Media Matters
By dcmediagirl on November 18, 2008 at 9:56 AM in Current Affairs
….as in MSM analysis, not David Brock’s shop.
I find Rupert Murdoch’s observations on the news business to be predicatable, amusing and ironic considering the source. Murdoch’s mega media outlets have distinguished themselves by appealing to the lowest common denominator; acting as groveling apologists for the egregious regime in Beijing; spreading the crudest, vilest rumors about the Clintons while presenting them as “fact; and hiring an assortment of right wing blowhards to spout their nonsense while beating up on the so-called “liberals” invited on the channel to be used as cannon fodder and objects of ridicule.
I’ve seen some commentary on this blog defending Fox “News” while alluding to the New World Order and other assorted tinfoil hat nonsense (there’s also some over-the-top praise for our current disgrace of our soon-to-be-ex-President and the vile members of his administration coupled with serious revisionism going on vis a vis his legacy, but that’s a topic for another post). While it’s true that Fox managed to avoid going around the bend for Obama during the primaries and should be credited for being one of the sole media outlets that attempted to vet the frontrunner, well, even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. But the clock is still broken.
There’s a fine line between respecting your audience and pandering. Upon abandoning his political consulting career, Roger Ailes, Murdoch’s repellent minion/hatchet man/water carrier, made his mark by creating what I call the “Archie Bunker” talking heads; in other words, hiring white Irish male millionaire on-air personalities to appeal to the lunchpail crowd by railing against the wealthy (!), effete elites with their lattes and their fancy Ivy League educations; the snobs with their subscriptions to the New Yorker and their fondness for Bill Moyers and all things French whose greatest source of amusement is mocking and trampling on The Little Guy. Ailes created Chris Matthews at America’s Talking/CNBC, then foisted Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity on an unsuspecting world. And for some reason audiences bought into this con.
I’m thinking Murdoch is being too cute by half with regards to his comments about blogs. Any consumer of television over the past decade knows that the MSM have been too quick to print or go to air with half-baked rumors gleaned from blogs, whether you’re talking about Fox during impeachment not only using Drudge as a primary source but giving him his own show, or more recently the rest of the herd running with insane “news items” questioning whether Trig Palin’s maternity AND paternity and other assorted bits of nonsense.
On one point we are agreed. The MSM have no one to blame but themselves for this mess. The so-called “respectable” press acts like a school of fish turning as one to follow the alpha fish, or like the mean, popular clique in high school, spreading rumors and ganging up on the kids they’re jealous of. A sorry sight indeed. Cable television executives have worked overtime cloning Fox’s tabloid take on the news and emphasizing opinion over reporting. No wonder audiences are saying “no mas”.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
you’ve got that right
I can barely read here anymore (not all but some)
the hate
the lies
from either side
not worth a read
agreed
Well, I think the Clintons asked for all this, by
supporting 0Zero way beyond the ‘call of duty’.
And it’s coming back on them: one doesn’t deal with
the ‘dark side’ and expect to win.
The way I read it, 0Zero&Co. are still hellbent on
destroying the Clinton Years…..
I agree
I hate the pandering and blind party support by some
it’s NOT A GAME or a simple 9 – 5 “support the brand” company job!
I will never get used to the pandering.
Breeze:
That’s the MSM’s justification for all their demented, irresponsible coverage. The Clintons asked for it. The Clintons mix with the wrong crowd. The Clintons always need attention. The Clintons stick themselves in where they don’t belong. The Clintons don’t know how to choose their friends. The Clintons are ruthless in their quest for power. And on and on and on and on.
Can we just put an end to this meme now please? It’s been 16 years and counting. Enough now.
IT IS NOT “the MSM justification….”
I am sorry, DCMedia Girl, but Hillary did NOT
need to campaign for 0Zero to the extent she
did, plus the fundraising.
The amount that was done by other ‘losers’ in
the past should have sufficed!
Bill Clinton should NOT have had to campaign
for him at all….
The Clintons REALLY did “mix with the wrong
crow” this time!!!
They should have known better.
I don’t think I’ll ever feel the same about either
of them: I am conviced that their help is what
dragged this inept person across the finish line.
And now we are the ones who will suffer the
consequences.
