Government intervention, manipulation and political bias in media

[iNow]

I don't expect him to make fun of the democrat president, he'll just stick to the republican representatives.

 

Hmmm... You sure?

 

I cite the following:

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=165746&title=dick-move-of-the-week

 

 

I've seen plenty more, but this was just this week, so easy to find.

[Pangloss]

Oh yeah, he'll make fun of President Obama or Clinton, for sure. But that example actually reinforces ParanoiA's point -- it's just a little joke about a campaign giving away Dave Mathews tickets, of all things. Right in line with tie jokes or funny facial expressions. Quite a very long way from the kind of thing he does with Bush, Cheney, et al.

 

Example:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=89061&title=non-executive-decision&tag=generic_tag_dick_cheney&itemId=104995

 

That one "jokingly" tries to make real-world arguments -- not jokes. His punch lines are "For god's sakes!" or "Does anyone else find this strange?!?!" and "this administration just ships logic to Bulgaria".

 

Mind you, it's a pretty good argument! But the thing to note there is that it clearly IS MAKING a non-humorous, partisan, political argument, while at the same time completely failing to represent the opposing side's arguments, and his excuse for doing that is "well it was just a joke".

[iNow]

Well, I suppose we'll all have to wait and see what happens if one of them gets elected, huh? Unless, of course, you have a newer model of crystal ball than I do.

[swansont]

Oh yeah, he'll make fun of President Obama or Clinton, for sure. But that example actually reinforces ParanoiA's point -- it's just a little joke about a campaign giving away Dave Mathews tickets, of all things. Right in line with tie jokes or funny facial expressions. Quite a very long way from the kind of thing he does with Bush, Cheney, et al.

 

Example:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=89061&title=non-executive-decision&tag=generic_tag_dick_cheney&itemId=104995

 

That one "jokingly" tries to make real-world arguments -- not jokes. His punch lines are "For god's sakes!" or "Does anyone else find this strange?!?!" and "this administration just ships logic to Bulgaria".

 

Mind you, it's a pretty good argument! But the thing to note there is that it clearly IS MAKING a non-humorous, partisan, political argument, while at the same time completely failing to represent the opposing side's arguments, and his excuse for doing that is "well it was just a joke".

 

It's satire, not news. He doesn't have an obligation to represent the other side's arguments.

 

And he regularly mocks the impotence of the democrats in congress, whenever that comes into play.

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=87456&title=*****-party

When the disembodied voice on C-SPAN calls you pussies, you’re probably pussies

(The link should work, even though it contains the singular of the above synonym for "cat" and it gets filtered in the display)

 

But beyond that, it's hard to mock people when they aren't doing anything. Targets of opportunity, as I said before. Obama and Clinton aren't making policy or acting on it, so what is there to satirize? The campaign, which is what is happening. Or, put another way, he has satirized 100% of the executive-branch decisions made by the democrats in the last 7 years.

[Pangloss]

It's satire' date=' not news. He doesn't have an obligation to represent the other side's arguments.

[/quote']

 

I didn't say he did. Bill O'Reilly isn't news either, and he has no obligation to represent the other side's arguments. And he clearly represents his show as something it is not: Objective political analysis from the basis of common-sense, not ideology. It's exactly the same thing as The Daily Show, which represents itself as something it is clearly not: Objective comedy from the basis of common-sense, not ideology. TDS is just in a different genre ("talk show" rather than "comedy"), and coming from a different perspective (left of center instead of right of center). Otherwise it's the same exact deal.

 

Maybe I should have been more clear: The question I raised is whether people to fail to recognize that The Daily Show (partisan comedic programming) is the same animal, the same kind of entity, as partisan analysis programming. I think people often do fail to recognize this, seeing The Daily Show as some sort of objective, common-sense, common-ground comedic analysis, there to make us laugh, yes, but also to make specific political points. I don't think it's propaganda, mind you, but I do think it makes its comedy from a specific ideological viewpoint, just as Bill O'Reilly does his political analysis from a specific ideological viewpoint.

 

But I think that's changing, I think people are starting to recognize TDS for what it really is, and one example of that is just to listen to Jon Stewart's audience reactions. He draws increasingly partisan audiences, but again, not far-left people, or at least they're polite and don't interrupt when he's polite to conservative guests, etc. It's a pretty good cross-section of the legitimate left-of-center crowd, and I don't have any problem with it at all. But it IS partisan.

