Third Party & Independents: Archives

Lisa,

While I agree with you about the bias of the media, to make our news unbias would require that several different people of several different political philosophies edit the stories that we read. And then, the final story would read:

Ramsey Clark says he thinks that Saddam’s rights were violated. He went to Iraq. He says he will help Saddam’s defense team.

Kinda “blah”, huh?

But to get you to read that story, they may “slant” the headline of the story. They may word it or phrase it with the expressed intent to make you think “Whaaaaat?”

Of course, there is another reason the news seems so biased.

Take eye witnesses for example. 5 people see a car wreck, and you’re liable to get 5 different discriptions of the accident…each focusing on a different aspect of the incident.

Now, assuming that any one reporter has an opinion on any one subject, that reporter may see an aspect of any one incident that fits with his or her belief…and believe that to be the truth. Whether it is or not.

It is not a decision to write a story with a hidden agenda, it is simply a point of view that the reporter thinks “feels right” to them. Refer to the above traffic accident. The eye witnesses tell the police “what feels right” to them. Once again, there is no “hidden agenda”.

They see what their minds allow them to see from a point of view that they feel is right.

Are there reporters with an agenda? Sure.

Are there reporters and news organizations who sensationalize the news to sell more papers? To garner more viewers? Sure.

What can we do about this short of starting our own news gathering organization? Nothing…except editorializing the news we read and hear and see in our own minds.

And that, Virginia, is why we have three different blogs on this site.

Liberals on this blog see the news one way, while Conservatives see it another way…and then both Liberals and Conservatives post in this blog and parrot their respective party lines and present it as the gospel truth.

Anyone who dares to to contradict their “parroting of the party line” is either an idiot or “parroting the party line”.

I take issue with the way selective quotes are used as well as not providing any background information. To me it violates the most basic:

Who? What? Where? When?

I’m not expecting that each news source as well as journalist has to try to drop their own personal agendas/bias, just that they attempt to do a better job in providing the most basic information necessary in a story.

Yes, I am tilting at windmills, however it is something that I feel strongly about. To paraphrase a popular thought, we get the media we deserve.

When you see the words “Ramsey Clark says” you can do yourself the favor of not reading any more.

So don’t worry about this one. Ramsey Clark is the code for “don’t pay attention”. He is an inspiration for fools everywhere. Even they can get ahead sometimes.

Lisa,

Ah, my old friend Ramsey Clark.

You and I are on the same page about this, if not on the same political side of the aisle. Our news is information poor at exactly the time when the bandwidth for communicating news information has exploded. With the internet, cable, and satelite there is an unlimited amount of depth that could be covered.

I think that part of the problem is economic, and part of it is political agenda. Economically more depth costs money. Politically, of course, I feel that the MSM is always treading a fine line between reporting news and trying to skew it. Maybe some of this is unconcious, but increasing it looks deliberate.

THe MSM is making a mistake in not seeing the opportunity to cater to a huge need for accurate and in depth information. They seem to be stuck in an old economic model for news, from when newspapers and the three big networks completely dominated. The field is wide open now and you can already see that others are rushing in to fill this need.

What’s more it is democratizing the news. Case in point is Watchblog itself. Blogs are filling that need.

Lisa,

You’re right. We who want factual and unbias coverage of the news are simply tilting at windmills.

It is sad when “Who, What, When, Where, Why” is left in college and is ignored in the “real” world.

I guess the “dumbing down” of America is truly becoming a reality when you have to sensationalize or distort something just to get people to pay more than 30 seconds of attention to it.

LISA,

Do you remember those claims on the right of there being a liberal-media as there are claims still. This is a move to insult the left and even members of administrations past. Yahho is connected to CNN by way of AOL. AOL is by no means a bastion of liberalism and even more in tune with government than we suspect. Even it’s headquarters are just two minutes outside Langley in a place called Dulles Va. Which is a military industrial office park/zone. So why would AOL/Yahoo be more pro-republican in terms of scandalizing the left, gee I wonder. Hmmm I don’t know maybe because it’s a CIA moneylaudering front (Which is entirely legal)or maybe because they have always habitually given to the right-wing candidates and supported republican NGO’s?

they are a right-wing company so they need to scandalize the left. So much for unpartisan journalism (Journalism would actually be a terminology stretch for the majority of the spun newswire information AOL/CNN?Yahoo reports on).