Party before country (and other things)
That’s what they did.
Wow, thank you so much DCmediagirl. I can no longer stomach any “news” services at all any more. Reuters seemed to go off the deep end as well this year. The Bristish press gets some kudos but to be honest, when reading the news lately, I feel like a starving person, wading through a waist high deep cess pool, trying to pick out the few edible pieces of undigested corn. AND I’M ACTUALLY THANKFUL FOR IT! No Quarter is the occasional Baby Ruth floating at the surface.
Strawberrybitch: the Associated Press has gone off the rails too. I just don’t recognize the business anymore. “Depressing” and “baffling” don’t even begin to cover it.
During the election season I watched FOX once in a while simply because they were the only major network not in LOVE with Obama. Now that it’s all over and there’s no way we’re going to have Hillary as our president, I’ll go back to never watching them because they’re awful. More awful than the others anyway.
And I used to LOVE MSNBC and Keith Olbermann. It’s very depressing…
it’s terrible to feel so duped isn’t it Kath? By a supposed NEWS CHANNEL when it used to only be Fox now it’s all of them or maybe it always WAS all of them eh???
we’re just waking up from the CATTLE call!!! ARGH!
I stopped watching KO during the whole Brittany & Paris media insanity period. Keith had some sidekick on and the two would daily, gleefully and viciously attack every aspect of these womens lives using any scrap of information or footage. I make no excuses for Brittany or Paris or any other celeb. I am sorry, but for me, an on going media assualt of this nature is never justified. Serves no purpose. And is an indication of a person’s warped attitude and perspective. I will also point out the media never – ever attack men with this level of ferocity and intensity.
I would never-ever will watch MSNBC and CNN again. I stop watching this channels for almost 2 years. I can’t watch a station so bias that made me sick on my stomack. Don’t favor anybody, just say the truth, this is a journalist job. Otherwise, go and change your profession, be a fisherman. MSNBC and MSM,CNN, you are the most bias channel I ever believed I will see adn hear. Shame of you.
I still watch Morning Joe. They are more balanced than most. It was great when Joe and Mika gave Tweety a hard time for saying it was his job to help Obama succeed. Mika has drunk the Obama Kool Aid, but at least you get some push back here. Also Joe defended Hillary today. Pat Buchanan has also been more balanced than he used to be.
At Cannonfire there is a link to video that shows the damage the msm has done during this election cycle.
I am asking for a boycott of all sponsers on msm this holiday season.
Economic power is the most effective way to show our displeasure with the msm
Do not shop at places that advertise on msm
Support local businesses that do not advertise on msm
Give to charites that support women and children
Other ideas would be welcome.
remember money talks, bs walks
We can be effective if all work together for a responsible media
WOMEN,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS, AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
Good analysis, dcmedia girl.
The talking heads are so ill-equipped to do the real job of informing the public that it’s scary to me.
dcmedia –
Any suggestions on how we go about changing the MSM for the better? I’m not sure it could get much worse, then again, I am learning alot more things are possible then I ever imaged.
Well that accurately defines most liberals. You sure won’t find them hanging sheetrock, laying asphalt or working in some factory. Hell, the closet most liberals come to interacting with the ordinary Americans is when they order their latte at Starbucks or have their Lexus SUV serviced at the local dealership.
This is also why Murdoch’s minions like Limbaugh can label them as elitists and make it stick, because they are.
So the gazillionaire Rush Limbaugh, who lives on a palatial estate, is in touch with guys who hang sheetrock? Hilarious!
NO but rush doesn’t cut obama slack either. They are republicans they are supposed to say those things, when it is your own party saying those things that’s when it’s out rages and hurtful.
I used to be a card carrying remember of Media Matters until I realized that they hate America and would be the champions of the Fairenss doctrine against all dissent in this country. The basement dwelling fat asses that check every word of the right is just disgusting
Murdoch is essentially right but that applies to the news media accross the board.
The dramatic growth of Internet use and with it the access to “free” news and the flood of independent news people (bloggers) forced the traditional news media to become sensational in different ways in order to remain relevant and attract an audience – an audience which is necessary to attract ad dollars.
For a number of years that fact has driven formerly objective news media to become subjective and attract a certain audience – not a mass audience.