 

And again, I draw a major distinction between the level of partisanship of those two programs, and the kind of partisanship you see in "analysis" from the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Air America hosts, etc.

 

And again, none of this is really a problem, so far as I can see, so long as people recognize it for what it is, and don't look to it for objectivity and take it for common sense. In a way TDS is kinda like what the right-of-center folks went through in the 1980s and 1990s, initially thinking that Conservative Talk Radio was just common sense and objective analysis, and gradually over time coming to realize that it was not.

[ParanoiA]

Also, it's important to realize that to lefties, TDS is going to appear quite objective. Just like Fox news doesn't really feel as right leaning to me as lefties claim. I'm a righty kinda guy so unless they're trashing "Big Science" or promoting religion it comes across fairly common sensical to me. This is also why TDS and CNN are so obviously leftish to me, and why Fox news is so obviously rightish to most of the left leaning crowd here.

 

Again, no big deal here, just pointing out that when your bias is validated it doesn't feel like bias.

[swansont]

It's satire, not news. He doesn't have an obligation to represent the other side's arguments.

I didn't say he did.

 

Then I guess I misinterpreted this:

 

Mind you, it's a pretty good argument! But the thing to note there is that it clearly IS MAKING a non-humorous, partisan, political argument, while at the same time completely failing to represent the opposing side's arguments, and his excuse for doing that is "well it was just a joke".

 

If he's under no obligation to do so, why does it matter whether he completely fails to represent the opposing side's arguments or not?

 

Bill O'Reilly isn't news either, and he has no obligation to represent the other side's arguments. And he clearly represents his show as something it is not: Objective political analysis from the basis of common-sense, not ideology. It's exactly the same thing as The Daily Show, which represents itself as something it is clearly not: Objective comedy from the basis of common-sense, not ideology. TDS is just in a different genre ("talk show" rather than "comedy"), and coming from a different perspective (left of center instead of right of center). Otherwise it's the same exact deal.

 

I don't think TDS represents itself as objective comedy, whatever that is.

 

from their website (emphasis added)

 

One anchor, five correspondents, zero credibility.

 

If you're tired of the stodginess of the evening newscasts and you can't bear to sit through the spinmeisters and shills on the 24-hour cable news network, don't miss The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, the nightly half-hour series unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or even accuracy.

 

The Emmy and Peabody Award-winning Daily Show takes a reality-based look at news, trends, pop culture, current events, politics, sports and entertainment with an alternative point of view. In each show, anchorman Jon Stewart and a team of correspondents, including Aasif Mandvi, John Oliver, Rob Riggle, Jason Jones and Samantha Bee, comment on the day's stories, employing actual news footage, taped field pieces, in-studio guests and on-the-spot coverage of important news events.

 

"unburdened by objectivity" sounds exactly the opposite of a claim that they are an objective show.

 

Do O'Reilly and Fox News claim to objective? (I always interpreted "fair and balanced" to be just that).

 

Maybe I should have been more clear: The question I raised is whether people to fail to recognize that The Daily Show (partisan comedic programming) is the same animal, the same kind of entity, as partisan analysis programming. I think people often do fail to recognize this, seeing The Daily Show as some sort of objective, common-sense, common-ground comedic analysis, there to make us laugh, yes, but also to make specific political points. I don't think it's propaganda, mind you, but I do think it makes its comedy from a specific ideological viewpoint, just as Bill O'Reilly does his political analysis from a specific ideological viewpoint.

 

But I think that's changing, I think people are starting to recognize TDS for what it really is, and one example of that is just to listen to Jon Stewart's audience reactions. He draws increasingly partisan audiences, but again, not far-left people, or at least they're polite and don't interrupt when he's polite to conservative guests, etc. It's a pretty good cross-section of the legitimate left-of-center crowd, and I don't have any problem with it at all. But it IS partisan.

 

And again, I draw a major distinction between the level of partisanship of those two programs, and the kind of partisanship you see in "analysis" from the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Air America hosts, etc.

 

And again, none of this is really a problem, so far as I can see, so long as people recognize it for what it is, and don't look to it for objectivity and take it for common sense. In a way TDS is kinda like what the right-of-center folks went through in the 1980s and 1990s, initially thinking that Conservative Talk Radio was just common sense and objective analysis, and gradually over time coming to realize that it was not.

 

Anyone thinking they are getting objective news from TDS are not doing so because of the show's claims.

 

Well, I suppose we'll all have to wait and see what happens if one of them gets elected, huh? Unless, of course, you have a newer model of crystal ball than I do.

