Media Bias Revealed - Part XXIV

[mattp]

The very thing Matt accuses KK of he demonstrates himself. When confronted with the facts, he resorts to obfuscation and digs up the usual settled business. And again - he absolutely refuses to ever admit he may have "mispoken". This, OW, is the issue.

 

Fairweather never misses the chance to call me a liar but so far I've shown his accusations false every time. On the other hand, Fairweather is the proven liar around here.

 

When I made that post, there had been several news reports in the prior week stating what I reported. KK had either not read them or somehow had the inside knowledge that the NYT would subsequently change their story. KK is nearly always spewing some kind of venom and vinegar, yet Fairweather complains that I would post something snippy about KK?

 

I offered one quip and Fairweather keeps complaining about it for four days. Rather than discuss the media bias question that he started the thread with, Fairweather wants to make this a personal bait and bash yet again.

[JayB]

Matt - what news source, if any, do to you consider objective?

[mattp]

I'm not sure there is one. The best we can do is to try to consult a variety of sources. I like the format of those liberal beacons, NPR and NYT, but I certainly don't assume that everything they say is either accurate or true. Sometimes, I read about breaking news here on cc.com first!

[Peter_Puget]

Well Peter, reading both of those links all the way through, it appears that the NYTimes doubly erred by giving Giuliani a page at the same standby rate for a response with a guaranteed run date, thereby donating in kind to that campaign. Of course, the second time was clearly no mistake on the advertising department's part, but a deliberate flouting of campaign finance laws.

 

You must be terribly outraged by this second turn of events! Easy man, no need to bust a gasket, best you should take a deep breath, perhaps take a nitroglycerin tablet. After all, friends don't let friends self-induce heart attacks.

 

Huh?!?!?

 

Fight the power Off! Repeal campaign finance laws!

[Jim]

I would argue that there is no liberal press in the US, or none that is widely distributed anyway. Look at the rah-rah leading up to the Iraq War. The NYT, LA Times, Washington Post, were no different than the Wall St. Journal. Only Knight-Ridder was standing in the back of the room calling bullshit, and now they are defunct.

 

Even rather conservative countries, Israel for instance, have a decent range of political discourse in their media. In the US the advertising dollar rules. If you're a cub reporter and you stray too far from the mainstream you get your knuckles rapped early and often. They learn the trade well that way.

[JayB]

I'm not sure there is one. The best we can do is to try to consult a variety of sources. I like the format of those liberal beacons, NPR and NYT, but I certainly don't assume that everything they say is either accurate or true. Sometimes, I read about breaking news here on cc.com first!

 

I don't think there are any either, because such a thing is a logical impossibility. Even if you were to make the assumption that all reportage was completely objective, the everything about the process of determining what stories to run, where to place them, etc - are irretrievably bound up with the perspectives and values of those making those choices.

 

The same goes for the reporters and the choices they make concerning what stories they want to cover, which sources they will consult while researching a story and which they will not, which information is well substantiated enough to be considered factual and which information must be considered tentative and provisional.

 

Then there's the fact that we do not live in a perfectly transparent world. There's a certain tension between timeliness and accuracy, and it's difficult to abide by the highest standards of one without compromising another, and again - the values and perspective of the person tasked with making this choice determine which of the two prerogatives will prevail.

 

 

[underworld]

The very thing Matt accuses KK of he demonstrates himself. When confronted with the facts, he resorts to obfuscation and digs up the usual settled business. And again - he absolutely refuses to ever admit he may have "mispoken". This, OW, is the issue.

 

Fairweather never misses the chance to call me a liar but so far I've shown his accusations false every time. On the other hand, Fairweather is the proven liar around here.

 

When I made that post, there had been several news reports in the prior week stating what I reported. KK had either not read them or somehow had the inside knowledge that the NYT would subsequently change their story. KK is nearly always spewing some kind of venom and vinegar, yet Fairweather complains that I would post something snippy about KK?

 

I offered one quip and Fairweather keeps complaining about it for four days. Rather than discuss the media bias question that he started the thread with, Fairweather wants to make this a personal bait and bash yet again.

 

 

whatever...

 

just admit you are wrong. geeeeez!

 

that is one of the main problems with people today...nobody will admit they are wrong.

[JayB]

I would argue that there is no liberal press in the US, or none that is widely distributed anyway. Look at the rah-rah leading up to the Iraq War. The NYT, LA Times, Washington Post, were no different than the Wall St. Journal. Only Knight-Ridder was standing in the back of the room calling bullshit, and now they are defunct.

 

Even rather conservative countries, Israel for instance, have a decent range of political discourse in their media. In the US the advertising dollar rules. If you're a cub reporter and you stray too far from the mainstream you get your knuckles rapped early and often. They learn the trade well that way.

 

These conclusions all seem a tad facile (and more than a tad overwrought), and I'm rather surprised to see a sophisticated analyst and meta-consumer of news coverage such as yourself espousing them.

 

What constitutes and acceptable range of political discourse? Can you provide an example of a case where a young reporter broke a significant story in which he got the facts right, and this ruined, rather than made his career because the story - while accurate - departed from the broad consensus that you cite? Is it possible that the collective judgment of the readership concerning the quality of any given publication has some bearing on the price and volume of advertising sold within it, let alone the subscription price?

 

 

[mattp]

just admit you are wrong. geeeeez!