What is interesting about FoxNews is that it was the Clintons who found solace in FoxNews reporting as the primary went on since they were the only news network not in the tank for Obama.
I blame Fox for helping overturn the era of woodward and bernstein when journalists actually reported dispassionately the truth. It was a public service-mindedness. The cable people clearly have been trying to replicate O’Reilly, by putting on Matthews and Olbermann, and the public doesn’t know the difference between opinion and reporting.
I always watched KO’s first 30 minutes which was trenchant and interesting, but turned off the trashy second half where he bashes certain celebrity women and runs animal videos that treat the animals as cartoons (like that bear, who fell out of the tree. Sorry, it’s not funny and painful to watch.)
This is a fair point. I was so disgusted by the overwhelming pro-Obama, anti-anyone challenging Obama bias of the rest of the mainstream media that I probably over praised FOX. I still think their real NEWS shows (e.g., Britt Hume’s show most especially) are the fairest and most balanced but in general FOX does cater to the lowest common denominator with the rest of its programming. And the truth is, it ALWAYS has.
However, I don’t see the rest of the MSM as much better. Their obsession with the horse race, strategy and punditry during the election shows how shallow CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the news outlets are too. Moreover, when it came to Palin in particular, all news outlets showed a tremendous capacity for yellow journalism and gossip mongering. (This was contrasted with their self-censorship with regard to vetting Obama. CLEARLY a case of pro-Obama, anti-Republican media bias.)
All news shows suck to a certain degree. Even Frontline, one of my favorite shows on PBS clearly leans left. I won’t stop watching it though because the information quality is so good. I just watch it critically and seek alternative perspectives that they failed to cover in their stories.
Anyway, sorry for babbling. lol. I mainly wanted to say, I agree with you about FOX.
One of my biggest disappointments this campaign season was Bill Moyers. I have greatly respected him, especially for standing up to corrupt media and media conglomerates, yet he so completely gulped the koolaid and became what he had so passionately spoken against–when he defended with distortions and inaccuracies Rev. Wright and launched into nasty anti-Hillary tirades (on Charlie Rose for example). Anyway, it has been an eye-opener. We need a new generation of journalists who embrace the Pulitzer creed of non-biased reporting.
It’s sad isn’t it? I feel the same way about Moyers. I respect him speaking out about the media’s failure to properly cover the run up to the Iraq War. But he seems to buy the whole “liberals and/or Democrats are good, conservatives and/or Republicans are bad” canard. Ugh.
I think part of this stems from the idea “intentions” matter more than results. That is, some people give liberal Dems more credit than conservative Republicans because they think liberal Dems have better intentions when it comes to the role of government. Well, I completely reject that idea. Just because a conservative Republican doesn’t agree with liberal policies re: welfare for example doesn’t mean they are evil people. They may give more in their private life to help the needy and downtrodden than most liberal Dems. Moreover, I don’t care how good your intentions are if the results of your policy prescriptions fail and in some cases make the situation worse. (Liberal policies regarding welfare are a great example of this.) Bottom line for me, I think most liberal Dems mean well but that doesn’t mean I think they are somehow superior in terms of policy or personal morality than conservative Republicans. Most importantly, I don’t think that means they (liberal Dems) should be given the benefit of the doubt but not others that disagree with liberal Dems should not get the benefit of the doubt. Bill Moyers’ (and the MSM as a whole) differential treatment of Palin and Clinton versus Obama shows he thinks differently.
I agree about MSM. I don’t watch national or local news programs anymore, at first because of the ads, but the bias really finished me off. I gave up on NPR during the Clinton primary, and also on PBS’ Washington WK in Review, and finally Bill Moyers. It became obvious early on that Gwen Ifill was distressed over anything faintly negative about Obama, so I expected her guests were carefully selected, or self-censored to reduce her pain. It is shocking that PBS allowed her to continue. They should have given her a leave. she would have still had her press credentials so she could gush over Obama. Charlie Rose is a bore.
I managed these past 8 years to ignore Bush, and can do so with Obama. It is surprisingly easy to go through the day without the radio or TV. But thank god for the Internet. I can cherry pick who I watch on podcasts, and get a wide range of opinion. I’m stunned to find that I surf the conservative web sites, but there are some good articles out there with the truth about Palin and how much she did contribute to McCain’s vote total.