I guess if they put that many eggs in one neo-con basket they better have a defensive line to defend that basket.

And just to sort of sum up what Eric is apparently saying about media being leftist appearance-wise.

It is conservative in the greater sense of what is good for their own corporate bottom line. And sometimes that even tops classic conservative talking points. they want their tax-deferrals and their deregulation and they will cross the line at times when the right-wing seems to be falling apart (deficit spending,corruption etc.) such as right now.

We will inevitably see more of it until right-wing media corporations feel more secure in their party.

Well Novenge, if sbc.yahoo is somehow a part of anti-liberal movement? They might have taken notes from World Net Daily as far as the information they provided.

CNN as it’s headline on this story came out after I wrote this “U.S. war critic to join Saddam defense”. That is a bit more accurate than the title sbc.yahoo chose earlier.

From a historical standpoint Novenge, I understand where the whole “liberal” media mantra came from and how long it has been around. I’m not really as concerned with is a source “liberal” or “conservative” but are they “accurate”. I’ve found at times many are not.

I think we can mostly all agree there are conservative as well as liberal media sources, infact they outnumber the (sorry can’t help myself) Fair and Balanced sources out there. That’s why places like Watchblog have grown in popularity for those that actually are looking for information. So, I suppose we owe the traditional Mainstream Media sources that spend more time on Tom Cruise buying Katie Holmes a sonogram machine as opposed to real news, a thank you.

:-)

Case in point: NFL on Fox put on right-wing pundits including Rush Limbaugh and Dennis Miller.
News channel MSNBC/Microsoft has more right wing talk hosts than left. Plus the only leftist they add Chris Matthews is a beligerant loudmouth ass to sideline us further.
Fox has punditry shows ensuring that only the weakest left participates in discussion.
CNN news bimbos(glamour girls) will talk only Bush/republican talking points. I heard one one afternoon claim that there were all these new choices in medicare evn with a panel of senior citizens viemently telling her there weren’t and why. Also including Soledad O’brian telling the widows of the 9/11 WTC tragedy that they had no right to request a hearing. this stuff is perpetual amongst the news bimbos.

There are loads of examples of there being an outward agenda moreso than it being a question of viewership democracy and projections.

Novenge, wrong on two counts: it wasn’t Fox but ABC’s Monday Night Football that hired Dennis Miller and ESPN that hired Rush Limbaugh. Both were hired to do football and not political commentary. Neither were hired for either their political opinions or for their expertise about football but for their entertaining on-air personalities.

In fact, the instant Limbaugh made a political comment, he was fired. So I guess you could just as well say that the networks fire people for being conservative.

Cable news, I’d agree, is becoming increasingly conservative, but ABC, NBC and CBS are as liberal as ever and still have a much larger audience. This is likely to change in the (hopefully) not too distant future.

Novenge, I don’t think it’s a matter of democracy anymore, it is a matter of who or what they feel will score them ratings and higher advertising dollars because of the ratings.

The other day on Fox News I watched over a half an hour on a car chase in California, no other station was carrying it but Fox had the blow by blow on it. I kept watching because I could not believe with all of the news out there this was what they thought was important. I’ve seen CNN and some of the others break away from the middle of a Whitehouse Press Conference to show bullshit news, one recent example was the re-opening of Cafe LeMonde, while I love that place it wasn’t exactly hot news that could not have waited until the Press Conference was over. None of them are exactly paragons of virtue when it comes to actually “reporting” anything anymore. They are basically all differing versions of “Entertainment Tonight”, so it for me is sad when the print media, even as an internet segment follows suit.

Lisa, you kept watching and couldn’t tear yourself away from the car chase because you disapproved so much of the coverage? I find that a little odd. If I were the cynical type, I’d say that you were greatly enjoying the drama of the car chase and just don’t want to admit it.

