posted
With the regards to the PEW study Samprimary cited: the point you're trying to make is unfounded. Check out the the data. Viewers of Bill O'Reilly did nearly as well as viewers of Colbert/Stewert. They were statistically more knowledgeable in 2/5 categories, equal in one, and less knowledgeable in 2 categories. From a statistical perspective I'd say the data indicates that they are every bit as well-informed.
Sure, when you begin to compare viewers of Stewart/Colbert with the viewers of an entire network, you can paint a different picture. People who watch Colbert/Stewart are a self-selecting crowd. I'd expect them to be more knowledgeable about the news than the average Fox News viewer. That's entirely logical, and says little to nothing about the quality of Fox News. Statistical manipulation, pure and simple.
Of course, I can't stand watching Fox News--I've always been a Chris Matthews guy myself. And Stewart/Cobert are a riot.
Edit: Directed at wrong poster.
Posts: 433 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: The trouble is that it is not enough to just not watch it. The trouble is also that other people watch it and then become misinformed
Maybe I'm misreading this; but this sounds to me dangerously close to "we should shut it down." Which is no better than silencing political discourse with which you disagree. That's scarily reminiscent of some kind of USSR tactic.
Battler, you're putting words in other people's mouths, as you did by bringing 'unwashed rednecks in the Bible belt' into the thread. The Soviet reference is hysterical at best.
I'm also puzzled; why would you ever approve of slant?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: I'm also puzzled; why would you ever approve of slant?
I don't see a slant; but to have this conversation (about the slant of Fox News) you sometimes feel as if you have to go ahead and concede that there is one, if only to further the dialogue. Maybe this is lazy of me; but it is my experience that to go with my first inclination, which is to deny that any such slant exists, is to doom any thread to a devolution into "he said, she said."
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What about liberals who aren't elitist?
Battler, why do you APPROVE of slant? You really wouldn't rather just get the news and then form your own opinion?
Sorry, but I've lived in both worlds; I moved from Texas to New England a few years ago, and it's my experience that most liberals tend to categorize conservatives as "rednecks." The implication being that redneck is somehow a derogatory term, which I've never thought that it was, etymologically speaking.
As far as approving of slant...I'd rather know that my network of choice is slanting, and approve of it, than have no idea (or realize it but refuse to admit it, as is the case with CNN viewers or NY Times readers) that my network or news venue of choice is slanting.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: I'm also puzzled; why would you ever approve of slant?
I don't see a slant; but to have this conversation (about the slant of Fox News) you sometimes feel as if you have to go ahead and concede that there is one, if only to further the dialogue. Maybe this is lazy of me; but it is my experience that to go with my first inclination, which is to deny that any such slant exists, is to doom any thread to a devolution into "he said, she said."
No not lazy, it's fair enough to temporarily concede a point in order to further discussion--I do it a lot too--, but when you say; "Does it not occur to people that those of us who watch Fox news...well, that we APPROVE of the slant they put on news?" with APPROVE in all caps, I start to wonder. Maybe you were just being unclear.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: I'm also puzzled; why would you ever approve of slant?
I don't see a slant; but to have this conversation (about the slant of Fox News) you sometimes feel as if you have to go ahead and concede that there is one, if only to further the dialogue. Maybe this is lazy of me; but it is my experience that to go with my first inclination, which is to deny that any such slant exists, is to doom any thread to a devolution into "he said, she said."
quote:Originally posted by Battler03: Does it not occur to people that those of us who watch Fox news...well, that we APPROVE of the slant they put on news?
Instead, it devolves into "he said, he said" and you lose all credibility. So you approve of a slant you don't see or don't believe exists? That's like Gonzales remembering a decision but not where or when he made it: it makes no sense.
Let me guess: you also don't see the liberal slant on C-Span/BookTV, even though you complained about it.
edit:Euripides is nicer than I am. I should try harder.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, although bias/slant exists on most news channels- everyone has an opinion- Fox takes the bias and undermines the news itself in order to further it.
This is bad news. Pun intended.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as approving of slant...I'd rather know that my network of choice is slanting, and approve of it, than have no idea (or realize it but refuse to admit it, as is the case with CNN viewers or NY Times readers) that my network or news venue of choice is slanting.
This is one of the stranger rationalizations of "watching terribly misinforming news" I've heard!
You're basically saying 'Well, I want a news channel that gives me the confounding bias that I want!"
Discussions like this make it clear just how different my reality is from a lot of others.
There's plenty of bias out there - the bias that Fox News exhibits is pretty straightforward.
Any notion that there's a consistent "liberal" bias in the mainstream media should have been (at the very least) been thrown open to question in watching the shameful performance of NBC and MSNBC covering their own role in the Imus situation.
