Here's one that will set you back on your heals:
Ya think?
Here's what I think: It's perfectly acceptable. (If boneheaded). Here's why:
Fox News is routinely criticized for being right of center politically. To make the point, those critics cite Sean Hannity (who is proudly to the right) and Bill O'Reilly (who is sometimes to the right and sometimes to the left). But what isn't mentioned - or understood - is the fact that Fox has round-the-clock news that is interrupted periodically with commentary. Fox isn't conservative. In fact it's fair and balanced. But it certainly has segments hosted by conservative commentators at times during each day.
MSNBC has the same setup. But at the opposite end of the spectrum. It is a news channel that features segments that are very leftist (and in Matthews's case, pathetically idiotic). And that's okay, if understood.
Separate out the commentary from the news. Biased news is a whole different subject.
quote
9 comments:
Fox new has 1% of the reporting time and news gathering resources of CNN, AP, NY Times, BBC, or any other major media channel with a budget its size.
And that's fine as that was their business model from the outset when you listen to Roger Ailes.
Their deal was to get ratings, generate ad revenue, and do it through infotainment with AM radio-style commentary focused on politics and cultural news over hard news.
Just calling a spade a spade. MSNCS was General Electric's response when it noticed that its normal news services (NBC Nightly News and Meet the Press) weren't keeping up with the ad revenue for its respective shareholders.
CNN is a whole different animal as it tried to remain focused on hard news (which is does), but when it started to mix the two with shows like Anderson Cooper, Glen Beck, and Lou Dobbs it lost some of its crediblity.
PBS still pulls it off as programs such as Nightly Business Report, News Hour with Jim Lehrer (the best tv news show out there in terms of content and legitimately thoughtful, intelligent, and balanced analysis, and Frontline are heads and tales above anything out there on other channels in terms of quality and overall accountability.
And when you really want the news from around the world without any American bias, we all turn to the BBC.
Excellent analysis. Except for the 1% thingie, which is preposterous.
Before I watched and read broadly, I thought Jim Lehrer's News Hour was an excellent show, also, but now I recognize its subtle leftward bias.
Consider how Lehrer picks "conservatives" like David Gergen and David Brooks as the "balance" to its liberals (Mark Shields, Tom Oliphant, etc). And when you know or research the backgrounds of the guest "experts" on the Lehrer show panels, you see the deck heavily stacked in favor of left-leaning positions -- often something like 3 Thomas Friedman liberals and 1 David Brooks-style "conservative." Left-leaning academics like Doris Kearns Goodwin are also extremely favored by Lehrer. And right-leaning academics are treated like the rare birds they are (see, for example, Virginia Tech's attempt to institute a "Diversity" loyalty oath). As a result, there's really very little vigorous intellectual give and take on the show. It's constructed to make watchers feel like they've seen an open, civil debate, but it's a bit of a sham.
Similarly, a Lehrer reporter is likely to shape a story to fit liberal memes. I've seen them do entire stories on the fall of the Soviet Union without mentioning either Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul II. The list goes on...
Watch Lehrer, but also watch Fox. Listen to Diane Rehm, but listen to LImbaugh, too. It's the only way to get your news fair and balanced.
David Brooks isn't "conservative" enough?
is there some standard out there?
heck, as a liberal, Mark Sheilds isn't very liberal either.
Both Brooks and Sheilds are incredibly dialed in news analyst who give brilliant perspectives.
I'm not looking for card carrying ACLU members versus card carrying TEA Bag members. Give me smart people who are dialed in enough in both parties to give insight. That's balance to me.
If i want right and left screaming heads, I'll tune in Crossfire. Which, for my money, is almost as demeaning as the Jerry Springer show.
As for Fox, who is supposed to be the liberal over there? Juan Williams?
But I'm not going to pick back and forth as salt makes a very good point. It's why i read the nation, the new republic, and national review, and the atlantic.
Anon 11:05 --
Good on you for your magazine reading habits. I've subscribed to all of those at various times, also. A Leftist friend once scolded me for taking the "right wing" New Republic. ;-)
Are you aware that in the last election cycle David Brooks not only touted Obama as a great future president, but also came out for growing the size of government? IIRC, he initially even came out for government-run health care. None are conservative positions.
I don't have time to find and link on Brooks' views -- I think Jerry may have covered this elsewhere -- but he is not a mainstream conservative thinker. Mark Shields regularly makes him look like an amiable dunce. It's my belief that Frank Rich and MoDo snicker at each other when Brooks passes them in the halls. :-)
Yes, though I like Juan -- once saw him debate Linda Chavez at Radford U. -- I wish they'd replace him with a sharper liberal.
Gotta go.
Cheers.
Hey Colmes was a joke on the left. I wish they would send Carville and Hannity up on the same show. Now that would be entertaining.
Notice i said entertaining. not informative, just entertaining.
Carville is ungodly annoying. I'd rather watch Bob Beckel, if I have to put up with anyone on the left.
That's sort of the point Jerry. Sean Hannity is to liberals like me, perhaps the most annoying talking head out there. Perhaps even worse than Rush. That's why Carville and Hannity would be entertaining.
Post a Comment