Category: Media and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
As they are wont to do, the Academy eagerly embraced the opportunity to mix business with pleasure last night, voting for Al Gore one more time. Below are my thoughts on the man, his life and his prospects as a presidential candidate (which I am reprising from a post last summer).
Note on the reissue: Back in June, I had not screened An Inconvenient Truth. I have seen it since. Back then I asked: "Is this Al Gore’s 'Churchillian' moment?" Little did I know, Al had already beaten me to that comparison within the film. One needs to be pretty fast on the draw to beat Al Gore to a favorable point in re Al Gore.
From June 7, 2006:
The Strange Career of Al Gore
John Adams purportedly told his son, JQA, that considering all the blessings and advantages that his family and Providence had bestowed upon the younger Adams, it would be his fault alone, if he did not become president of the United States. Although that statement has always struck me as incredibly harsh, perhaps it is the appropriate key in which to begin a discussion of the political life and times of Albert Gore, Jr.
The Harvard-educated, senator’s son and ambivalent Vietnam veteran sampled divinity school, law school and journalism before he won election to Congress from Tennessee’s fourth district in 1976 and then a senate seat in 1984. He ran for the Democratic Party nomination for president in 1988 and lost. He ran for vice president in 1992 and won. He ran for president in 2000 and lost (although he won the popular vote).
During the 1980s, he absorbed criticism (mostly directed at Tipper) from First Amendment advocates who charged that the Gores favored censorship of recording artists. His 1988 campaign for the Democratic nomination seemed to lack purpose and definitely wanted for charisma.
During his tenure as VP, he acquired a national persona as the wonkish, stiff and boring but loyal Clinton sidekick (although he countered that perception with a humorous, self-deprecating comedy bit). But no matter how hard he tried to blend his Southern Evangelical Populist lineage with his Washington-insider and Eastern-educated acculturation, the public never embraced him as much more than a parody of himself. Even the “liberal” media seemed reluctant to give him a fair shake (regularly laughing at him—and only occasionally with him).
In 2000, he ran for a Clinton-Gore “third term” and failed. He came close (only losing by 537 votes in Florida and one vote in the United States Supreme Court); but, nevertheless, he lost, squandering a good political hand.
Then, Gore seemed to slip off the face of the earth during the first few months of the Bush administration and, especially, after 911. He grew a beard. He grew fleshy. He seemed completely dislocated from politics and reality. Even Democrats seemed relieved that he was not president during the unexpectedly pivotal period in American history.
But, just as suddenly, Al Gore is back.
Note on the reissue: Back in June, I had not screened An Inconvenient Truth. I have seen it since. Back then I asked: "Is this Al Gore’s 'Churchillian' moment?" Little did I know, Al had already beaten me to that comparison within the film. One needs to be pretty fast on the draw to beat Al Gore to a favorable point in re Al Gore.
From June 7, 2006:
The Strange Career of Al Gore
John Adams purportedly told his son, JQA, that considering all the blessings and advantages that his family and Providence had bestowed upon the younger Adams, it would be his fault alone, if he did not become president of the United States. Although that statement has always struck me as incredibly harsh, perhaps it is the appropriate key in which to begin a discussion of the political life and times of Albert Gore, Jr.
The Harvard-educated, senator’s son and ambivalent Vietnam veteran sampled divinity school, law school and journalism before he won election to Congress from Tennessee’s fourth district in 1976 and then a senate seat in 1984. He ran for the Democratic Party nomination for president in 1988 and lost. He ran for vice president in 1992 and won. He ran for president in 2000 and lost (although he won the popular vote).
During the 1980s, he absorbed criticism (mostly directed at Tipper) from First Amendment advocates who charged that the Gores favored censorship of recording artists. His 1988 campaign for the Democratic nomination seemed to lack purpose and definitely wanted for charisma.
During his tenure as VP, he acquired a national persona as the wonkish, stiff and boring but loyal Clinton sidekick (although he countered that perception with a humorous, self-deprecating comedy bit). But no matter how hard he tried to blend his Southern Evangelical Populist lineage with his Washington-insider and Eastern-educated acculturation, the public never embraced him as much more than a parody of himself. Even the “liberal” media seemed reluctant to give him a fair shake (regularly laughing at him—and only occasionally with him).
In 2000, he ran for a Clinton-Gore “third term” and failed. He came close (only losing by 537 votes in Florida and one vote in the United States Supreme Court); but, nevertheless, he lost, squandering a good political hand.
Then, Gore seemed to slip off the face of the earth during the first few months of the Bush administration and, especially, after 911. He grew a beard. He grew fleshy. He seemed completely dislocated from politics and reality. Even Democrats seemed relieved that he was not president during the unexpectedly pivotal period in American history.
But, just as suddenly, Al Gore is back.
