Two pieces here that don’t really take me to task, but state I overstate the case against Hugh and others regarding the media and the antimilitary bias. The first from Black Five, the second from Protein Wisdom. I should note, that if the military approached issues as carefully as Black Five and Jeff did, we wouldn’t even be having this debate.
I probably have a lot to add to those, but let me state first- I don’t think Hugh and conservatives are wrong to be suspicious of the media. That would be an idiotic position to put forward, particularly by a blogger. As Jeff states:
And this is the point of John
TJ Jackson
Does anyone buy into the theory of an independent, objective media anymore? If one conducted a poll of news rooms and media centers would one them to be hotbeds of conservativism? To quote one NY Times reviewer, “No one I know voted for Nixon.”
This is the problem in the media today. There is no balance or diversity of opinion. Would anyone bet that if the donations of the staffs of the NYTimes, CBS or CNN were calculated they were overwhelming for the Democrats and have been for the past 30 years.
To argue there is no media bias or that publication of data vased on unidentified/unknown/unvarified sources is somehow unique ranks up there with “I never had sex with that woman.”
The evidence from the public is there for anyone to see as the MSM readership/viewership abandons ship for more credible sources of information.
But the MSM doesn’t get it. They rather play Jerry Springer and ape George Soros than provide objective data and allow the reader to draw the conclusion.
RIP MSM.
Mr Furious
Jesus. Not that same old shit about who reporters voted for determining coverage.
It’ true there is no objective neutral media at the moment, but it sure as hell isn’t because it’s too liberal! If anything, the MSM seems to go out of their way to present two sides, even when there isn’t. Truth and facts are characterized as “one side” and “balanced” with spin and propaganda as a course of business now.
I cannot even believe anyone would (with a straight face) advance the argument that President Bush has had anything but a overwhelmingly submissive press covering him. The few times he has had to even weather stringent coverage, the right has howled about bias.
It’s complete bullshit.
Mr Furious
Oh, by the way, John, nice post, as usual. that’s what I meant to say, but TJ’s crap had me flying off the handle…
JonBuck
It’s nice to see a voice of reason among conservatives. All we seem to get from the likes of Hewitt and Instapundit are hysterics over bias in the MSM.
Frank
I echo JonBuck.
Also, although I agree there is a liberal bias, I’m tired of being presented with the political affiliations of reporters as a sufficient to assume there is widespread liberal bias. Ability to be evenhanded is independent of political afilliation.
ppgaz
TJ, get real. Balance? Have you *watched* Fox News? It’s a GOP house organ. CNN is completely whipped and gives the Bush administration a pass on a long trail of failures, lies and manipulations. MSNBC has exactly one real journalist, Keith Olbermann. The rest are whipped dogs who regurgitate press releases and Republican talking points. Have you ever *seen* mediamatters.org? Even if you discount half of their material, which you should not, the long trail of the press’ failures to hold this potatohead administration accountable for anything is shocking and discouraging.
The “liberal media” meme is just stupid. The media is, in fact, addicted to approval and has long ago sold its integrity for approval and ratings. It will take approval wherever it can get it, just like any whore.
The media are right now a pretty despicable bunch, but the right’s “poor me, I’m a victim” act has worn thin.
ppgaz
TJ, get real. Balance? Have you *watched* Fox News? It’s a GOP house organ. CNN is completely whipped and gives the Bush administration a pass on a long trail of failures, lies and manipulations. MSNBC has exactly one real journalist, Keith Olbermann. The rest are whipped dogs who regurgitate press releases and Republican talking points. Have you ever *seen* mediamatters.org? Even if you discount half of their material, which you should not, the long trail of the press’ failures to hold this potatohead administration accountable for anything is shocking and discouraging.
The “liberal media” meme is just stupid. The media is, in fact, addicted to approval and has long ago sold its integrity for approval and ratings. It will take approval wherever it can get it, just like any whore.
The media are right now a pretty despicable bunch, but the right’s “poor me, I’m a victim” act has worn thin.
Cecil Turner
“The NY Times and the media are right about the abuses in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just like Bush is right, IMHO, in his overall approach to the War on Terror.”
What, the media is right that there are abuses? (That seems a fairly safe guess.) On the contention abuses are worse than normal, the evidence suggests that’s dubious at best (e.g., more captives died at My Lai than the Afghan and Iraq campaigns combined).
But ISTM the real question is whether or not the coverage is fair . . . and I don’t see how you could claim it is. How many more times are we going to get the same Dilawar/Habibullah story? Can we at least get a couple good beheading or dismembered aid worker exposes for balance? (How about a human interest piece on the apparently approving audience for Al Jazeera’s raw footage?)
rs
I suspect TJ is correct up to a point-rank and file media probably do lean Democrat,at least on social issues like race, abortion,and stem cell research(possibly reflecting the liberalizing effect of a college education).However,the media agenda is primarily framed by owners,publishers,corporations,and advertisers,and we know where their sympathies lie on economic and military issues
Steven
The crux of Hugh’s criticism is:
Many are necessary and accurate exercises in reporting, but many are not. For years those stories in the latter category went unrebuked. The blogosphere has ended the free pass system for axe-grinding in print.