There are certainly pros and cons about the Clintons supporting Mr. Obama down the home-stretch during election 2008. Had she and her husband refused to offer their support surely they ran the risk of an Obama victory anyway, which would have only left any proposed legislation Mrs. Clinton brought forth in the US Senate to end up in file 13(trash bin), thus reducing her to nothing more than a lame duck senator; on the other hand, they sucked it up like two unselfish team players and did their part to help the team, but, alas, have alienated some of their faithful in the process. That’s a coin once thrown in the air that shouldn’t ever land, ’cause heads you lose and tails you lose too. Hopefully there are better days ahead for the former First Lady and her husband.
Where have all the good journalists gone? Nobody is questioning anything anymore, especially as it relates to BO. My way of coping is turning off all news stations. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to convince my husband to do the same. Many times I have to walk out of the room if he has the news on, because their incessant praise of BO makes me ill. Yesterday morning was the topper, when NBC ran a commercial for a commemorative book and tape about BO’s campaign for the White House. I think I threw up a little in my mouth. I could not believe that a supposed news/journalistic station would be hawking their own book and tape. Disgusting! Beyond turning them off, what else can we do? We need to do something before the next election, or we will be in big trouble.
There are still some excellent print journalists. What is disturbing, and I ranted for 3 posts on an earlier article, is that the new talking heads are truly not readers, even. Nevermind that they jump in front of the camera with stories, such as the recent one on Palin that turned out to be a hoax from a blog that had been outted earlier as a hoax blog. That alone SHOULD get them fired. On the spot.
Good grief, look at what they did to Rather? And they are letting these guys get away with that kind of shoddy journalism?
What disturbs me the most is how ignorant and ill-informed they are. They don’t even bother to report the facts.
I could take the slant, if they also acknowledged real facts.
But what is being discussed here isn’t journalism, in my opinion. It’s reality-tv goes to politics.
All of the networks and cable news outlets are pushing their own brand of propaganda. I don’t hold FOX guilty for bringing down the quality of reporting at the other outlets either, I think FOX filled a market void for more conservative audiences and those who weren’t fully comfortable with the more liberal leaning outlets.
I’m a former northeast liberal that’s gotten a little more conservative with age, and now consider myself a moderate, yet I can’t even watch CNN or MSNBC anymore. At times during the primaries, they exhibited much more of a bias than FOX did (at least their on air cannon fodder gets to voice an opinion between rounds). Personally, I suspect our news started to become tainted well before FOX came into existence.
I’ve never been a fan of conservative radio, and aside from one or two shows, wasn’t really a FOX fan either, but I do have to wonder where we would be if there weren’t any outlets to offer opposing views. I don’t really think group think is healthy on a long term basis, because it seems to prevent the recognition of various opportunities and pitfalls.
I wish our media would focus more time reporting the facts, and spend less time spinning them.
Ditto here. I am not at ease with AP, even, nevermind CNN/MSN. I really don’t care for the Fox brand, either. It’s pretty amateurish to me.
But I suspect unless it’s Walter, I won’t like them. *sigh*
The attraction to Fox News, for me at least, was a desperate search for some fairness during the Democratic Primary. Hillary Clinton was getting unfair coverage on CNN and MSNBC, and, also, in the print media– like NYTimes and WashPost.
Fox News turned out to be the most fair. Hillary’s toughness and her journey to becoming such a sensational candidate seemed to really excite Sean Hannity and “Sean Hannity types”, if you will. Greta Van Susteran tries really hard to present even coverage to the underdog, ie Clinton and Sarah Palin. Plus, her full-bore support of women in politics has been TERRIFIC!
My disenfrancisement from the press goes back to the build up to the Iraq war. The coverage should be described as horrendous, corrupt and incompetent. Before that, though, in 2000 VP Gore was put down daily by “opinionists” such as Chris Matthews and by-weekly by the elitist print “opinionists” ie Maureen Dowd.
The search goes on for competent, fair journalism. I have to be flexible and check numerous places. I have to realize sources of information that are fair and astute today, may not be so tomorrow.