Farmer, once more I am the cynical one, I guess. I think you are too easy on the MSM. You and I do indeed have our points of view, but we are careful not to corrupt basic facts of the matter when we write. The MSM seem under no such compunction: from the Rathergate memo to the way the recent intel report was handled. It seems to me that the MSM have particular directions they wish to see the country take, and write accordingly. I think some of them even are aware of it, but think they are writing for the "greater good" or perhaps "the bigger truth." (see Duranty at the NYT) Check out this post with links from the John Locke Foundation. I have difficulty understanding this behavior with your "Friendly v Unfriendly" paradigm. If they were interested in reporting fairly, the corrections on the Intel story would also have been front-page.
To the above, I must add a level of ignorance that seems to me culpable. For example, it is now over 5 years since 9/11. Most reporting on Islam, however, betrays a lack of serious study of the history and beliefs of that religion, especially Islam's relations with other religions and cultures over its history. At its best, this is laziness, at its worst, it is frivolity. Either term fits the definition of the classic deadly sin sloth.
I refer you to this post on Jihadwatch on the media's inability or unwillingness to ask hard questions of Muslim spokesmen. Here is a portion of the post "Falsifying history as a debating tool."
Both Hugh Fitzgerald and I have written about Islamic apologist and media darling Reza Aslan, noting some of his innumerable distortions -- for one, he calls Muhammad’s community in Medina “a communal, egalitarian society dedicated to pluralism and tolerance.” Sure it was -- with the women veiled and the three Jewish tribes ultimately exiled or massacred by the prophet of Islam. Other than that, it was very pluralistic and egalitarian.
. . .
Here is another example: in ‘Reza Aslan’s Pogrom Amnesia,’ the ever-insightful Ilana Mercer has posted a link to a post by Myles Kantor about a debate between atheist crusader Sam Harris and Aslan. In that debate, Aslan again uses whitewashed history as a debating tool:
About Reza Aslan, the darling of the media on all things Muslim, Myles Kantor observes the following:
“Last night I watched Sam Harris and Reza Aslan’s January 25 debate on religion at the Los Angeles Public Library. Toward the end, Harris noted the anti-Semitic character of the Middle East before the establishment of Israel in 1948.
Aslan responded in reference to pre-state Israel, ‘Before 1948, of course, there were tens of thousands of Jews living alongside their Arab neighbors without any problem at all.’
Without any problem at all? How about the Jerusalem pogrom in 1920 and the Jaffa pogrom in 1921? Or Arab massacres of Jews in Hebron and Safad in 1929? Or the Tiberias pogrom in 1938? (There was a reason the Sephardic Jewish sage Maimonides wrote in 1172 regarding Arabs, ‘Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.’)
Perhaps ignorance of Islamic history is too kind an analysis. MSM reporters regularly are deferential to Islamic spokesmen. For once I would like to see the same adversarial attitude shown in White House Press Conferences applied here.
To the above, I must add a level of ignorance that seems to me culpable. For example, it is now over 5 years since 9/11. Most reporting on Islam, however, betrays a lack of serious study of the history and beliefs of that religion, especially Islam's relations with other religions and cultures over its history. At its best, this is laziness, at its worst, it is frivolity. Either term fits the definition of the classic deadly sin sloth.
I refer you to this post on Jihadwatch on the media's inability or unwillingness to ask hard questions of Muslim spokesmen. Here is a portion of the post "Falsifying history as a debating tool."
Both Hugh Fitzgerald and I have written about Islamic apologist and media darling Reza Aslan, noting some of his innumerable distortions -- for one, he calls Muhammad’s community in Medina “a communal, egalitarian society dedicated to pluralism and tolerance.” Sure it was -- with the women veiled and the three Jewish tribes ultimately exiled or massacred by the prophet of Islam. Other than that, it was very pluralistic and egalitarian.
. . .
Here is another example: in ‘Reza Aslan’s Pogrom Amnesia,’ the ever-insightful Ilana Mercer has posted a link to a post by Myles Kantor about a debate between atheist crusader Sam Harris and Aslan. In that debate, Aslan again uses whitewashed history as a debating tool:
About Reza Aslan, the darling of the media on all things Muslim, Myles Kantor observes the following:
“Last night I watched Sam Harris and Reza Aslan’s January 25 debate on religion at the Los Angeles Public Library. Toward the end, Harris noted the anti-Semitic character of the Middle East before the establishment of Israel in 1948.
Aslan responded in reference to pre-state Israel, ‘Before 1948, of course, there were tens of thousands of Jews living alongside their Arab neighbors without any problem at all.’
Without any problem at all? How about the Jerusalem pogrom in 1920 and the Jaffa pogrom in 1921? Or Arab massacres of Jews in Hebron and Safad in 1929? Or the Tiberias pogrom in 1938? (There was a reason the Sephardic Jewish sage Maimonides wrote in 1172 regarding Arabs, ‘Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.’)
Perhaps ignorance of Islamic history is too kind an analysis. MSM reporters regularly are deferential to Islamic spokesmen. For once I would like to see the same adversarial attitude shown in White House Press Conferences applied here.
The Okie Gardener is onto something when he calls the coverage of Hillary "friendly" (see his post here). Friendly is a moderate and appropriate characterization. Democratic candidates generally get a lot of friendly coverage in the MSM.
