise, someone like Dobbs could cause major damage to the conservative movement’s attempts to show immigrants and minorities how conservative policies are better for both of those groups of people as well as the country as a whole.
Personally, I don’t pay attention to Dobbs, so?I don’t know the truth of the accusations against him regarding race and prejudice.?However, since Hispanics dislike him, my opinion doesn’t matter- theirs does. After all, a movement can have strong views without alienating a large number of American citizens, but Dobbs is not able to do that for the conservative immigration policy supporters. Thus, the question remains: is Dobbs an effective voice for conservative immigration policies, or is he a liability to the movement?
-dustin
Election Results
It’s a mixed bag for Democrats and Republicans- Democrats took the NY-23 seat and the seat in California. Republicans took Virginia, New Jersey and the Maine gay marriage vote.
Too bad about the NY race- it would have been nice to get a real conservative in there, and this will give moderates and cut-and-run conservatives and Republicans a solid base from which to argue their Democratic-lite view of the Republican Party’s future- but we won the two big races.
Congratulations to both sides for their victories, and to Republicans for never taking their eye off the ball in these tough times.
See Fox News for election results.
Fox Isn’t News- But Talking Points Memo Is?
Politico reports that Talking Points Memo is now in the White House Press- not at the invitation of the White House, but at the invitation of the White House Correspondents Association. The question should (but doesn’t) remain: will TPM now be unable to get interviews because of their unsubtle biases?
To be fair, they have a DC bureau and hired a former Washington Times White House reporter, so I guess this makes them a semi-legitimate news source…but it still isn’t good public relations for the White House. Once again, whatever one thinks of the White House vs. Fox News drama- personally, I think it’s bad tactics on the part of the White House, but to call it Nixonian and compare it to dictatorship shutdowns of media is likely intellectually dishonest and certainly over the top- this administration has gotten itself in over its head.
Fox News vs. Everyone Else
A few weeks ago, after it was announced that John Stossel was going to Fox News, I wrote that conservative commentators are flocking to Fox News far too often at the detriment of the country. Now it appears that CNN?s Lou Dobbs is being eyed by Fox Business. I’ll repeat what I said then: conservative voices on Fox News are going to absolutely destroy all other TV stations in ratings, money and every other category?except for influence. Yes, Dobbs, Stossel and others will bring some of their fans and followers from the other stations over?but the majority non-conservative viewers won?t follow. For example, Stossel?s 20/20 had over six million viewers last year- almost twice as many as long-time cable kind Bill O?Reilly. Yet there is no speculation that O?Reilly would lose ground to Stossel in the four hours a week Stossel is anticipated to be on the tube.
Obviously, Fox holds the top ratings in cable slots, and does well in non-cable viewing. However, given that nearly every news and entertainment station besides Fox is more liberally-biased (such as GE’s NBC, ABC, Ted Turner’s CNN and Comedy Central), conservatives are going to lose out in the grand scheme of things. Influence, as opposed to power, is increasingly in the liberals’ favor on TV. To paraphrase an acquaintance, conservatives need to infiltrate everywhere, because flocking to Fox will not bring lasting electoral or cultural change to America.
There may, however, be hope yet for conservatives to influence moderates and liberals through the medium of television. Continuing the current Democratic habit of personally targeting those who displease them (see Rep. Waxman’s heavy-handed letters to insurance companies, President Obama’s comments in January about Rush Limbaugh, the White House’s targeting of Jim Cramer and Rick Santelli and the AIG tax attack this spring for just a few examples), President Obama?s White House has decided to essentially declare war on Fox News, and nothing breeds viewers in the USA like controversy. This may be the last best chance for conservatives on television to really draw in the non-conservatives so crucial to winning elections in America, as well as to influence the national mindset regarding the place and size of government, military action, social values etc. I fear, however, that aggressive, activist-engaging voices will continue to dominate Fox news, and few enough George Wills, Jonah Goldbergs and Charles Krauthammers (one quick note: the latter IS on Fox every weeknight) will be on hand to build the kind of coalition that can last for the next generation.
Sun Critic to Liberal TV Press, “Good for Fox News”
The following was originally published and is the sole property of NewsBusters.org and the Media Research Center.
David Zurawik, a TV critic for The Baltimore Sun, has called for the ?TV press…to step back and question how it is covering President Barack Obama.? Moreover, Zurawik gives a laudatory nod to Fox News for its balanced coverage of the President: ?I hesitate to write these words, but good for Fox. It must be doing something right, if it has the President complaining about the tiny bit of scrutiny he gets on TV.?
The Sun critic is referring to a CNBC interview this past Tuesday, where President Obama complained that “one television station is entirely devoted to attacking” his administration. While he declined to name the network when asked by CNBC interviewer John Harwood, it is undoubtedly the Fox News Network.
Zurawik opines on this in The Baltimore Sun blog by praising Fox News for ?questioning Team Obama as it pushes for the kind of massive change in American life not seen since the era of Franklin Roosevelt.? If not for Fox News, there would be no network scrutinizing the President?s policies, present and proposed. Moreover, Zurawik concedes that ?the TV press, as well as media critics like me (Zurawik), should be profoundly embarrassed, and vow to start doing a better job — immediately.?
-sam
