Ted Koppel:

[OCinBuffalo]

You're actually both right. FoxSnooze was specifically created as a conservative news source by Murdoch, specifically to counter the liberal bias in the rest of the media. If the rest of the media was more even-handed, Murdoch never creates FoxSnooze as a counter-balance...but in creating it, bias was a specific goal.

 

Having said that...I trust (which is completely different from taking them seriously - they're still a complete joke) Fox more than I do most other US news sources, because at least they're honest and open about their bias. At least with Fox, I know which way the story's going to slant even before the air it. With CNN, I have to do a lot more digging to find the inaccuracy.

....and this simple empirical construct, continues to be validated, and therefore, continues to make liberal heads explode. They don't understand how Fox can be successful, same as they don't understand why 80% of the country doesn't trust them.

 

Instead of Fox being properly seen as the solution to the obvious bias problem, conscious or unconscious, we see liberals denying that the bias problem exists, even when there is clear statistical models that prove it. The cause is simple: liberals aren't seeing the world as it actually is.

 

The stimulus, health care, all of it: same issue. Not seeing the world as it actually is->bad problem definition->bad solution->denial that bad solution failure is your fault->since it can't be your mistake->since the world is supposed to be the (flawed)way you see it.

 

This is not a liberals-only problem...but they are the ones who have to worst case of it right now by far.

[X. Benedict]

....and this simple empirical construct, continues to be validated, and therefore, continues to make liberal heads explode. They don't understand how Fox can be successful, same as they don't understand why 80% of the country doesn't trust them.

 

Instead of Fox being properly seen as the solution to the obvious bias problem, conscious or unconscious, we see liberals denying that the bias problem exists, even when there is clear statistical models that prove it. The cause is simple: liberals aren't seeing the world as it actually is.

 

The stimulus, health care, all of it: same issue. Not seeing the world as it actually is->bad problem definition->bad solution->denial that bad solution failure is your fault->since it can't be your mistake->since the world is supposed to be the (flawed)way you see it.

 

This is not a liberals-only problem...but they are the ones who have to worst case of it right now by far.

 

 

I would characterize the gulf differently.

 

"Conservative Media" and what conservatives label "Liberal Media", are generally reporting on the same stuff. Generally, what leads at all main media outlets, FOX, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, etc. is the same stuff. This creates a very narrow spectrum of things reported on.

 

Allowing for nuance in perspective, all media networks are reporting the same stuff.

 

 

While Conservative critique of what they label "liberal media" amounts to: they are reporting "this stuff" wrongly.

 

Liberal criticism usually bends this way: the mass media faithfully represent a pro-corporate, pro-capital worldview - that is: covering the wrong things all-together.

This sin is not so much in the bias in coverage, it is in the omission of subject matter.

 

Thinking liberals are not cheering their hold on the News, but quite the opposite, they lament that it does not represent their perspective one bit.

 

I say this not because I necessarily share that viewpoint (I sometimes find it a very valid criticism), but to expand on why your schematic is more than liberals "not getting it" in terms of news, and to take the "what conservatives don't get" perspective.

[OCinBuffalo]

I would characterize the gulf differently.

 

"Conservative Media" and what conservatives label "Liberal Media", are generally reporting on the same stuff. Generally, what leads at all main media outlets, FOX, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, etc. is the same stuff. This creates a very narrow spectrum of things reported on.

 

Allowing for nuance in perspective, all media networks are reporting the same stuff.

 

 

While Conservative critique of what they label "liberal media" amounts to: they are reporting "this stuff" wrongly.

 

Liberal criticism usually bends this way: the mass media faithfully represent a pro-corporate, pro-capital worldview - that is: covering the wrong things all-together.

This sin is not so much in the bias in coverage, it is in the omission of subject matter.

 

Thinking liberals are not cheering their hold on the News, but quite the opposite, they lament that it does not represent their perspective one bit.

 

I say this not because I necessarily share that viewpoint (I sometimes find it a very valid criticism), but to expand on why your schematic is more than liberals "not getting it" in terms of news, and to take the "what conservatives don't get" perspective.

Hmmm. Not sure that this isn't mostly saying what I am saying in a different way.

 

A key difference: The omission concept is one that I have heard many conservatives complain about for years. And often, they are right.