My long held thesis:
No rational observer can deny a liberal bias in the mainstream media (MSM). On the other hand, bias should not be confused with orchestrated advocacy. CBS News and the DNC are not in cahoots. The MSM bias for liberal candidates and causes is real; it is systemic and institutional, but it is not concerted.
For example, this blog has a rightwing bias, but that does not mean we consciously lie, dissemble, or distort the facts to make our points. Moreover, we do not get talking points and/or marching orders from the RNC. We are completely independent agents attempting to come to terms with the issues of the day in an honest way, filtering the world through the lenses of our experience and individual moral compasses. The big difference between us and them is that we are generally more honest about what we are doing.
Back to understanding the Beltway media: It is important to note that political agenda is not the only factor in play within the MSM. As I have said previously: The MSM's cynicism acting in conjunction with its other biases for conflict and sensationalism are also essential in explaining its political coverage.
For example, the Clinton scandals received plenty of attention--much of it quite negative and judgmental, especially in the beginning. However, eventually, the political battle lines overwhelmed the initial shock and disgust registered by the MSM, and, in the end, the stories conformed to the standard pro-Clinton and anti-Republican template.
For more on this see these previous posts: a general overview of the landscape (here) and a defense of Fox (here).
Some more recent cases in point:
Consider the current unfriendly MSM coverage of the Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell, which has contributed to the impression that the GOP is unwilling to debate the war in Iraq. A more sophisticated, more accurate, and less unfriendly storyline would depict McConnell as, at the very least, clever, good-natured, and well within his rights. Genuinely (perhaps excessively) friendly coverage would show him as a new master of the Senate and celebrate his exceptional parliamentary stratagem (as I did here a few days ago). One wonders: if Nancy Pelosi had executed an equally brilliant maneuver on her side of Capitol Hill, how would the MSM have chosen to characterize her coup.
Consider and compare the firestorm and coverage concerning George Allen with the more recent Joe Biden imbroglio. The divergence seems disproportionate well beyond the significant differences in tone, intent, and language within the individual cases. Who can deny that the Washington Post was merciless in their desire to dislodge Allen from his Senate seat?
Consider the case of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. If Scooter Libby is not guilty as sin, the MSM has done us a great disservice.
An aside: I have no sympathy for public officials who lie to grand juries. If Libby lied, regardless of the rationales or extenuating circumstances, justice will be served with his conviction for that offense.
I try not to get all my information about anything from NPR, but it just so happens that most of the trial coverage I have heard on this case comes from Nina Totenberg. From what I have gleaned from that particular source, I am fully expecting the Libby side to either flee the country over the weekend or throw themselves on the mercy of the court when they are asked to present their case on Monday.
I wonder if there is another side of the story.
On the other hand, perhaps we worry too much about this. That is, I would wager today that more Americans are experts on the life and death of Anna Nicole Smith than the combined total number of citizens who have ever heard of Mitch McConnell, Joe Biden, or Scooter Libby.
My long held thesis:
No rational observer can deny a liberal bias in the mainstream media (MSM). On the other hand, bias should not be confused with orchestrated advocacy. CBS News and the DNC are not in cahoots. The MSM bias for liberal candidates and causes is real; it is systemic and institutional, but it is not concerted.
For example, this blog has a rightwing bias, but that does not mean we consciously lie, dissemble, or distort the facts to make our points. Moreover, we do not get talking points and/or marching orders from the RNC. We are completely independent agents attempting to come to terms with the issues of the day in an honest way, filtering the world through the lenses of our experience and individual moral compasses. The big difference between us and them is that we are generally more honest about what we are doing.
Back to understanding the Beltway media: It is important to note that political agenda is not the only factor in play within the MSM. As I have said previously: The MSM's cynicism acting in conjunction with its other biases for conflict and sensationalism are also essential in explaining its political coverage.
For example, the Clinton scandals received plenty of attention--much of it quite negative and judgmental, especially in the beginning. However, eventually, the political battle lines overwhelmed the initial shock and disgust registered by the MSM, and, in the end, the stories conformed to the standard pro-Clinton and anti-Republican template.
For more on this see these previous posts: a general overview of the landscape (here) and a defense of Fox (here).
Some more recent cases in point:
Consider the current unfriendly MSM coverage of the Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell, which has contributed to the impression that the GOP is unwilling to debate the war in Iraq. A more sophisticated, more accurate, and less unfriendly storyline would depict McConnell as, at the very least, clever, good-natured, and well within his rights. Genuinely (perhaps excessively) friendly coverage would show him as a new master of the Senate and celebrate his exceptional parliamentary stratagem (as I did here a few days ago). One wonders: if Nancy Pelosi had executed an equally brilliant maneuver on her side of Capitol Hill, how would the MSM have chosen to characterize her coup.
Consider and compare the firestorm and coverage concerning George Allen with the more recent Joe Biden imbroglio. The divergence seems disproportionate well beyond the significant differences in tone, intent, and language within the individual cases. Who can deny that the Washington Post was merciless in their desire to dislodge Allen from his Senate seat?
Consider the case of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. If Scooter Libby is not guilty as sin, the MSM has done us a great disservice.