 

Or you could go on their website and see if the show made fun of Bill Clinton, and satirized the Lewinsky affair and the impeachment, among other things. Stewart started on the show in January of 1999, so you can't make a complete comparison, but a search of "Bill Clinton" gave 13 pages of hits; the first five pages are after his presidency ended.

[Realitycheck]

I recognise that this a complex topic, and forms part, philosphically of the discussion on whether government intervention in regulating business should be there at all. The topic of this discussion is on the media, but almost primarily, the attention is on the role of the news media.

 

I think people may recognise that news agencies are becoming increasingly "slanted", one could say in propmoting political views. I guess, it is rather obvious, that they often "spin" the news to protect their owners, and their investors' interests. This makes sense, as in any enviroment the only role of a business is to make profit, it is the yardstick of success.

 

My first question is could this problem be tackled by reducing government regulation. For example, if the government has no power to regulate th media, does this remove the incentive for the media to try and politicise what it produces, as well as remove their incentive to bribe policy makers to pursue beneficial polices to their particular station if the government no longer excerciese such power?

 

I recognise that this problem may be quite hard to combat. Strangely, I think businessmen grow quite fond of regulation if it protects them from competition. So now that a lot of media sources are corporate and politicised(I guess America is my case in point), it will be especially hard to reverse this trend.

 

Secondly, is the fact that media is owned by corporate conglomerates make it impossible for there to be media that do not act directly to protect the interests of their owners, and therefore not report stories that could be to their detriment? Does this mean that regardless of whether government intervention is removed, the media will still be used to try and manipulate the populace for powerful interests?

 

Thirdly, do you think that corporate news media actually have it in their interests to keep news uncritical of other businesses and corporations, being light in coverage of scandals, because they rely on the same kind of outlets for the advertising, and sponsors? I guess part of this, depends on how much variety, we judge there to be in the marketplace.

 

So, any thoughts?

 

Government regulation is not going anywhere. The profit motive drives people (corps.) to do anything, to ignore anything. We are in the age of the law and nothing is changing until the world grows up, and probably not even then.

 

There is no controlling of news content either. This is at the core of our constitutional rights. It's really all governed by economics. People become aware if content becomes too slanted. News is everywhere to make comparisons. If things look too far out of kilter, they change the channel. The last thing I saw was CNN trying to give Obama the boot, but it was transparent and probably just the perspective of the newscaster.

[ParanoiA]

You're not getting the point Swansont. Yes, he makes fun of Slick Willy and impotent democrat congressmen, but not on ideological terms - only the republicans get that. Democrats are made fun of because they're "ineffective", republicans are made fun of because they're "wrong". Spin it however you want, it's obvious. We're not crying in our milk, just making an observation. TDS is a leftie show. Sorry that bothers you so much.

 

Their disclaimer supports Pangloss's argument earlier that the implied defense is "it's just a joke". He can write 5 pages declaring himself and his show innaccurate and stupid, self depricating jargon, and it still doesn't stop him from making politically ideological, philosophical scores against righties. And so what?

 

Maybe you should try Colbert instead? It's also a leftie show in that it's prime directive is aimed at mocking Fox News O'reilly-esk republicans, and it's a lot funnier. I'm sure some of the interviews on the show are set up to some extent, but damn Colbert sure is quit witted. I absolutely love how he mocks conservatives.

[Pangloss]

If he's under no obligation to do so, why does it matter whether he completely fails to represent the opposing side's arguments or not?

 

It's a free country. I'm simply drawing a distinction between non-political, non-partisan comedy and political humor that purports to be non-partisan but really isn't.

 

 

I don't think TDS represents itself as objective comedy, whatever that is.

 

In your previous post you defended them as bipartisan, now they're not supposed to be objective? Pick one position or the other, guy.

 

 

from their website (emphasis added)

 

One anchor, five correspondents, zero credibility.

 

If you're tired of the stodginess of the evening newscasts and you can't bear to sit through the spinmeisters and shills on the 24-hour cable news network, don't miss The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, the nightly half-hour series unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or even accuracy.

 

The Emmy and Peabody Award-winning Daily Show takes a reality-based look at news, trends, pop culture, current events, politics, sports and entertainment with an alternative point of view. In each show, anchorman Jon Stewart and a team of correspondents, including Aasif Mandvi, John Oliver, Rob Riggle, Jason Jones and Samantha Bee, comment on the day's stories, employing actual news footage, taped field pieces, in-studio guests and on-the-spot coverage of important news events.