The fact remains that except for PBS, all of the news outlets in this country depend on advertising revenue for their existence, and if you’re not going to turn the channel, then that’s what they’re going to keep serving up.

What I’ve NEVER been able to understand in talking to my liberal friends is why they seem to watch FOX news 24 hours a day while they profess to hate the network and everything it stands for with a passion. It’s unbelievable. Some of these folks can quote verbatem the last outrage they saw from Hannity or O’Reilly, and I’m absolutely flabbergasted by the mystery of why they keep tuning in. Because I don’t like Michael Moore, I simply refuse to pay my money to support him by attending his films. Why liberals seem to garner some kind of masochistic pleasure in driving up the ratings (and revenues) of FOX is something I just don’t understand.

Was Dennis on Monday nights? I can’t remember. You’re probably right about Rush on ESPN due to my not being able to remember where it was or seeing him, almost certain it was Fox, anyway. But the comment he made wasn’t political it was racially skewed as some viewers claimed (I guess that could be chocked up to being political in some circles, namely his).

Lisa, that is it in a nut-shell too.

The absense of substance for utter fluff. It does leave such a window open for new breed journalists. The lack of unpartisanship in 24 hour cable news is appauling to me. To me it goes so far against the very tenets of journalism itself to be impartial and not swayed in one direction over the other.

I remember during the Kerry/Bush 2004 race News anchor voice-overs on segments using the word “Nukyaler” as if, yes that is now accepted vernacular.

the way I see it is like a tight-rope walker on one side is corporate need (tax-cuts, deregulation) and on the other is concensus opinion. And these 24 hour stations teeter between these two.

As for the fluffy segments that is such a blindfold. Especially the weather, have you noticed this one? they do weather like everybody in the US who has cable doesn’t have the weather channel? And they don’t just do it once they do it all friggin’ day long. It is such a blindfold to what could be real news time. PLUS they have no international news with exception to areas that get CNN international.

While the Earthquakes and Tsunamis hit Asia MSNBC was doing a biography on Judd Nelson (I think it was). The only ones that reported it was Fox because they were the only one’s that had no morning show that weekend morning.
And what the hell is up with Don Imus instead of news? No news, just the near dead ramblings of a mummy with a perm and his half-witted friends?

You are right there is such a void in the mainstream. And how many really watch NBC,ABC or CBS nightly news anymore? It for the most part has been replaced by cable and is too short to get into anything indepth. All that is left is Jim Lehrer in unbiased TV news media.

Print media follows suit to a fault with conservative papers and those labelled as liberal are only papers that don’t tote or cater to the extremist right-wing ideals. Impartiality is now “liberal”.

Toninght on CNN I saw a special on intelligent design with an unbalanced look at evolution. Even though it has empirical genetic evidence. They are definitely catering to someone with it.

Or street-opinion interviews on the president where they have five pro-bush conservatives and two anti-bush people. Giving the last word to the pro-bushies and acting as if that’s fair media,aaaand back to you chet! It is such horse-shit and so damn transparent.

Here is by far the worst case of CNN crappy reporting; A year or so ago they did a. anniversary special on 9/11 but not from the perspective of firefighters or families who lost loved ones. this report was about the reporters on the scene with their cameras, no one else. To make things trashier they added melodic music to people jumping to their deaths. That’s the worst case of crap journalism I recall from CNN.

novenge,

First of all most of those yahoo stories are AP stories. Associated Press is a left leaning organization, I gaurantee it. And it goes to show the hypocrisy of the left when they make decisions based solely on profits, doesn’t it?

Second of all, I think you are missing the bigger picture here. Democratization is eating into these news organizations credibility and market share. Newspaper readership is at an all time low, as is the major network news shows. The future doesn’t look bright for the MSM news monopoly.

Democratization fuels the divergence of content. This is why I think that we will see more polarization in news sources not less.