An aside: I have no sympathy for public officials who lie to grand juries. If Libby lied, regardless of the rationales or extenuating circumstances, justice will be served with his conviction for that offense.
I try not to get all my information about anything from NPR, but it just so happens that most of the trial coverage I have heard on this case comes from Nina Totenberg. From what I have gleaned from that particular source, I am fully expecting the Libby side to either flee the country over the weekend or throw themselves on the mercy of the court when they are asked to present their case on Monday.
I wonder if there is another side of the story.
On the other hand, perhaps we worry too much about this. That is, I would wager today that more Americans are experts on the life and death of Anna Nicole Smith than the combined total number of citizens who have ever heard of Mitch McConnell, Joe Biden, or Scooter Libby.
From Jay Winik, "The Day Lincoln Was Shot," in I Wish I'd Been There, Byron Hollingshead, ed:
"Throughout his wartorn years, Abraham Lincoln had been pilloried by his critics as a duffer, mocked as poor white trash, criticized for ignorance of everything but Illinois politics. And as he steered the Union around one obstacle after another, eduring generals who wouldn't fight and Northerners deeply opposed to the niggers, Lincoln was often criticized by the press (there is a cowardly imbecile at the head of the government), scorned by Washington society, branded a dictator, and even defied by his own military men. If that weren't bad enough, he had to repeatedly weather a storm of antiwar protest arrayed against him--that is, when he wasn't being accused of shredding the Constitution."
George Bush is no Abe Lincoln. He is no Harry Truman. But he is president of the United States during a time of war; it is a tough job.
Press on, Mr. President. God bless you and God bless the United States of America.
"Throughout his wartorn years, Abraham Lincoln had been pilloried by his critics as a duffer, mocked as poor white trash, criticized for ignorance of everything but Illinois politics. And as he steered the Union around one obstacle after another, eduring generals who wouldn't fight and Northerners deeply opposed to the niggers, Lincoln was often criticized by the press (there is a cowardly imbecile at the head of the government), scorned by Washington society, branded a dictator, and even defied by his own military men. If that weren't bad enough, he had to repeatedly weather a storm of antiwar protest arrayed against him--that is, when he wasn't being accused of shredding the Constitution."
George Bush is no Abe Lincoln. He is no Harry Truman. But he is president of the United States during a time of war; it is a tough job.
Press on, Mr. President. God bless you and God bless the United States of America.
Category: Media and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
What would happen if the President held a press conference (which, by the way, are becoming more and more regular), and he repeatedly spoke of working with the new Congress, agreed in principle to an increase in the minimum wage, admitted that his Iraq policy was not successful and committed to changing tactics through a calm and studied process?
Would the headlines read?
Bush Extends Hand Across the Aisle to Democrats in Congress.
Bush Admits Mistakes in Iraq, Listening to All Voices in Attempt to Craft Successful Policy.
Citing Strong Economy, President Agrees to Minimum Wage Increase and Commits to Tax Policy to Promote Continued Growth.
Or how about this one?
President Bush Stalwart on Iraq Despite Setbacks.
Well, he did give a press conference (transcript here) in which he did all of the things cited above. And here are the real headlines:
Washington Post: President Confronts Dissent on Troop Levels: Bush Indicates Military Won't Dictate Numbers; Top General to Retire.
Time Magazine: Bush and the Generals: A Growing Split?: In his press conference, the President said he would "listen" to his commanders. But they're starting to talk back on Iraq.
Columnist Margaret Carlson for Bloomberg News: US Losing Sleep Over Aimless Bush.
Actually, two national newspapers not known for objectivity when it comes to George Bush actually did very well in capturing the import of the moment:
LA Times: Bush acknowledges 'difficult year' in Iraq: President acknowledges sectarian violence but says victory is possible.
NYT: Bush Says Victory in Iraq Is Still Possible.
Note on NYT: the above headline and story have disappeared. The front page video story as of now: General [John Abizaid] Opposes Adding to Forces (which conforms better to the storyline of the day). Although a complete viewing of the Abizaid video yields the commanding general much more in agreement with the President's goals than the headline would suggest.
Would the headlines read?
Bush Extends Hand Across the Aisle to Democrats in Congress.
Bush Admits Mistakes in Iraq, Listening to All Voices in Attempt to Craft Successful Policy.
Citing Strong Economy, President Agrees to Minimum Wage Increase and Commits to Tax Policy to Promote Continued Growth.
Or how about this one?
President Bush Stalwart on Iraq Despite Setbacks.
Well, he did give a press conference (transcript here) in which he did all of the things cited above. And here are the real headlines:
Washington Post: President Confronts Dissent on Troop Levels: Bush Indicates Military Won't Dictate Numbers; Top General to Retire.
Time Magazine: Bush and the Generals: A Growing Split?: In his press conference, the President said he would "listen" to his commanders. But they're starting to talk back on Iraq.
Columnist Margaret Carlson for Bloomberg News: US Losing Sleep Over Aimless Bush.
Actually, two national newspapers not known for objectivity when it comes to George Bush actually did very well in capturing the import of the moment:
LA Times: Bush acknowledges 'difficult year' in Iraq: President acknowledges sectarian violence but says victory is possible.