Just a few examples out of 1000s:

1. ACORN. Conservative media was way ahead on this story. MSM did everything they could to avoid the story for months, and only started reporting on it after it became cleat that it wouldn't go away = the videos of the "pimp", etc.

2. TEA party. Once again, conservative media was able to perceive this movement properly, and its mass appeal properly, a full year before the MSM media was. In fact the MSM actively tried to force their own perception...racist, fringe, ignorant, unimportant, etc., for that entire year, on their consumers. It wasn't until undeniable evidence was reported by conservative media, that the MSM was forced to do their jobs, and send real reporters to do what real reporters are supposed to do: get the facts.

 

So, pick one:

Either the MSM knows their jobs, but refused to do them properly

or

The MSM doesn't know their jobs

 

IF the conservative media had not existed, these stories would never have had the effect that they did. The facts ultimately came to light, but not because the MSM is good at their jobs. This tells us 2 things: the MSM cannot be trusted as a single source for information by rational people, if for no other reason than they are largely incompetent, and, the omission argument cuts both ways.

 

Regarding the position that the MSM has a corporate bias: you cannot tell me that the MSM is balanced, when 80% of them are self-defined liberals. The far-left complaining about the MSM not saying what they want to hear is irrelevant. We already know the far-left is largely unable to process information properly, and only represent 20% of the country, so why do we care what they think about the MSM?

Edited November 19, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

Hmmm. Not sure that this isn't mostly saying what I am saying in a different way.

 

A key difference: The omission concept is one that I have heard many conservatives complain about for years. And often, they are right.

Just a few examples out of 1000s:

1. ACORN. Conservative media was way ahead on this story. MSM did everything they could to avoid the story for months, and only started reporting on it after it became cleat that it wouldn't go away = the videos of the "pimp", etc.

2. TEA party. Once again, conservative media was able to perceive this movement properly, and its mass appeal properly, a full year before the MSM media was. In fact the MSM actively tried to force their own perception...racist, fringe, ignorant, unimportant, etc., for that entire year, on their consumers. It wasn't until undeniable evidence was reported by conservative media, that the MSM was forced to do their jobs, and send real reporters to do what real reporters are supposed to do: get the facts.

 

So, pick one:

Either the MSM knows their jobs, but refused to do them properly

or

The MSM doesn't know their jobs

 

IF the conservative media had not existed, these stories would never have had the effect that they did. The facts ultimately came to light, but not because the MSM is good at their jobs. This tells us 2 things: the MSM cannot be trusted as a single source for information by rational people, if for no other reason than they are largely incompetent, and, the omission argument cuts both ways.

 

Regarding the position that the MSM has a corporate bias: you cannot tell me that the MSM is balanced, when 80% of them are self-defined liberals. The far-left complaining about the MSM not saying what they want to hear is irrelevant. We already know the far-left is largely unable to process information properly, and only represent 20% of the country, so why do we care what they think about the MSM?

 

The flip side of that, which supports X's point, is the prelude to the invasion of Iraq.

 

Which also demonstrates the biggest problem with the media, one that even overrides "bias": it's sensationalism-driven. The media reports what the audience wants to hear - the worst bias, by far, is caused by that, via the same "group think" principles I described earlier.

[X. Benedict]

 

 

Regarding the position that the MSM has a corporate bias: you cannot tell me that the MSM is balanced, when 80% of them are self-defined liberals. The far-left complaining about the MSM not saying what they want to hear is irrelevant. We already know the far-left is largely unable to process information properly, and only represent 20% of the country, so why do we care what they think about the MSM?

Although..being scooped is different from not reporting at all

Every network reported ACORN and TEA party.

 

(Heck, I'd bet my dog I

can't watch cable for 22 minutes without hearing Palin...who is not exactly anything right now but a former Governor? but that is why they are looking the same even if their opinions may diverge on her meaning).

 

I think many liberals would answer it this way.

 

Which network is the most pro-labor? I think it is very hard to tell.

Which network is pro-tariff? Hmmm?

Human rights issues? Doesn't really jump, unless it is an enemy regime.

 

Generally this stuff isn't on the everyday spectrum of big media reporting.

Big media is mostly the same.

 

(I'm playing the foil, of course, but the argument that the wrestling is over only a narrow piece of radio bandwidth is compelling).

[OCinBuffalo]

The flip side of that, which supports X's point, is the prelude to the invasion of Iraq.