Murdoch took FOX news moderately to the right because almost all the other media, other than talk radio, had already gone way, way, left. He saw the financial success of talk radio and wanted to duplicate it; he saw a market and exploited it. FOX is on the right, yes, but it is relatively moderate when compared to talk radio or MSNBC/NBC.
Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Levin, etc., never try to pretend that they are anything but unabashed, up-front partisans. It’s the people who pretend to be regular, “unbiased” journalists but aren’t that really tick me off.
The simple fact is that everyone has chosen sides–rather like the way Americans chose sides in 1861. I find that to be a bit ominous.
I enjoyed reading your assessment and find it spot on.
I agree. Announce your partisanship, and I’m good to go.
You make such an excellent point. The people that screech that corporate media has a pro-right bias (because they think only rich people have a financial stake in corporations and they equate rich with GOP) miss a KEY point that you’ve hit on. These owners are interested in making money on their investment! That’s it! If pushing a particular political agenda is consistent with making money on their investment then they’ll go that route. But the political agenda is secondary. Murdoch saw a market opportunity due to the fact that all the televised media outlets lean left (due to self-selection of liberals into journalism IMO). It’s all about making money. I’d say MSNBC’s decision to go blatantly left with Olbermann, Maddow and Matthews (and in particular, making pundits into anchors – something you can’t accuse FOX of) was a financial decision too. I seriously doubt the folks that own GE (which owns NBC) are a bunch of lefties. They just saw an untapped market for news blatantly pandering to the DailyKos, HuffPost, MoveOn crowd and took advantage of it.
Exactly. Fox was whipping them in ratings. Why? Because of partisanship.
Air America? Big flop.
MSN? Ah…..they hit the bullseye.
We’re not likely to see any change. This was too successful.
What I would suggest to bloggers?
I honestly never watch any of those shows. Never have.
My speed is probably “Meet the Press.”
But never these talking heads.
YOU bloggers are promoting them, through your outrage.
YOU’RE the ones who are posting them all over the net, saying, “Ain’t it awful?”
I fancy that I’m more involved than most, and I’m not even interested in what they have to say about any politics.
So imagine Soccer Mom or Basketball Dad.
They really aren’t.
I’d suggest that bloggers are a bit obsessed on this.
And … you’re promoting them in your own obsession.
Just my 2 cents.
What exactly are those sides?
What I’m suggesting here is that maybe the liberal/conservative paradigm is actually a self-serving illusion created by the two extremes. It creates an us/them mentality that’s very useful to extremist pundits and polarized partisan politicians, but it’s highly detrimental to the nation as a whole.
amen!
Notice how people can’t really talk specifics now?
Why?
Because we’d find out we agree.
That has been why people constantly tell me, anyway, “You switch sides.” No, I’m actually very consistent…..on issues.
Another great point! This “us versus them” mentality is ABSOLUTELY in the interest of extremist pundits and partisan politicians. Nothing galvanizes people better than a bad guy on which they can focus their attention. (It also leads to stronger group affiliation as they bond over their mutual dislike of that bad guy.) Partisan pundits and politicians can get a lot of mileage out of labeling someone a bad guy – i.e., someone who intends to do you wrong.
Admitting that people simply make errors (even when they have the best of intentions) and the world is essentially a random, uncertain place scares the crap out of people and makes them feel hopeless. But I’d argue the latter (errors and randomness) is far more prevelant than people realize and the former (bad guys) is far less common than people realize.
The problem is that pundits (e.g., Limbaugh, Olbermann, etc.) get higher ratings and garner larger audiences and politicians and political strategists (e.g., Tom DeLay, Atwater, Rove, Howard Dean, Axelrod, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, etc.) galvanize their base and win elections nowadays by pushing the “us versus them” meme and vilifying the other side. Explaining that people make errors and random events occur (not to mention admitting one’s own culpability in a negative event) doesn’t help ratings or win elections.
Since none of us is watching MSNBC or CNN, could someone somehow gather a list of their advertisers, post it for all of us and then we can begin a concerted boycott of these advertisers? We could then communicate to these advertisers who we are in unison and why we are boycotting their products or services. Let us somehow let the world know our numbers (even to ourselves) and take some concrete action. Thoughts?