 

WTF? I have stated two or three times now that subsequent statements from the NYT indicated that in fact they DID give MoveOn the price break. geeeez.

[Jim]

That's like trying to prove a non-event. Rather I would point to the results. Judith Miller's reporting was not scrutinized because she was blowing in the right direction. Go back and look at the reporting at that time. Every article started with "the administration claims..." but no where was a sentence added "...but there appear to be no facts to bolster this claim" Given the lack of any critical analysis in the mainstream media it's fair to say that a reality check was squashed. You're really not that naive to say everyone was fooled.

 

That's not reporting. That's cheerleading. The role of the press is to "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable". During the lead up to the Iraq war the press was merely a conduit. I know, you're going to say everyone had it wrong, blah, blah. Bullshit. The facts were out there. Within an hour of Powell's UN speech it was known that some of his graphics were lifted from a Master's thesis and that he conviently left out the fact that the International Atomic Energy Commission had been on the ground on these sites and nothing was there.

 

Reporters learn the internal rules pretty readily. There is no need have the wrong story even approach the front page.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

just admit you are wrong. geeeeez!

 

WTF? I have stated two or three times now that subsequent statements from the NYT indicated that in fact they DID give MoveOn the price break. geeeez.

 

How does that crow pie taste, Matt? Hmm? EAT UP, BEYOTCH!

[JayB]

[JayB]

That's like trying to prove a non-event. Rather I would point to the results. Judith Miller's reporting was not scrutinized because she was blowing in the right direction. Go back and look at the reporting at that time. Every article started with "the administration claims..." but no where was a sentence added "...but there appear to be no facts to bolster this claim" Given the lack of any critical analysis in the mainstream media it's fair to say that a reality check was squashed. You're really not that naive to say everyone was fooled.

 

That's not reporting. That's cheerleading. The role of the press is to "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable". During the lead up to the Iraq war the press was merely a conduit. I know, you're going to say everyone had it wrong, blah, blah. Bullshit. The facts were out there. Within an hour of Powell's UN speech it was known that some of his graphics were lifted from a Master's thesis and that he conviently left out the fact that the International Atomic Energy Commission had been on the ground on these sites and nothing was there.

 

Reporters learn the internal rules pretty readily. There is no need have the wrong story even approach the front page.

 

I just want to clarify - this was, in fact, an attempt to defend your original statements about the manner in which advertising dollars hopelessly undermine both the breadth of the "political discourse" in the media, and relentlessly crushes the prospects of all promising young reporters who get the story right while reporting on topics that are at odds with the prevailing adverto-consensus?

 

All except for Jim, the brave, solitary dissident who's managed to shed the manacles that encumber lesser souls and peer at the back of the media equivalent of Plato's cave....

 

Gotta love narcissm and conceit masquerading as sober, disinterested analysis that we've got here.

[ClimbingPanther]

When confronted with the facts, he resorts to obfuscation and digs up the usual settled business. And again - he absolutely refuses to ever admit he may have "mispoken". This, OW, is the issue.

 

So you're complimenting him as a good lawyer?

[Dechristo]

...the brave, solitary dissident who's managed to shed the manacles that encumber lesser souls and peer at the back of the media equivalent of Plato's cave....

 

 

[Crux]

Reporters learn the internal rules pretty readily. There is no need have the wrong story even approach the front page.

Media ownership may rule, but not completely.

 

(Advertising dollars are still flowing to the left as well.)

[Jim]

All except for Jim, the brave, solitary dissident who's managed to shed the manacles that encumber lesser souls and peer at the back of the media equivalent of Plato's cave....

 

Gotta love narcissm and conceit masquerading as sober, disinterested analysis that we've got here.

 

As ususal, no rebuttal. Do you let your ego sit by the computer or just lean over your shoulder? I'll bow out now and you two can continue your conversation.

[ashw_justin]

What major network would be anti-war? Nothing glues Americans to the television like conflict and violence. It's like a 5-year Super Bowl!

Expecting giant private brainwashing companies to figure out the truth for you (for free)? Tell you what, we'll make sure you know what to believe (a.k.a. The Truth), just as long as you keep watching.

[JayB]

All except for Jim, the brave, solitary dissident who's managed to shed the manacles that encumber lesser souls and peer at the back of the media equivalent of Plato's cave....

 

Gotta love narcissm and conceit masquerading as sober, disinterested analysis that we've got here.

 

As ususal, no rebuttal. Do you let your ego sit by the computer or just lean over your shoulder? I'll bow out now and you two can continue your conversation.

 

This reads less like a response to anything I've written than it does a transcription of the recriminations echoing to and fro between the rational and emotive portions of your brain.

 

 

 

 

 

[cj001f]

All except for Jim, the brave, solitary dissident who's managed to shed the manacles that encumber lesser souls and peer at the back of the media equivalent of Plato's cave....

 

Gotta love narcissm and conceit masquerading as sober, disinterested analysis that we've got here.

 

As ususal, no rebuttal. Do you let your ego sit by the computer or just lean over your shoulder? I'll bow out now and you two can continue your conversation.

 

This reads less like a response to anything I've written than it does a transcription of the recriminations echoing to and fro between the rational and emotive portions of your brain.

 

Are you know a Situationist? Quoting DeBord?

 

historical moment at which the commodity completes its colonization of social life