In Hugh’s conflation of “accuracy” and editorial discretion (“necessary”), one can see the end of journalism. It is not enough that a story be accurate, it must satisfy Hugh’s criteria of “necessary.” In this context, I take “necessary” to mean “supporting a cause or position with which I agree.” It seems to me that one of the key purposes of journalism and reporters in our culture is to oppose power, to hold power to account, regardless of party. And through the years, the press has done a pretty damn good job of this, not perfect, but pretty damn good. But this is what Hugh and his ilk oppose…holding the exercise of power that he approves of to account. It is what the constant drumbeat of attacks on the alleged “MSM” by the right has been about…to turn the generally non-political press into political hacks, so that press criticism can be more easily dismissed.
And it has been damn effective. If something similar to Watergate occurred today, it is frankly inconceivable to me that today’s WaPo would even cover it. That is frankly the biggest threat to our democracy that I can think of.
David Rossie
“‘And this is the point of John
ppgaz
David, your remarks might make sense if we lived in a vacuum. But we can compare our own press with the British press, which goes after politicians like bulldogs, grabbing hold of their legs with questions and wrestling the hapless men of power to the ground. It is refreshing to watch …. our genteel and parochial attitudes over here, which hold it unseemly for reporters to do anything but fawn before power, would cause a firestorm if our own reporters did this.
To me the essence of Americanism is a disdain for kings, and abuses, even subtle abuses, of power. But our press plays the part of court attendants with these arrogant bastards.
Remember the gasps when reporters would actually ask meaty questions of the beloved and besainted Ronald Reagan? The nasty looks from Nancy were all it took to get the conservatives gums flapping over the rudeness and “unfairness” of the press. The “liberal bias”, and all that. How ridiculous it was, really. When Reagan did actually confront a strong question, he’d brush it off with a breezy sound bite.
Sounds familiar, eh? With Bush, I don’t think I’ve seen a guy so condescending to the press since Charles Degaulle. Pre-submitted questions, for crissakes.
TJ Jackson
I must have hit the maqrk since it elicited the howls of outrage from the normal suspects. None elected to address the facts; none decided to demonstrate objectivity most decided to cite Fox News. Hello?
So Fox does meet its professional responsibility and has diversity of thought. How does this address CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC the NY Times, the LA Times, the Boston Globe.
The media’s has demonstrated a complete lack of professionalism. To protest otherwwise is to ignore reality, which sadly to say is all too common in some segments of the society but usually outgrown at age seven.
The question reamins which has been ignored suppose all the allegations had been documented and were true. Should the media have published such a story if it were to result in the deaths of Americans and damage to American foreign policy while simultaneously strengthening the hand of an enemy dedicated to America’s destruction?
The media has made its decision. Just reflect on how the media’s attitude would have been treated in WWII.
David Rossie
I wasn’t really commenting on the media but instead on its critics. I think waay too much has been said complaining about bias in media.
I’m in agreement with you; the media is, if anything, docile here in the US. And the media’s purpose isn’t to be “objective”… in fact who can claim to know an exact purpose for the media? The founders thought that an independent media would be a great buffer against tyranny. Today’s media is anything but that. When did this idea of objectivity become so important? Objectivity has its place, but that place isn’t necessarily on top of everything else.
ppgaz
Yes, your point is taken.
Words are used imprecisely in this context. “Objectivity”, “fairness”, mean .. essentially nothing.
There is factual reporting, and it is either accurate, or innacurate. There’s nothing “fair” or “objective” about facts. They’re just facts.
“Fairness” strikes me as a silly idea in this context. There is nothing fair about facts. Facts are about life, and life is not fair.
“Objectivity” comes into play mostly in commentary. I have no problem with biased commentary, as long as it’s honest and upfront. I don’t need reality screeners out there deciding what’s “fair” or what I should think. Just give me the facts, and tell me what you think, and keep the opinion separate from the facts. Label each so I’ll know which are which.
I’ll take it from there.
Most people act like the media has some power over them. It doesn’t. We’re the consumers. We have access to more information from more sources than any people in the history of mankind. This stuff is not rocket science.
If journalists just do their jobs and report the facts as they find them, and develop their stories in a professional manner, I can figure out the rest.
TJ Jackson
PPQAZ:
Objectivity can be guaged not only on what and how something is reported but what isn’t reported. The MSM ignored the Swiftboat story as long as it could hoping to bury it but failed. No bias, yeah no biases.
In ther same fashion Kerry has said repeatedly he release his 180, strange how the MSM doesn’t think this odd given the play they gave to his self proclaimed “war hero status.”
Ever notice the MSM never bothered to mention that for someone to get three purple hearts and never spend a day in hospital or recieve any sort of disability was improbable. But we get the true believers who tell us about the objectivity of the MSM in the face of all evidence. When was the last time you saw anything about what was being done in Afghanistan or Iraq that was positive?
