|
|
Post by dgriffin on Nov 6, 2008 11:35:20 GMT -5
MEDIA MELTDOWNby Cal Thomas "More than the economy has melted down. What remains of big media credibility has also liquefied and won’t recover anytime soon, if it ever does. Don’t take my word for it. The ombudsman for The Washington Post acknowledges that conservatives have a point when they claim an imbalance in coverage of Barack Obama and John McCain." "Journalism is the only profession I know that ignores the wishes of its consumers. If a department store found that most of its customers preferred over-the-calf socks to ankle-length socks, would that store ignore customer preferences for the longer socks because the president of the company preferred the ankle-length style? Not if the store wanted to make a profit in the sock department. Yet journalists have this attitude: “we know what’s good for you, so shut up and take it.” www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2417### I can take or leave Cal Thomas most times. He's a bit of a whack, an ultra conservative with a close friendship to Teddy Kennedy! But he's hit the nail on the head in this column. 
|
|
|
|
Post by kim on Nov 6, 2008 11:55:31 GMT -5
Some of the media is very liberal, some is very conservative and some is in the middle. Fox News is conservative, msnbc is liberal. If people get upset by a liberal news outlet, they can change to a conservative one and vise-versa. Or you can watch both and get both sides of the story and make up your own mind as I do. I don't think there is any such thing as all the media being liberal or all the media being conservative. You can always find what you're looking for and what you want to hear.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Nov 6, 2008 13:06:34 GMT -5
Some of the media is very liberal, some is very conservative and some is in the middle. Fox News is conservative, msnbc is liberal. If people get upset by a liberal news outlet, they can change to a conservative one and vise-versa. Or you can watch both and get both sides of the story and make up your own mind as I do. I don't think there is any such thing as all the media being liberal or all the media being conservative. You can always find what you're looking for and what you want to hear. Although Thomas is an arch conservative and is highly opinionated, his column was not about liberal vs. conservative. It was about a failure of the media that can be seen on both sides. I think the point is that the ideal media outlet would be (indeed) fair and balanced. I don't think that is too much to hope for. I remember flipping around the cable channels a few weeks ago after one of the debates. I heard what I expected from MSNBC and Fox. CNN that evening attempted a shot at "fair and balanced" by hosting a panel of extremists, that is an equal number of paid political operatives from each party. In my view, it accomplished nothing. Presenting two extremes is not "balanced," nor is it thoughtful. Thomas' point was that the media outlets are losing out because they are not being thoughtful. He cited the example of editors wanting more "horse race" stories and fewer "issues" stories. He also pointed out that the media have convinced themselves they are doing good things for the Republic and don't realize that opinions ... anyone's opinions, pro or con, good or bad, liberal or conservative ... don't help a democracy. Rather, information presented after thorough research and investigation is what we need from newspapers and cable news channels. Without it, we go to the polls armed with anger from Janine Garafalo or wispy gooey from Oprah (just to be extreme) or a "You Betcha" bumper sticker glued on the back of our swamp buggy. When you think of it, here's what we the American people just did. At the end of a campaign in which the candidates mostly through mud at each other, going and staying negative (from McCain's organization more directly and from Obama's through the media establishment and Hollywood), we elected a man who spent twice as much money (do I have that right?) in a race where it seemed to take forever for us to learn each candidate's specific programs. And when finally unveiled, the specifics confused even the organizations who specialize in fact checking. And all of this without much thought to the fact that what finally gets through the Congress will bear little resemblance to what we were pitched. |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Nov 6, 2008 14:46:57 GMT -5
Hahahaha! I knew I had another point my addled brain was missing. And it is this. After Hearst's period of "yellow journalism," when newspapers often took the extreme views of the owner, who might be a wealthy industrialist who bought a newspaper just to vent his opinions, the press learned that being neutral was good for business. My theory is that, rather than newspapers suddenly becoming more balanced in the 20th century out of the goodness of their hearts, the marketplace took over and advertising revenue began to drive the news business. That was a good thing, because maintaining a neutral stance probably sells the most papers. Election results are usually near 50-50, indicating an even split of opinion. A newspaper wholly on one side or the other would never sell papers to more than half of the readers in its marketing area. Being neutral allows a chance of selling to both sides and surpassing 50% of the market.