I love this youthful and so transparent argument by esimonson that any opinion, news, thesis, etc. which does not conform to strengthening esimonson’s view of the world is leftist, or left leaning. As a parent of a 14 year old, I see this kind of argument regularly. Rather than demonstrate the weakness of a particular piece of news, opinion, or thesis, (which may be precluded by its being factual and correct), a suitable label with the intent of disparagement will have to suffice.

It is a classic case of the biased defending its bias through accusing its critics of bias. The tactics of McCartyism are alive and well in displays of rhetoric as esimonson has just put forth. And it is found on both the left and right. Fortunately, a growing number of intelligent visitors to WatchBlog readily see through such youthful ploys and waste of digital storage space. Well maybe not a complete waste, I find such empty arguments still mildly amusing, and instructive as a marker indicating where inadequate critque and illogical perspective are being heralded as sophistry (the negative definition).

Actually Sanger I thought it was so silly I started to blog about it, so I kept watching it to entertain some of my readers with the “blow by blow” action. I did however briefly flip to make sure none of the other major cable news networks were also covering this “event”.

:-)

WRONG ERIC,

They get the story from AP/Reuters and spin it however they wish.

And David Remer, sometimes I really enjoy yer’ bark, especially here. I am so sick and tired of everything that doesn’t tote or tout the classic republican talking points or maintains impartiality being immediately construed as “liberal” bias.

Can’t we just have the news? What I am seeing is a noticable shift to the right. What they see as “liberal” is when we ask them questions. Like we should all goose-step to the neo-con song and never question any of their policies—scrutiny bad. Unless it is of a democrat in which case well that’s just good ‘ol fashoined journalism.

Where’s the coverage on frist and Delay those stories rarely hit the surface. Even the Libby case floated off. But if these were democrats there would be a media firestorm I’ll bet and it would be hot topic everyday on cable media for a year or more. that’s just how the republicans work by sleeze and scandalsheet like a bunch of hob-knobbing fishwives.

And the AP is not left wing Eric. Can you prove it? Do they all drive Volkswagon buses or something? What’s your rationale? How can you discern it is of any political stripe? Have you actually read the news wires? These are by far the most impartial and often times impersonally written news items. I see no spin there Eric, show me some.

Lisa Renee,

Here’s something else I find interesting. AOL Time Warner tooting it’s own corporate horn. Reviewing movies put out by Warner brothers and other studios they own, Giving airtime to internet items and blogs (AOL)although keeping it majoritively conservative, and doing shows that are based on AOL/Time/Warner owned publications such as People magazine and Time magazine.

I agree that concensus fascilitates the advertizing dollar and yes that might be extrapolated to be ‘democratic’ in the classical sense.

I’ve also noticed localism in the news too. Such as they don’t know that by reporting some news items that they are in encroaching mimicry of what local TV stations are supposed to do. they have lost their way on 24 hour cable news but in retrospect I’m not sure they actually had it ever under AOL. It seems to be a consistant erosion just like when Viacom gets hold of a station they run it right down into the ground. Such as with turning comedy central into the ‘Jeff Foxworthy’ channel. They consume and emasculate via cheap programming and popularist programming what the viewing public wants. Perhaps it’s all just the corporate path, the lazy buck.

Lisa,

Great article, thanks. One of the best on the third party page.

Novenge,

Why do you think news should be a “balancing act”? News should be: You get facts, you verify facts, you report facts. The status of the Delay indictment is news, UN for oil is news, etc… What really isn’t news is the Faux dickheads and bimbos reporting a fact, sneaking in a “what this means is” then opininating as if it were news.

then opinionating as if it were news

You nailed it Dave, in one phrase that is my problem with many of these supposed “news” organizations. By throwing their “opinion” in with the facts they cloud the facts at times. We don’t need to know nor do most of us care how they feel. If they are going to editorialize? Then make that clear as in “here are the facts” “this is not a fact but how I interpret this” in some way shape or form. The only exception that should exist to this situation is those that are paid to strictly to give “their” opinion.

When I watch or read the news I want facts, as many facts as possible. When I want editorials? I turn to the pages of opinion.