The issue here is twofold. One is the media objective.
Two what are the limits to professional journalism when you cross the line from reporting into aiding and abetting.
ppgaz
TJ … I’ll not respond to you any more. You’re just not living, or talking, in the real world. You aren’t worth the trouble.
Nobody “ignored” the Swift Boat hoax. What they failed to do was to report the real story in rebuttal.
Purple Hearts are not awarded for days in the hospital, you idiot. If you don’t like the way the medal is awarded, why don’t you try telling the next Purple Heart recipient you see that you think the award is bogus?
PPQAZ
Gee I’m sorry if you can take the truth. Can you tell me one incident you know of anyone receiving three purple hearts and spending a day in hospital?
Truth a bitch ain’t it? I’m sorry you are offended by what could easily be debunked by your apparent hero but since he can’t be bothered what can I say?
Now can you tell us why the MSM didn’t bother to rebut the Swifties? Why they don’t demand the release of the 180?
Any bets what the 180s reveals? Most vets know. By the way sir I have a PH and it wasn’t for shoting myself.
TJ Jackson
Sorry I made a mistake somehow on the name of the last post.
syn
I get the feeling John is blinded by celebrity worship.
ppgaz
I don’t care how many medals you claim to have. You don’t have any business claiming that other peoples’ medals are less deserved than your own. Comparing your medals as if you were bragging about the size of your dick demeans every medal recipient. You should be ashamed.
Nobody you have mentioned is my “hero” either, asshole. You can shove that comment up your ass.
Last, your piece of trash president has a sorry, embarassing and disgusting service record, and you know as well as I do that your bluster about someone else’s record is nothing but a smokescreen for that fact.
Far North
TJ,
You have a Purple Heart, eh? Well, whop de do. I have no more respect for your medal than you do for Kerry’s. You are not worthy of the uniform. You are a shameful example of an American.
Far North
TJ,
You have a Purple Heart, eh? Well, whop de do. I have no more respect for your medal than you do for Kerry’s. You are not worthy of the uniform. You are a shameful example of an American.
dylan
TJ, when you are done “shoting” yourself, lifting lame RNC2004 themes and phonying up lame “name entry” problems; please just address the post.
Post theme: Mainstream Media
Question: Pro War? or Anti War? Which way does the “MSM” go?
Sounds like a serious question, not one to be answered by a bunch of 2004 “Kerrybash”, brought to you by some “idiot du jour.”
TJ Jackson
Dylan:
The issue is if the media is professional and objective. Too bad you can’t take the truth. I guess for you “shooting” yourself is just too hard to bear. Tough.
PPQaz:
You are an idiot. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? Too bad you don’t address the issue if you feel so strongly about it. You are an ignorant horse’s ass. You have no idea what a PH means especially to those who were demeaned by the troll and his breathen. If you have nothing constructive to say then you ought to stay at your NAMBLA meeting.
North Troll:
You are an excellent Canadian.
ole virginny
Your original assertion is correct, the MSM is no longer competent. The presentations made in the MSM ARE biased.
You are however wrong about what direction it tilts – as if that really mattered. The most important point in this discussion is that the press SHOULD be investigating use and abuse of power, however it occurs or whoever is committing it.
As mentioned, all you need do is compare our countries weakass reporting to almost any other country’s press coverage. Michael Jackson? Who cares? Runaway bride? Who cares?
“the intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy” – We should ALL care about this!
shrubco is an ongoing criminal enterprise, yet there are no calls for accountabiliy from the MSM.
BTW, sure, shrubco was lied to – but they KNEW they were being lied to.
PS, nice timely reference to Nixon – I’d wager most people who did vote for him can no longer remember voting for him.
TJ Jackson
Virginia Ham:
By your calculations anyone over 53 is incapable of memory or clear thought. Guess that more or less pegs both your intellect and ability to reason. It also demonstrates your age. Back to your playpen little boy.
There are those who rather know the truth to make the changes required and those who would seek to use the truth and twist it into something ugly. Thanks for your unique insights.
Res Ipsa Louqitur.
ole virginny
TJ, do you twist in the wind as well as twist words? I only said I’d wager, I never claimed any facts wrt Nixon. I suppose I should have explicitly told you my remark was in jest only, since you could not tell from context.
Back on topic…
So you think the MSM is still competent?
Unbiased?
You would rather have the MSM run MJ and the runaway bride to ground than find whether our noble administration invented phony reasons for war?
Last – you are far too clever for me to challenge, so I must humbly depart*.
*This is sarcasm – look it up (you can even do that on the internets!), and realize that it’s not actually a compliment.
D. Hayden
Hugh, is that you?
Patience
How many more times are we going to get the same Dilawar/Habibullah story? Can we at least get a couple good beheading or dismembered aid worker exposes for balance?
The difference, I would think, is that we expect the terrorists to murder the innocent.