Just yesterday, I had to turn off Tim Russert's interview show in disgust. His guest was Bernard Goldberg, a sort of "reformed liberal" who now rails against what he sees as liberal bias in the mainstream media.
In their discussion of Imus, they talked *exclusively* about Al Sharpton bring Imus down. No mention of Al Roker, Gwen Ifill, or the National Association of Black Journalists. Just Al Sharpton.
Limiting the dynamics of Imus's fall to Sharpton made it easy to avoid discussing the sort of white men's locker room that the show was for the most part - and how people like Russert gave Imus and the show respectability.
Just last week, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson answered the question "who made Sharpton a spokesperson?" with this answer:
"The media did." When this came up, they went mostly to two black men with a lot of baggage - and do so for most race stories.
The thing I have to deal with in work is the reality is that news coverage really isn't about who can do the best job covering the news - it's all about who can present stories that draw the most viewers or readers. Those two are often mutually exclusive.
So if you want to get recognized, you often have to resort to tactics that at the same time open you up to scorn. Going back to Schiavo, when disability organizations were filing legal briefs and issuing press releases, we were ignored.
When we got some people down to Terri Schiavo's hospice and some people threw themselves out of themselves out of their wheelchairs, we suddenly and briefly became part of the public discussion.
Don't know how coherent this is, but it's really hard to relate to discussions of the relative merits of any facets of the news media. They all stink pretty much in terms - and it's mostly because they're in the business of getting viewers rather than getting rewarded for accuracy, depth and thoughtfulness.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This is one of the stranger rationalizations of "watching terribly misinforming news" I've heard!
You're basically saying 'Well, I want a news channel that gives me the confounding bias that I want!"
All news is biased, because all networks are run by humans, and all humans are biased. I'd rather watch a network that slants the way I do. People who prefer CNN are no different; they prefer that network because it reinforces their preconceived notions about the world. Saying "it's just better news" is ridiculous when we're talking about networks that have 30-second "stories" interspersed with Cialis ads.
Every network is guilty of this. Which is why, like I said, I get most of my news from a wide range of sources via the internet. But to try to denigrate a network's journalistic integrity simply because you disagree with its slant is dishonest at best.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: The thing I have to deal with in work is the reality is that news coverage really isn't about who can do the best job covering the news - it's all about who can present stories that draw the most viewers or readers. Those two are often mutually exclusive.
Very well put. To quote Homer Simpson tuning in to Kent Brockman: "Aaahhh...info-tainment!"
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: So if you want to get recognized, you often have to resort to tactics that at the same time open you up to scorn. Going back to Schiavo, when disability organizations were filing legal briefs and issuing press releases, we were ignored.
When we got some people down to Terri Schiavo's hospice and some people threw themselves out of themselves out of their wheelchairs, we suddenly and briefly became part of the public discussion.
Is it that way for you here at Hatrack, too? *interested
Edited to add: I mean, do you have trouble getting your voice heard unless you use particular tactics, or do you find yourself listened to even without those tactics (or some mix of the two)?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This is one of the stranger rationalizations of "watching terribly misinforming news" I've heard!
You're basically saying 'Well, I want a news channel that gives me the confounding bias that I want!"
All news is biased, because all networks are run by humans, and all humans are biased. I'd rather watch a network that slants the way I do. People who prefer CNN are no different; they prefer that network because it reinforces their preconceived notions about the world. Saying "it's just better news" is ridiculous when we're talking about networks that have 30-second "stories" interspersed with Cialis ads.
Every network is guilty of this. Which is why, like I said, I get most of my news from a wide range of sources via the internet. But to try to denigrate a network's journalistic integrity simply because you disagree with its slant is dishonest at best.
But there are degrees to bias; it's not an all or nothing game. Some networks and newspapers, despite being run by humans, do their utmost to present an objective-as-possible overview of events, and succeed more often than Fox--if Fox is trying.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd rather watch a network that slants the way I do. People who prefer CNN are no different; they prefer that network because it reinforces their preconceived notions about the world. Saying "it's just better news" is ridiculous when we're talking about networks that have 30-second "stories" interspersed with Cialis ads.
One of the problems with journalistic integrity is that it's NOT a zero-sum game: there are degrees involved, and diminishing returns. CNN clearly has more integrity than Fox; however, someone who believes -- as Battler does -- that the media lacks integrity in general places a vanishingly small value on the relative difference between the two stations.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sorry, but I've lived in both worlds; I moved from Texas to New England a few years ago, and it's my experience that most liberals tend to categorize conservatives as "rednecks." The implication being that redneck is somehow a derogatory term, which I've never thought that it was, etymologically speaking.
Funny, it's been my experience that anyone on the right uses "liberal" as a derogatory term unto itself.
Besides, I'm much more likely to use "Bible Thumper" than "redneck." Must be a midwest liberal thing, I don't know.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Must be a midwest liberal thing, I don't know.