NYT: Bush Says Victory in Iraq Is Still Possible.
Note on NYT: the above headline and story have disappeared. The front page video story as of now: General [John Abizaid] Opposes Adding to Forces (which conforms better to the storyline of the day). Although a complete viewing of the Abizaid video yields the commanding general much more in agreement with the President's goals than the headline would suggest.
Category: Media and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
My favorite new show of the season is Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. It is crisp, rich, clever, and smart. Aaron Sorkin is a brilliant writer and producer who always tells compelling stories and presents multi-dimensional magnetic characters.
However, Sorkin is an artist with a political edge. In the midst of his artistry is always the message. Message is okay. Art is the product of creative people communicating messages to wider audiences. But sometimes the message overpowers the art.
My beef with Sorkin in the past has been that he perverts the facts to make a better case for his political points. For example, in aid of his mission to defend Bill Clinton, he and Rob Reiner made a movie entitled The American President. Incensed that mean-spirited Republicans criticized President Clinton's sex-life as a way to attack his politics, Sorkin created a fictional Democratic president, Andrew Shepherd, a widowed dad morally upright in every way. President Shepherd falls in love with a beautiful idealistic liberal lobbyist. When they start dating, the despicable Republicans pounce on them for having sex out of wedlock and other harmless revelations from her distant past. Oooooohhhhhh! Why are Republicans so mean?
My objection then: if you are going to defend Bill Clinton, then do it honestly. Make the fictional President a philanderer. Figure out how to make the betrayed wife unsympathetic and the tryst with the intern in the Oval Office an honorable encounter.
I stayed away from the West Wing (aka the Left Wing) for similar qualms.
But Studio 60 has been surprisingly subtle in the message department thus far and pleasantly packed full of great entertainment. But then tonight happened. Sorkin created a ridiculous storyline to shame the FCC for their crackdown on profane speech. Instead of featuring a rock star who shouts the f-word on live TV or two rock stars who stage a sexual assault during the halftime show at the Super Bowl, Sorkin created an incident in which a soldier in Afghanistan under attack ejaculates the f-word on a live news broadcast. The reaction of the FCC? A heartless multi-million dollar fine and the threat of extinction.
Oooooohhhhhh! Why are Republicans so mean?
However, Sorkin is an artist with a political edge. In the midst of his artistry is always the message. Message is okay. Art is the product of creative people communicating messages to wider audiences. But sometimes the message overpowers the art.
My beef with Sorkin in the past has been that he perverts the facts to make a better case for his political points. For example, in aid of his mission to defend Bill Clinton, he and Rob Reiner made a movie entitled The American President. Incensed that mean-spirited Republicans criticized President Clinton's sex-life as a way to attack his politics, Sorkin created a fictional Democratic president, Andrew Shepherd, a widowed dad morally upright in every way. President Shepherd falls in love with a beautiful idealistic liberal lobbyist. When they start dating, the despicable Republicans pounce on them for having sex out of wedlock and other harmless revelations from her distant past. Oooooohhhhhh! Why are Republicans so mean?
My objection then: if you are going to defend Bill Clinton, then do it honestly. Make the fictional President a philanderer. Figure out how to make the betrayed wife unsympathetic and the tryst with the intern in the Oval Office an honorable encounter.
I stayed away from the West Wing (aka the Left Wing) for similar qualms.
But Studio 60 has been surprisingly subtle in the message department thus far and pleasantly packed full of great entertainment. But then tonight happened. Sorkin created a ridiculous storyline to shame the FCC for their crackdown on profane speech. Instead of featuring a rock star who shouts the f-word on live TV or two rock stars who stage a sexual assault during the halftime show at the Super Bowl, Sorkin created an incident in which a soldier in Afghanistan under attack ejaculates the f-word on a live news broadcast. The reaction of the FCC? A heartless multi-million dollar fine and the threat of extinction.
Oooooohhhhhh! Why are Republicans so mean?
As part of the discussion following my post, "What Liberal Bias?" Gossenius and I went back and forth over my classification of Fox News.
Gossenius argued that Fox News more logically should be classified with the MSM:
"My biggest disagreement with your list is in not putting Fox News in with the mainstream media-- they are simply a different infection of the same illness for which people berate those others. If conservatives choose to critique mainstream media as biased, why not include Fox in that critique?"
Gossenius asks a fair question. Why can't conservatives admit that Fox News is merely the flip side of the MSM coin (conservative-leaning versus liberal-leaning)?
In large part, I agree with the heart of his analysis.
It is similar to the point Joab made a few days ago:
"I stopped listening to Rush long ago as he is, IMHO, a Republican partisan hack. And as for Fox News, they are no more biased to the right than CNN, MSNBC and the 3 major networks are to the left."
So, why I am so stubborn in arguing the point with Gossenius?
The Fox corporate ethos is significantly different from the MSM culture. Here are the key distinctions:
1. Fox is an upstart swimming against the "mainstream." No instructive analysis can ignore the fact that Fox came into being (and succeeded grandly) as a counter balance to the MSM. Fox filled a vacuum.
