What else is New(s)
I have to admit I've never really bought the idea that there
is massive political bias in the media. In some ways I see it as a case
of apples and oranges. Different segments of society each with their
own institutions and centers of economic and moral authority launch
their forays into and engage in the market place of ideas - which we
call the media as though it were one thing rather than many - by myriad
ways and means. Surveys can be produced that appear to show that the
opinions of journalists correlate with the responses of those who
identify with liberal causes and views. Though this also would
correlate broadly with those who have received education necessary to
write knowledgeably and effectively about public policy, and be
explained as well by this. The real culprit might be a liberal
education. There are those who feel that if we removed sociology or
anthropology, literature, from the curriculum; perhaps removed the
humanities altogether, we would be a better people. But we wouldn't be.
Even William F. Buckley uses commas occasionally. And at that juncture
it is easy enough to identify many journalists of a firm and obvious
conservatism.
Journalists are but the foot soldiers of
the media army. The companies they work for are corporations, firmly
embedded with the other businesses of their region and with them
partnered with the prevailing powers of the established regime. It is
here, at the level of the enterprise, that newspapers and books are
published, that programs are broadcast. Corporations also tend towards
being hierarchical organizations, narrowing the the delivered message
to the desires and benefit of single individuals. Sinclair
broadcasting has offered an well organized example of how this works :
The New York Times TV Group to Show Anti- Kerry Film on 62 Stations. And with no advertisements - as a public service.
Marvin Kalb was on NPR this morning The Right-Left Struggle of Media News,
arguing that American News organizations are skirting the limits of
objectivity under pressure from audiences looking only for confirming
messages. I had already written most of what's here by this point and I
listened to him particularly to see where he located the discussion, at
the level of the individual reporter commentator, their integrity. That
is their dedication to the professional prescripts of American
journalism: to at least attempt objectivity. Or at the level of their
organization. Web loggers also came up in this segment. It seemed clear
enough that web logging is plugged into feedback loops of amplifying
partisanship. Also that this is the only role they are most likely to
play. I didn't hear it from him, but I am gaining the sense from the
amount of discussion of politically colored web logs that there will
be a backlash against web logging on this account after the election. I
don't pretend to be Republican or assign a fixed neutrality to myself.
All the same I see a shadow requirement extending from belonging
to a civil society to be open minded and assess all ideas on their
particular and general merits. Not to be caught up in discourse as an
exercise in slogan hoisting.
Josh Marshall of TPM had an item which he wrote on for several days after the first debate. A Fox news reporter (Carl Cameron)
covering that debate, wrote up a parody, a scurrilous and defamatory
parody of a speech represented as being given by Sen. Kerry the next
day. No one with a genuine acquaintance with this election and
candidates would have taken it seriously. Fox News put it up on their
Web site. Until questions about its authenticity poured in - then they
took it down. Questioned by Marshall on this they put it over to an
overeager staffer's poor attempt at humor. This is the network that
drove hard on CBS and Dan Rather for weeks. Fox News - A Poor Attempt
At Journalism.
10:25:44 AM  ;;
|
