Let's not go there. Let's repeat the assignment and try again.
Here's what I assigned: In class today [that was Wednesday] let's go out on the World Wide Web and see what we can find about political bias in Fox, MSNBC, CNN ... all the news- and commentary gang. When you find a good piece, post a link as a comment to this post. If you're comfortable with HTML tags, make it a working link. If you're not, just copy and paste the URL in the address field of your browser to the comment.
There. I've done my part. Now it's time for you to @*#$%ing do yours.
But it is a swamp out there.
Too much of the commentary is, well, commentary. Biased, in other words. Tells you more about the commentator (to make up a word) than the commentatee (to make up another). Interesting, but practically useless. Something I've learned the hard way: Be especially wary of commentary you agree with!
Here's a column by Kurtz that I Googled up this morning. It ran in February, and it analyzes Fox News in marketing terms of branding, audience nitche and customer loyalty that I find more informative than uplifting Fox as a guardian of true red-blooded American values or downgrading it as a cancer, or at best an ugly wart, on the body politic.
Kurtz mentions something I didn't expect. And I always like to listen up when I hear something that surprises me. I learn more that way. Kurtz says:
Liberal outlets thrived during the last administration, when those who couldn't stand the president gravitated toward the strongest Bush critics. MSNBC gained in the ratings by moving sharply left, installing Air America's Rachel Maddow in the hour after Keith Olbermann last fall.Worth thinking about, isn't it? But I think this is the money graf (right where it should be, in the third graf right after the lede):
A right-leaning brand might be a similar asset in the Obama era. The Washington Times is creating a conservative opinion site, and last week announced that its newsroom is launching a syndicated show on Talk Radio Network, which carries such conservative hosts as Laura Ingraham and Michael Savage.
Biased media are in the eye of the beholder, and with a site built around such high-decibel stars as Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, Fox is hoping to leverage its brand online, especially among conservative true believers.I think it's about the business model, folks.
In the meantime, Lou Dobbs' resignation from CNN is prompting a lot of commentators to commentate (is that a verb?) on the subject. Here are some articles I came across.
- Politico.com media reporter Michael Calderone carried a statement Wednesday by CNN Worldwide President Jim Walton on why the net wants nonpartisan hosts to protect its worldwide brand of "delivering nonpartisan, straight news reporting." Walton added, "That's what we want to deliver around the world. We compete against a lot more than Fox and MSNBC."
- Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post has a totally unbiased straight-down-the-middle factual story on Dobbs' resignation. Lots of background. Good quotes. Typical Kurtz. He's one of the best media analysts in the business.
1 comment:
Found this website...found it pretty interesting....heres my favortie peice...
"Fox News on The Clinton Admin. Vandalized the White House and Trached Air Force One Story"
May 21, 2001
During the White House transition in January, one story proved irresistible to many conservative pundits: Departing Clinton staffers had gone on a wild rampage and "trashed" or "vandalized" the White House, even looting Air Force One. Allegations of the Clinton aides' reckless destruction of public property swept through the media. For some, the story symbolized the difference between a morally compromised Clinton presidency and a more dignified, honorable Bush administration.
An official government investigation, however, reveals one major problem with these stories: They apparently never happened. According to statements from the General Services Administration that were reported on May 17, little if anything out of the ordinary occurred during the transition, and "the condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy."
Ironically, the investigation came in response to a request from Rep. Bob Barr (R.-Ga.), and many conservatives who had assumed that the wild rumors would be confirmed by an official inquiry. That wasn't the case. (The "looting" of Air Force One had also been denied months ago by officials at Andrews Air Force base -- Kansas City Star, 2/9/01).
Leading the cry against the trashing of the White House was the Fox News Channel. Virtually every major Fox personality reported it as fact, often expressing their own personal outrage. Guests on the channel chimed in, condemning the Clintons and their staffers. Consider the following reports:
--Sean Hannity (1/26/01): "Look, we've had these reports, very disturbing reports -- and I have actually spoken to people that have confirmed a lot of the reports -- about the trashing of the White House. Pornographic materials left in the printers. They cut the phone lines. Lewd and crude messages on phone machines. Stripping of anything that was not bolted down on Air Force One. $200,000 in furniture taken out."
--Bill O'Reilly (1/26/01): "I mean, the price tag right now is about $200,000, so that's a felony right there."
--Oliver North, radio host (1/26/01, "Hannity & Colmes"): "There's an awful lot about this whole administration that never looked right to many of us. And of course, their closing act in this whole thing, which was basically trashing the White House, you know, pillaging what was available on Air Force One.... We should expect from white trash what they did at the White House."
--Paula Zahn (1/26/01): "All right, but this is the White House, for God's sakes. We're not talking about people living in a fraternity."
Here is the link to the Website for other peices like this.
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/specificbias.htm
Post a Comment