2. Fox is not under the delusion of "objectivity." The liberal MSM labors under the self-serving certainty that they are reporting the news of the day in an objective way.
An aside: it does not really matter how genuine MSM reporters may be in their faith; for what it is worth, I think they are quite sincere (albeit self-deceived).
Has anyone ever seen this exchange on C-SPAN? A caller presses an MSM reporter to reveal his political affiliation; the reporter responds that his political affiliation is irrelevant. Pressed further, the reporter tells the caller that he is registered as an independent. Later, he will point desperately to the occasional left-wing wacko who accuses the MSM of a corporate bias and tell you that he gets hit from all sides.
Even as a study in the late-1990s showed that over 90-percent of "Beltway" reporters voted for Bill Clinton in 1996, MSM reporters continued to argue that their personal politics did not impinge on their ability to report the news in a detached manner.
As I asserted in the comments section of the first post:
the storied Fox News slogan, "fair and balanced," was partly a parody of the MSM tortured self-perception.
What do I mean by that?
Most of the Fox pioneers were veteran reporters and producers from the MSM (think Britt Hume formerly of ABC News). They had toiled in the fields of their oppressors for years. When they broke free and raised their own flag, they signaled their independence and defiance with a series of slogans like "We Report, You Decide" and "Fair and Balanced."
Moreover, they knew well that the competition would see Fox as conservatives reporting the news through a lens of conservatism. But they also knew that their liberal counterparts would not see Fox as their mirror image; the established media would continue to see themselves as faithful adherents to the sacred calling of objectivity; they would see Fox News as unwashed infidels desecrating the holy temple of objective journalism.
The Fox News brain trust fully expected that their conservative cable news network would make the MSM apoplectic. Pretty funny really. I bet Roger Ailes still gets a chuckle when someone like Keith Olberman, frothing, breaks a big story uncovering Republican bias at Fox News. It is a great joke that continues to pay great dividends.
By the way, I suggest that Fox News gladly would accept a statement from the MSM that read: "we charge Fox with being just as biased as we are!"
As for Gossenius's worry that the Fox viewers are not "in on the joke," he probably does not give the Fox regulars enough credit; they are not being misled. Most of them merely wanted a network to read the news in a way that did not make them feel stupid or evil for seeing the world the way they saw it. They are grateful.
I am glad that Fox News exists as a voice to speak "truth" to the power of the MSM.
For personal disclosures in re my viewing habits:
Gossenius argued that Fox News more logically should be classified with the MSM:
"My biggest disagreement with your list is in not putting Fox News in with the mainstream media-- they are simply a different infection of the same illness for which people berate those others. If conservatives choose to critique mainstream media as biased, why not include Fox in that critique?"
Gossenius asks a fair question. Why can't conservatives admit that Fox News is merely the flip side of the MSM coin (conservative-leaning versus liberal-leaning)?
In large part, I agree with the heart of his analysis.
It is similar to the point Joab made a few days ago:
"I stopped listening to Rush long ago as he is, IMHO, a Republican partisan hack. And as for Fox News, they are no more biased to the right than CNN, MSNBC and the 3 major networks are to the left."
So, why I am so stubborn in arguing the point with Gossenius?
The Fox corporate ethos is significantly different from the MSM culture. Here are the key distinctions:
1. Fox is an upstart swimming against the "mainstream." No instructive analysis can ignore the fact that Fox came into being (and succeeded grandly) as a counter balance to the MSM. Fox filled a vacuum.
2. Fox is not under the delusion of "objectivity." The liberal MSM labors under the self-serving certainty that they are reporting the news of the day in an objective way.
An aside: it does not really matter how genuine MSM reporters may be in their faith; for what it is worth, I think they are quite sincere (albeit self-deceived).
Has anyone ever seen this exchange on C-SPAN? A caller presses an MSM reporter to reveal his political affiliation; the reporter responds that his political affiliation is irrelevant. Pressed further, the reporter tells the caller that he is registered as an independent. Later, he will point desperately to the occasional left-wing wacko who accuses the MSM of a corporate bias and tell you that he gets hit from all sides.
Even as a study in the late-1990s showed that over 90-percent of "Beltway" reporters voted for Bill Clinton in 1996, MSM reporters continued to argue that their personal politics did not impinge on their ability to report the news in a detached manner.
As I asserted in the comments section of the first post:
the storied Fox News slogan, "fair and balanced," was partly a parody of the MSM tortured self-perception.
What do I mean by that?
Most of the Fox pioneers were veteran reporters and producers from the MSM (think Britt Hume formerly of ABC News). They had toiled in the fields of their oppressors for years. When they broke free and raised their own flag, they signaled their independence and defiance with a series of slogans like "We Report, You Decide" and "Fair and Balanced."
Moreover, they knew well that the competition would see Fox as conservatives reporting the news through a lens of conservatism. But they also knew that their liberal counterparts would not see Fox as their mirror image; the established media would continue to see themselves as faithful adherents to the sacred calling of objectivity; they would see Fox News as unwashed infidels desecrating the holy temple of objective journalism.