 

Which also demonstrates the biggest problem with the media, one that even overrides "bias": it's sensationalism-driven. The media reports what the audience wants to hear - the worst bias, by far, is caused by that, via the same "group think" principles I described earlier.

 

 

Although..being scooped is different from not reporting at all

Every network reported ACORN and TEA party.

 

(Heck, I'd bet my dog I

can't watch cable for 22 minutes without hearing Palin...who is not exactly anything right now but a former Governor? but that is why they are looking the same even if their opinions may diverge on her meaning).

 

I think many liberals would answer it this way.

 

Which network is the most pro-labor? I think it is very hard to tell.

Which network is pro-tariff? Hmmm?

Human rights issues? Doesn't really jump, unless it is an enemy regime.

 

Generally this stuff isn't on the everyday spectrum of big media reporting.

Big media is mostly the same.

 

(I'm playing the foil, of course, but the argument that the wrestling is over only a narrow piece of radio bandwidth is compelling).

If I were to combine these two posts, would the following conclusion be valid:

 

"Nobody wants to hear(Tom):

the latest good thing that unions do(X),

the latest pro-tariff legislation(X),

or about human right issues(X),

because most people know:

unions are a necessary evil that are the direct result of bad management decisions, or bad managers, and an effect that can easily be removed by removing the cause,

tariffs are proven failures, as evidenced by Taft-Hartley(although, I do have an idea that's a twist on tariffs...another thread),

who the human rights abusers are already, but are afraid to want to support doing anything about them, since we aren't supposed to be Ok with invading other countries because of their terrorist activities (but it's OK if a labor party Prime Minister from a European country does it in Europe, and it's Ok if we invade Darfur, because George Clooney supports it. )

so therefore,

most media doesn't cater to the crackpot element, because most of what they want to talk about are arguments they have already lost."

 

I mean seriously, I flipped past MSNBC, but on the way I heard somebody talking about welfare reform? As in, 13 years ago?

 

Edit: expanding on this combining idea, isn't it also valid to say:

 

"Everybody keeps reporting on Palin(X), because that's what people want to hear about(Tom)?"

Edited November 19, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[X. Benedict]

The flip side of that, which supports X's point, is the prelude to the invasion of Iraq.

 

Which also demonstrates the biggest problem with the media, one that even overrides "bias": it's sensationalism-driven. The media reports what the audience wants to hear - the worst bias, by far, is caused by that, via the same "group think" principles I described earlier.

 

I like how you put that.

 

It can be like 3 months of Sweeps week. And I have to admit, it is hard not to feel intoxicated.

 

BTW remember Wolf Blitzer in Jan. 1991 when he was at the Pentagon during the first reports of success during the aerial bombardment of the Persian Gulf War. "We all feel euphoric" and went on to report "total decimation" (sic) and nearly 100% success. And then the bombing went on for 5 more weeks and eventually had to retract nearly everything he said that night, one day at a time.

[DC Tom]

If I were to combine these two posts, would the following conclusion be valid:

 

"Nobody wants to hear(Tom):

the latest good thing that unions do(X),

the latest pro-tariff legislation(X),

or about human right issues(X),

because most people know:

unions are a necessary evil that are the direct result of bad management decisions, or bad managers, and an effect that can easily be removed by removing the cause,

tariffs are proven failures, as evidenced by Taft-Hartley(although, I do have an idea that's a twist on tariffs...another thread),

who the human rights abusers are already, but are afraid to want to support doing anything about them, since we aren't supposed to be Ok with invading other countries because of their terrorist activities (but it's OK if a labor party Prime Minister from a European country does it in Europe, and it's Ok if we invade Darfur, because George Clooney supports it. )

so therefore,

most media doesn't cater to the crackpot element, because most of what they want to talk about are arguments they have already lost."

 

No, most people don't want to hear because it's not sensational. It's not that no one cares what good unions do...they just don't need to hear it reported. To take a much simpler, almost banal example: you watch local news, you see a story about a dog shelter with dogs to adopt, it's a story over in two minutes. But you see a story about someone who abused a dog, they can milk that for several days.

 

 

"Everybody keeps reporting on Palin(X), because that's what people want to hear about(Tom)?"

 

Yep. Why else would they?

[OCinBuffalo]

No, most people don't want to hear because it's not sensational. It's not that no one cares what good unions do...they just don't need to hear it reported. To take a much simpler, almost banal example: you watch local news, you see a story about a dog shelter with dogs to adopt, it's a story over in two minutes. But you see a story about someone who abused a dog, they can milk that for several days.

