Comments on: Media Matters

By: Tversky

Tversky — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:57:23 +0000

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.

By: JeanineA

JeanineA — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:41:09 +0000

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?

By: AnninCA

AnninCA — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:31:36 +0000

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.

By: cynic

cynic — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:29:21 +0000

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.

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.

By: AnninCA

AnninCA — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:22:03 +0000

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.

By: Tversky

Tversky — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:17:30 +0000

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.

By: AnninCA

AnninCA — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:56:49 +0000

I agree. Announce your partisanship, and I’m good to go.

By: Urban Hillbilly

Urban Hillbilly — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:53:14 +0000

I enjoyed reading your assessment and find it spot on.

By: La Compania Volante

La Compania Volante — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:47:17 +0000

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.

By: Urban Hillbilly

Urban Hillbilly — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:20:58 +0000

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.

By: AnninCA

AnninCA — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:20:54 +0000

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*

By: Sammie

Sammie — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:13:41 +0000

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.

By: AnninCA

AnninCA — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:12:50 +0000

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.

By: beachnan

beachnan — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:05:17 +0000

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.

By: Al

Al — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:56:49 +0000

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.