The Fox News brain trust fully expected that their conservative cable news network would make the MSM apoplectic. Pretty funny really. I bet Roger Ailes still gets a chuckle when someone like Keith Olberman, frothing, breaks a big story uncovering Republican bias at Fox News. It is a great joke that continues to pay great dividends.
By the way, I suggest that Fox News gladly would accept a statement from the MSM that read: "we charge Fox with being just as biased as we are!"
As for Gossenius's worry that the Fox viewers are not "in on the joke," he probably does not give the Fox regulars enough credit; they are not being misled. Most of them merely wanted a network to read the news in a way that did not make them feel stupid or evil for seeing the world the way they saw it. They are grateful.
I am glad that Fox News exists as a voice to speak "truth" to the power of the MSM.
For personal disclosures in re my viewing habits:
30/11: What Liberal Bias?
We have had a few interesting exchanges lately (some of them in the comments section) regarding the MSM (mainstream media) and liberal bias. Here are a few assertions:
1. No rational observer can credibly deny a liberal bias in the mainstream media (MSM).
2. However, bias should not be confused with orchestrated advocacy. There is no "vast left-wing conspiracy" in the MSM. There is no master plan to bring Democrats to power or put Republicans out of business. The MSM bias for liberal candidates and causes is real, and it is systemic and institutional, but it is not concerted.
3. For the most part, the MSM does not see itself as slanted. Most members of the MSM see themselves as adherents to a strict code of objective journalism. Objectivity equals professionalism for most mainstream reporters; therefore, they view charges of bias as vile insults. (If you call Dan Rather biased, he will probably want to "take you outside").
4. The MSM is not wholly defined by its liberal worldview. The MSM's cynicism acting in conjunction with its other biases for conflict and sensationalism are also essential in explaining its political coverage.
5. Although vastly outnumbered, the new conservative media has emerged a powerful counterweight to the MSM. For the most part, the conservative media makes no pretense of "objective" journalism. "Fair and balanced" means something different to conservative journalists than it does to the MSM. The new media value honesty and a free exchange of ideas, but they are much more unabashedly partisan than their counterparts in the MSM.
Defining my terms:
MSM: NYT, Washington Post, LA Times, CBS News, CNN, ABC News, NBC News, Time, Newsweek, etc.
Conservative Media (my term--most conservatives prefer "alternative media" or "new media"): Fox News, Talk Radio & the conservative blogosphere.
Liberal Media: While some conservatives see MSM and liberal media as synonymous, with this term I actually refer to the partisan liberal media such as the Nation, Mother Jones, Pacifica Radio, Michael Moore & other Hollywood friends, etc.
NPR and PBS: A category unto itself. Generally, NPR and PBS provide a much more intellectual and restrained presentation of the news. For example, NPR and PBS are not nearly as scandal-driven as the MSM. For the most part, the public radio and television audiences are liberal (with the occasional conservative intellectual); notwithstanding, no matter their political affiliation, NPR and PBS news consumers are much more apt to have their world views fully formed. As a result, while NPR and PBS are more ideologically pure in their liberal worldview than the MSM, they are much less influential in shaping public opinion.
C-SPAN: another category unto itself. C-SPAN attempts to show all points of view without editorial comment. C-SPAN is fundamentally conservative in the ultimate Jeffersonian libertarian sense ("give the people light and they will find the way"), but the relatively unwatched mother lode of political information remains the only completely pure source of unvarnished news.
1. No rational observer can credibly deny a liberal bias in the mainstream media (MSM).
2. However, bias should not be confused with orchestrated advocacy. There is no "vast left-wing conspiracy" in the MSM. There is no master plan to bring Democrats to power or put Republicans out of business. The MSM bias for liberal candidates and causes is real, and it is systemic and institutional, but it is not concerted.
3. For the most part, the MSM does not see itself as slanted. Most members of the MSM see themselves as adherents to a strict code of objective journalism. Objectivity equals professionalism for most mainstream reporters; therefore, they view charges of bias as vile insults. (If you call Dan Rather biased, he will probably want to "take you outside").
4. The MSM is not wholly defined by its liberal worldview. The MSM's cynicism acting in conjunction with its other biases for conflict and sensationalism are also essential in explaining its political coverage.
5. Although vastly outnumbered, the new conservative media has emerged a powerful counterweight to the MSM. For the most part, the conservative media makes no pretense of "objective" journalism. "Fair and balanced" means something different to conservative journalists than it does to the MSM. The new media value honesty and a free exchange of ideas, but they are much more unabashedly partisan than their counterparts in the MSM.
Defining my terms:
MSM: NYT, Washington Post, LA Times, CBS News, CNN, ABC News, NBC News, Time, Newsweek, etc.
Conservative Media (my term--most conservatives prefer "alternative media" or "new media"): Fox News, Talk Radio & the conservative blogosphere.
Liberal Media: While some conservatives see MSM and liberal media as synonymous, with this term I actually refer to the partisan liberal media such as the Nation, Mother Jones, Pacifica Radio, Michael Moore & other Hollywood friends, etc.