 

Yep. Why else would they?

Then explain why the liberal media would avoid a story like ACORN? Certainly that is sensational. Certainly that story is national, and certainly it touches on a whole lot of issues, like government waste, abuses, ideologues being given tax money, etc. Hell, it's got every kind of sensational aspect to it, especially the videos of the pimp.

 

And that's my main point: are you telling me that a professional investigative reporter wouldn't have been able to penetrate ACORN and get them just as bad as these college kids did? What reporter wouldn't want to do this story, in terms of pure PR/career points?

 

So what stopped the legions of MSM reporters from doing this story? Why would they not go after something that could help their careers?

 

Look at Megyn Kelly and the Duke Lacrosse Fake Rape story. She made her bones on that story. Now she's got her own show. What made her different than the other reporters covering that case? She did the job properly, and got it right. What did they do? Why don't we know who they are? Why don't they have their own shows? Wasn't the Duke case sensational? Then why didn't these people get the story right?

[X. Benedict]

 

 

Look at Megyn Kelly and the Duke Lacrosse Fake Rape story. She made her bones on that story. Now she's got her own show. What made her different than the other reporters covering that case? She did the job properly, and got it right. What did they do? Why don't we know who they are? Why don't they have their own shows? Wasn't the Duke case sensational? Then why didn't these people get the story right?

 

I guess I don't know her very well, but I don't think her criticisms were alone.

Mike Radasky (sic) won a Peabody for his work on it for 60 minutes and Dan Abrams was a constant critic on MSNBC. Although he annoyingly started every sentence with "As a Duke grad..blah blah blah"

 

But honestly, I never really saw what was liberal or conservative about an alleged rape. But I didn't follow that one very much.

[OCinBuffalo]

I guess I don't know her very well, but I don't think her criticisms were alone.

Mike Radasky (sic) won a Peabody for his work on it for 60 minutes and Dan Abrams was a constant critic on MSNBC. Although he annoyingly started every sentence with "As a Duke grad..blah blah blah"

 

But honestly, I never really saw what was liberal or conservative about an alleged rape. But I didn't follow that one very much.

Well, then you apparently missed one of the single largest turning points in the PC/culture/"mandatory acceptance of the left's opinion as fact" wars we have had so far.

 

Apparently you missed Kelly telling O'Reilly, long before anybody else, that there's no way these guys were guilty. She had the story right WAY before anybody else. I purposely checked the other media outlets, and ALL of them were treating them as guilty when she started poking holes in the "evidence".

 

Apparently you missed the 30+ liberal Duke professors who signed a "statement" condemning the players before anybody had any clue what was happening.

 

You also missed the vast majority of the MSM(loved how you cherry pick one guy out of 100+ ) coverage of the story, which was the finest example of "guilty before proven innocent" behavior we have ever seen.

 

Apparently you missed everything Nancy Grace had to say on the subject. (and then didn't show up for work the day they were exonerated)

 

And, apparently you missed the fact that a Democratic DA was using this case to further his own chances of getting elected, and was willing to use every awful tactic he could, including ruining the lives of innocent people.

 

So, given your liberal leaning positions....did you really "miss" this case...or are you just wishing we would all forget about the entire media getting suckered, the corruption of a liberal DA, and the massive joint hypocrisy of most of liberal professors at Duke?

 

And, none of this explains why the MSM was beaten to the story by:

1. College kids in the ACORN case

2. A new hire at Fox News who was given hardly any air time, in the Duke case.

 

The ONLY rational explanation for how these two sensational stories were covered: BIAS!

Edited November 23, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[X. Benedict]

Well, then you apparently missed one of the single largest turning points in the PC/culture/"mandatory acceptance of the left's opinion as fact" wars we have had so far.

 

Apparently you missed Kelly telling O'Reilly, long before anybody else, that there's no way these guys were guilty. She had the story right WAY before anybody else. I purposely checked the other media outlets, and ALL of them were treating them as guilty when she started poking holes in the "evidence".

 

Apparently you missed the 30+ liberal Duke professors who signed a "statement" condemning the players before anybody had any clue what was happening.

 

You also missed the vast majority of the MSM(loved how you cherry pick one guy out of 100+ ) coverage of the story, which was the finest example of "guilty before proven innocent" behavior we have ever seen.