(Thank you also for the compliment Dave)

Dave:

What I find more prevalent than the “opininating as if it were news” is the tactic of showing only certain facts. If you were to show only good stories about Iraq, and they are there, viewers would get an incorrect impression…but it would be done with factual information. If you were to show only bad stories about Iraq, same thing.

Another thing I find is the comparisons that are made in the news. I’ll give an example that covers both issues: Look at the number of stories that discuss US torture or mistreatment of prisoners as compared to stories about the terrorist/insurgents torture, beheadings etc.

By simply reading the facts that are presented, one comes to the conclusion that the US is far worse in this area. The fact is that we are far better in this area than our counterparts, though we are falling short of our own ideals. The problem is that the terrorists have no ideals that burden them, so anything goes. What the US discusses endlessly is simply a matter of course for them.

By the media treating the US actions as being equal or worse, the public gets the wrong perception of the truth. Do not read this as me suggesting that torture is acceptable—-simply that when the media sees an instance of sleep deprivation and an instance of beheading, and treats them as equivalent, then the media is doing a great disservice.

Joe,

Terrorists are not ‘counterparts’ to national military forces, American or otherwise.

While society at large has heard of and been appalled at the levels of inhumanity mass murderers and the like can sink…

The nation and the world were/are horrified beyond words that a trained professional soldier of a democratic nation IMAGINE such a thing let alone engage in the bahavior.

Dave,

You are so correct, Jeff greenfield, Candy Crowley, Wolf Blitzer all these pseudo-telepundits do that. Reinterpretating it to the unwashed masses how to percieve the “late-breaking” story. I should really start writing them thank-you notes,just out of pure sarcasm, thanks for the idea Dave!

And no I wasn’t saying that news-fo-tainment should be a balancing act I was just analyzing the ethos of these networks. The point was droll anyway.

Dear Fox and Friends, thank you oh so much for interpreting for me the story about Bush and the troops. I was in a horrible car accident…severe brain damage…blah blah blah…metal plate in my head…blah blah blah…need you to spin how I percieve the story…

Just to make them feel useful.

Novenge,

You’re welcome. If you do so in the next couple of days, post it here for all of us to enjoy.

Journalism is supposed to be about investigating an incident or series of incidents, gathering the facts, making sense of it and reporting what you find. Considering how many stories of late have needed correction or were flat out wrong, based on the facts, it’s a wonder that people even call it journalism. If the fact checking only happens after the reporting is made, and is usually done by those who’ve been put in a bad light or by those who support the individual or group put in a bad light, then it’s not journalism.

Looking to prove a conclusion you’ve already drawn and ignoring anything that makes that conclusion seem the least bit questionable isn’t journalism, but it is what we’re getting from many of our “news” sources nowadays. Hmmm… Reminds me of someone else, but naw, that was just politics.

its shocking that nobody takes into fact who actually owns the media and distributes the news accordingly. its nice to sweeten up the arguement like you all do but i am presuming you are jewish and have no idea how the chinese and the jews are in bed together to take apart the western civilization

Gee Victor, I missed that, and here I am a Catholic.

:-)

Yeah, I thought that was the Chinese and the Russians. Not to mention the Islamic terrorists. How many conspiracies does it take to topple America?

Yep must be the Jews and the uhm Chinese (?), gee Victor please throw me a link to your conspiracy site.

Here’s what I’m starting to see too. Apologetics, such as a story that works well for the left as a banter-point and then a commentary to make it look like it wasn’t supposed to be slanted that way. Like republicans please don’t write in it’s just a news story. Is this for the sake of the public?

What I hate is the sponfed-edness at the government table. Such as correspondents inside the pentagon and Christine Malveaux inside the White House. How impartial can she be if she has to stay on their good-side?

I’ve heard that there is a truth to media walking in lockstep with whatever administration is in office. But it wasn’t so with the Clinton White House who railed him night after night for the Lewinsky dalliances.

Who knows maybe it’s all just cheap to produce crap as opposed to anything more complexly conspiratorial.