Newspapers are in financial trouble, and so are other news outlets. In addition to the normal short-term solutions for increasing circulation, one of these days someone is going to discover a method to keep the newspaper or cable channel entertaining, informative and completely neutral. And when they do, they'll become multi-millionaires.
Watch C-Span or CNBC. I'm not talking competence here, or even sizzle, just even-handedness.
(Dave exiting the pulpit.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Nov 7, 2008 6:50:04 GMT -5
Maybe it's because I'm conservative and don't realize it, but I've watched Fox News, CNN, Headline News, MSNBC, and the Daily Show. I notice that with the exception of Fox News, all those other stations or news programs are extremely liberal and have no shame in admitting it. Fox News, according to my observations, displays a more balanced approach. Perhaps that is why so many extreme liberals find Fox News to be so conservative. But when I'm watching a story being covered on CNN, they repeat the same stuff over and over again. Then I flip to Fox News, and they are covering the same story, have covered the same side of the story that CNN is repeating ad nauseum, BUT Fox News covers the other side too. Now for someone only wanting to hear that extreme liberal view, of course Fox News is going to be viewed as conservative. But when I want a balanced story, I turn to Fox News. When I just want a news report giving minimal facts and a lot of hot air speculation, I watch CNN.
As an example, I recall watching a story on CNN where a woman was accused of killing her husband. The police were not releasing much information because the investigation was ongoing. On CNN, the news anchor interviewed CNN's "experts" about domestic violence being an issue. No facts to even lead to such a speculation, but the news anchor insisted that there was domestic violence. I turned to MSNBC, and after five minutes of their coverage on the same story, they too began insisting domestic violence. I switched to Fox News, and they just began reporting the story. They called up some family members who wished to speak and they were furious stations like CNN were insisting domestic violence when they were there and witnessed none. A few weeks later, it turns out that there was NO domestic violence, but for those intervening weeks after the initial fact-less speculation, CNN and MSNBC insisted there was.
I also read the onion.net. I used to read some other online publication, but it was too extreme for my taste.
Dave, as much as I agree with the logic and reasoning of your post, i have to disagree with you about selling more papers with neutral reporting. These days, over sensationalized news reporting seems to get the ratings and sell the papers. That's why these 24-hr news organizations have been so successful with their "reporting". MSNBC was having major internal problems for how they chose to edit their stories to spin them in extremely liberal ways. Even CNN caught wind of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Nov 7, 2008 9:02:41 GMT -5
Swimmy, I think you're right about Fox News. While I recognize my conservative side, I'm busines-trained to look for fairy dust and opinion versus fact. I agree that Fox news does try to be fair, even though they'll admit they are of a conservative bent. MSNBC, for example, doesn't even try. Disclosure: I mostly watch Fox.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Nov 7, 2008 16:12:15 GMT -5
A clarification. When you think of it, here's what we the American people just did. At the end of a campaign in which the candidates mostly through mud at each other, going and staying negative (from McCain's organization more directly and from Obama's through the media establishment and Hollywood), we elected a man who spent twice as much money (do I have that right?) in a race where it seemed to take forever for us to learn each candidate's specific programs. [/b][/size][/quote] Factcheck.org says that, "Overall, Obama has outspent McCain by nearly 3-to-1, but in the closing week it's been closer to 5-to-1." 
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Nov 7, 2008 18:01:28 GMT -5
I take it Dave that you use the word "specific" loosely. I am still in a quandry as to what either of them actually proposed, other than promising whatever tilted the polls in their direction for a day or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Nov 7, 2008 20:16:29 GMT -5
VERY loosely, yes. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt, because I don't remember the specifics, either. But then, I wasn't really listening, since none of it will actually happen as described by either candidate. When your economic policy turns on either a tax cut or a tax break for one segment of taxpayers, it's poofy smoke.
|
|