 

Apparently you missed everything Nancy Grace had to say on the subject. (and then didn't show up for work the day they were exonerated)

 

And, apparently you missed the fact that a Democratic DA was using this case to further his own chances of getting elected, and was willing to use every awful tactic he could, including ruining the lives of innocent people.

 

So, given your liberal leaning positions....did you really "miss" this case...or are you just wishing we would all forget about the entire media getting suckered, the corruption of a liberal DA, and the massive joint hypocrisy of most of liberal professors at Duke?

 

And, none of this explains why the MSM was beaten to the story by:

1. College kids in the ACORN case

2. A new hire at Fox News who was given hardly any air time, in the Duke case.

 

The ONLY rational explanation for how these two sensational stories were covered: BIAS!

 

Blah, blah.....

 

How quickly this becomes ad hominim

 

I'm not arguing away bias at all. What you haven't shown is omission. All the networks covered these stories.

You can argue that your darling network Fox was in he lead, and I don't dispute it. But all networks covered this stuff.

 

My point (adopting an arguement I don't necessarily share) was that the same stories are covered - the bias exists in a very narrow spectrum of media conventions. You have failed to show that there was omission, and moreover I think

you just nicely buttressed Tom's argument for sensationalism .

 

 

BTW....do you understand what it means to "play the foil" or "Devil's advocate"?

[DC Tom]

Blah, blah.....

 

How quickly this becomes ad hominim

 

I've trained them well.

[OCinBuffalo]

Blah, blah.....

 

How quickly this becomes ad hominim

 

I'm not arguing away bias at all. What you haven't shown is omission. All the networks covered these stories.

You can argue that your darling network Fox was in he lead, and I don't dispute it. But all networks covered this stuff.

 

My point (adopting an arguement I don't necessarily share) was that the same stories are covered - the bias exists in a very narrow spectrum of media conventions. You have failed to show that there was omission, and moreover I think

you just nicely buttressed Tom's argument for sensationalism .

 

 

BTW....do you understand what it means to "play the foil" or "Devil's advocate"?

Blah, blah....

 

Again, you haven't explained how a sensational story like ACORN was largely ignored or minimized by MSM bad actors for almost a year.

Again, you haven't explained why a sensational story like Duke was misreported for months.

 

You are acting like "covering these stories" is as homogeneous as flipping a switch. Clearly it is not. If I send a reporter out for 24 hours to "cover" a story 2 months after it has been reported on by other media, I am "covering the story", but nowhere near the level that I should be. Either I am mostly incompetent, or there is some other reason I am not covering the story, especially when it's a sensational story.

 

If I am covering it because now I have to, because other media have made it a story that I can no longer purposely ignore, there is your omission argument in technicolor. Is this really that hard to understand? This is the exact story with ACORN, and many many other stories.

 

Let me help you. Regarding ACORN, Breitbart constructed a media strategy that was specifically designed to not only overcome the MSM bias, and purposeful avoidance of the story, but to also expose the corruption of the MSM. The simple fact is: if there was no corruption, the strategy wouldn't have worked.

 

In an unbiased newsroom, stories compete on their merits, with merit #1 being "will it sell papers/air time?". We can argue about the other merits, and their order, but #1 is #1. Therefore, normally, you want to pack everything you've got into your story, so that it has the biggest effect, such that it gains the most attention, and gets the lead story/front page.

 

But, this will not work in the biased newsroom. Excuses will be made, the story will get chopped up/distorted, because somehow the story "is not as important" as the other stories, and it will end up on page 37/given 10 seconds. As if ACORN wasn't an "important story".

 

But, Breitbart knew this. So he did the exact opposite of "normal". He released the story a little bit at a time. In essence, he did what Woodward did, but he did it intentionally. By releasing only a little bit at a time, he made his story immune to the bias, because every time the MSM thought they had played it off, he'd release another vid, and it would start all over again. The rest is history.

 

Again, this approach wouldn't have worked if there wasn't any bias, because the bias itself became part of the story. Even the casual observer wanted to know why this group they had never heard of kept coming back up in the news, and why it kept only being a one day story so many times in a row. It looked like exactly what it was, the media trying to ignore a story that clearly merited further investigation.

 

Why weren't cub reporters looking to make a name for themselves all over this, especially if we are to believe Tom's "sensationalism" argument?