NPR and PBS: A category unto itself. Generally, NPR and PBS provide a much more intellectual and restrained presentation of the news. For example, NPR and PBS are not nearly as scandal-driven as the MSM. For the most part, the public radio and television audiences are liberal (with the occasional conservative intellectual); notwithstanding, no matter their political affiliation, NPR and PBS news consumers are much more apt to have their world views fully formed. As a result, while NPR and PBS are more ideologically pure in their liberal worldview than the MSM, they are much less influential in shaping public opinion.
C-SPAN: another category unto itself. C-SPAN attempts to show all points of view without editorial comment. C-SPAN is fundamentally conservative in the ultimate Jeffersonian libertarian sense ("give the people light and they will find the way"), but the relatively unwatched mother lode of political information remains the only completely pure source of unvarnished news.
15/11: Man Bites Dog
Yesterday, I caught a few minutes of the Sean Hannity radio show. He was interviewing (debating is a better word) Charlie Rangel.
File this under things I never thought I would hear myself say: Rangel won hands-down.
In addition to relying on the host's advantage of talking over his guest, Hannity was rude and unfocussed and determined to present Rangel with a series of false choices. Nevertheless, Rangel kept making the salient points.
But here is the wildest part: by the conclusion of the engagement, it was clear that Hannity was totally committed (rhetorically, at least) to a Wilsonian ideal while Rangel articulated a classic conservative realism. How did we get here?
File this under things I never thought I would hear myself say: Rangel won hands-down.
In addition to relying on the host's advantage of talking over his guest, Hannity was rude and unfocussed and determined to present Rangel with a series of false choices. Nevertheless, Rangel kept making the salient points.
But here is the wildest part: by the conclusion of the engagement, it was clear that Hannity was totally committed (rhetorically, at least) to a Wilsonian ideal while Rangel articulated a classic conservative realism. How did we get here?
Today some moronic conservative called up and accused Brian of left-wing bias and lumped him in with Chris Mathews and the MSM. I always cringe when I hear someone from my side of the political fence say something that stupid. Of course, Brian was unflappable, patiently hearing him out, and then: "Peoria, Illinois; you're next. What do you think about...."
The truth is, of course, Brian Lamb and C-SPAN have provided the most unrestricted forum for conservative intellectualism in the brief history of electronic media. All the while, they have provided a similar forum for liberal ideas, but with much less impact, as liberal thought already had numerous esteemed channels to disseminate messages.
Today the topics on the viewer call-in hour were the detainee deal and Hugo Chavez. I tend to use C-SPAN calls as a barometer of the radically misinformed in America; that is, citizens who are fully engaged (bless their hearts) but dangerously misguided.
Random thought: kudos to Charlie Rangel for not hugging Chavez.
Even so, as a string of African American callers chimed in to praise the Venezuelan president and agree vehemently with his characterization of George Bush, I had to wonder if Bush's numbers with black voters would appreciate noticeably, if he had run against Hugo Chavez. Maybe not. My guess: Chavez could have done better among African American voters than John Kerry (88 percent) but probably not as well as Al Gore (92 percent).
And, of course, there were the usual number of shaky-voiced zealots calling in to endorse websites offering "the truth" about the Bush conspiracy that organized the attacks of 9-11. "What about Tower #7? Coincidence? I think not..."
Yesterday on C-SPAN, I heard an interesting twist on the usual tale of 9-11 intrigue, which involved the President building a mansion in Jerusalem in which he would await Armageddon. The coverage of "Christian Dominionism" and "Christian Nationalism" and "Christian Zionism" seems to be increasing (at least on NPR's "Fresh Air"). Perhaps we can look forward to a whole new strain of paranoia.
The truth is, of course, Brian Lamb and C-SPAN have provided the most unrestricted forum for conservative intellectualism in the brief history of electronic media. All the while, they have provided a similar forum for liberal ideas, but with much less impact, as liberal thought already had numerous esteemed channels to disseminate messages.
Today the topics on the viewer call-in hour were the detainee deal and Hugo Chavez. I tend to use C-SPAN calls as a barometer of the radically misinformed in America; that is, citizens who are fully engaged (bless their hearts) but dangerously misguided.
Random thought: kudos to Charlie Rangel for not hugging Chavez.
Even so, as a string of African American callers chimed in to praise the Venezuelan president and agree vehemently with his characterization of George Bush, I had to wonder if Bush's numbers with black voters would appreciate noticeably, if he had run against Hugo Chavez. Maybe not. My guess: Chavez could have done better among African American voters than John Kerry (88 percent) but probably not as well as Al Gore (92 percent).
And, of course, there were the usual number of shaky-voiced zealots calling in to endorse websites offering "the truth" about the Bush conspiracy that organized the attacks of 9-11. "What about Tower #7? Coincidence? I think not..."
Yesterday on C-SPAN, I heard an interesting twist on the usual tale of 9-11 intrigue, which involved the President building a mansion in Jerusalem in which he would await Armageddon. The coverage of "Christian Dominionism" and "Christian Nationalism" and "Christian Zionism" seems to be increasing (at least on NPR's "Fresh Air"). Perhaps we can look forward to a whole new strain of paranoia.
