"1) Tim Russert asked a question about Issue X.
2) Kate O'Beirne laid out the Republican position on Issue X, complete with partisan spin and noticeable hostility and scorn directed at any Democrat relevant to the discussion.
3) Judy Woodruff, David Gregory, and Chuck Todd then provided typical play-by-play analysis of the debate surrounding Issue X and offered predictions as to which side would eventually come out on top politically.
Reliably missing from the discussion was any attempt to lay out the Democratic position."
April 9, 2007
An important point: "Our Liberal Media: Still Not Liberal"
The Anonymous Liberal points out the typical pattern for supposedly liberal media coverage of key issues. In this case, supposed tough interviewer, Tim Russert--or in the Scooter Libby/Dick Cheney world, perfect patsy for Neo-con talking points:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
So you think news is "fair and balanced"? Given the sheer number of stories, I don't think it is that hard to find a few examples and say, "see, I told you they weren't biased."
Personally, I think there is a liberal bias in the media, though it is subtle most of the time. I mostly notice it areas that I know more about, such as the law and firearms. There are probably areas where they are more biased than others. The media loves sensational scandals and won't ignore them even if they discredit a poltician they like.
I also think it is a matter of perspective. I hear Fox News called Faux News and other things (often by people that later admit they don't ever watch it) and that they are very biased. I watch it, along with other news outlets, and don't really find it all that biased, but that is probably because I am biased in my thinking.
Steve, I think you misunderstood my point, or I didn't make it clear enough. I didn't say there weren't biases, but suggested that most professional journalists try for some kind of balance--I didn't say they achieved it. But the conservative journalists don't even try and that is the problem.
No liberal newspaper sees itself as the media arm of the Democratic party--but Fox is trying (as Murdoch admitted) to further the Bush administration's agenda.
That is the difference.
Streak- I thought Anonymous Liberal gave a great summary of the issues many have with the Sunday morning panels: "Conservatives always claim that the presence of someone like Kato O'Beirne is necessary to 'balance out' the three members of the 'liberal' mainstream media. But even assuming Woodruff, Gregory, and Todd are 'liberals' in some sense of the word (which is a highly dubious assumption), it's obvious that they feel professionally restrained in a way that O'Beirne does not. They are observers, not advocates.As a result, the conversation is predictably one-sided. The GOP's talking points get aired in full, while the best the Democrats can hope for is that the mainstream journalists on the panel give their side a fair shake as they sum up the controversy and offer their predictable bits of beltway conventional wisdom."
Later
BB
To be honest, I don't watch any of the Sunday morning shows. Even if I wasn't busy with other things, I doubt I would watch them. I don't really care for roundtable discussions. I lost interest in them because the guests seem most interested in their own talking points. I would prefer some kind of meaningful discussion.
Streak, I understand your point, but I disagree. While I don't believe that the media calls up Howard Dean and asks him what they should say, I still contend that their bias shows through more often than not. I would prefer some kind of transparency, as opposed to any pseudo-objectivity (I am not sure if that is a valid concept, but it fit).
One of my numerous majors as an undergrad was political science. I took some kind of political theory class (I don't remember what it was called) and we read Derrida and Wittgenstein, which I'll admit to having a very difficult time understanding them. One of the professor's main points was that there was bias in all news, even the news that was short and concise. The only way to get close to what really happened was to read many sources.
As much as I don't care for Rush Limbaugh, there is no doubt where he stands, in terms of political ideology. If I listened to him, I would know that he is biased and that would give a better framework for understanding him.
Personally, I don't worry too much about the whole thing. I accept the fact that news is biased and try to research things as much as I can. If I had to pick one source that is typically good, I'd say that News Hour on PBS is the best. They have depth and usually have good commentators.
ok. again, I am not suggesting that the others are free of bias. That isn't the point.
Post a Comment