 

"unburdened by objectivity" sounds exactly the opposite of a claim that they are an objective show.

 

That's just part of the act. Nobody takes the part about it claiming to be an alternative news service either, right? Similarly Stephen Colbert (who of course is part of the TDS/JS brand/franchise) purports to be conservative, but of course it's just a gag and viewers are expected to understand that it's just a gag.

 

 

 

Do O'Reilly and Fox News claim to objective? (I always interpreted "fair and balanced" to be just that).

 

Well you're just reinforcing my point.

 

First of all, I commented on Bill O'Reilly, not Fox News Channel. You do realize the difference, don't you? Not recognizing the difference, by the way, is functionally akin to not realizing that Stephen Colbert isn't actually a conservative. Hint, hint. I think most liberals understand that, but they'll lump the two in together at need for the sake of making an argument they know will play with their own crowd. I'm kinda disappointed seeing it come from you, though, since you're normally pretty centrist.

 

Anyway, the issue of whether FNC is "fair and balanced" is a whole different debate. As far as I'm concerned it purports to be news, and therefore it should be held to a news standard (in which bias is wrong). But that's not what we're talking about here.

 

Bill O'Reilly isn't a news program, it's a talk show and political commentary program. So the standard here is that it should be what it purports to be, or else viewers are being deceived, albeit in a fairly minor way. I believe that BOR viewers ARE being deceived, just as Jon Stewart viewers are being deceived. In both cases it's exactly the same deception -- the programs purport to be one thing, but are in fact another.

 

But aside from that minor deception (which I believe is more the fault of society for not standing up and stating that it doesn't want to be deceived in this manner anymore), both shows are honest in what they purport to be.

 

-----------

 

By the way, I think it's really interesting that when people critize the Jon Stewart show they're accused of not understanding the format, or not getting the joke, etc. It's part of the whole "conservatives are stupid" racket, and it's a pretty obvious logical fallacy. I think most conservatives, most people right-of-center (which, btw, I suspect is most Americans) get Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert just fine. They get the joke, and most of them even think it's amusing.

 

Just like they can go to the movie theater and watch the most preachy, pushy, agendized Hollywood thriller imaginable, and NOT walk out of the theater and vote Democrat for the rest of their lives. They got it, they might even agree with it, but they're not going to assume it's accurate, because they realize that Hollywood, like Jon Stewart, has zero real credibility.

 

Hollywood threw that away on the altar of the entertainment dollar, and continues to throw it away every time they put out a new movie that distorts the truth in order to make the story more interesting, and yet the very same Hollywood people will come right out and express open astonishment that Americans can still vote Republican, as if that actually makes some kind of logical sense. And this in the age of instant-access to the sum total of human knowledge at everyone's fingertips! Do they really think conservatives are so stupid that they can't use the Wikipedia after hitting the stop button on the DVD?

 

You can see it in practically every joke Jon Stewart makes, that consternation and incomprehension of right-of-center viewpoints. It's quite amusing, really.

[swansont]

It's a free country. I'm simply drawing a distinction between non-political, non-partisan comedy and political humor that purports to be non-partisan but really isn't.

 

Depends on whether you think that partisan/non-partisan is a binary state or there can be a continuum. I suspect that distinction is at the heart of what is obviously a misunderstanding of my point.

 

In your previous post you defended them as bipartisan, now they're not supposed to be objective? Pick one position or the other, guy.

 

False dilemma — I don't see those two attributes as being mutually exclusive. Objectivity implies that they would look at both sides of the story, and they don't, but they don't claim to.

 

And I don't recall saying the show was bipartisan — that's a strawman. Was it when I wrote "There's no doubt in my mind that he leans left" that implied that?

 

To address the point I raised above, I wasn't thinking in terms of partisan/non-partisan. Partisan means supporting one side only, and nonpartisan means not taking sides at all. But that doesn't cover all of the possibilities, so that's another false dilemma. I think it's possible to be liberal or conservative and still act in a way that isn't inherently partisan. If the show were partisan, there wouldn't be any serious criticism of democrats.

 

 

 

Well you're just reinforcing my point.

 

First of all, I commented on Bill O'Reilly, not Fox News Channel. You do realize the difference, don't you? Not recognizing the difference, by the way, is functionally akin to not realizing that Stephen Colbert isn't actually a conservative. Hint, hint. I think most liberals understand that, but they'll lump the two in together at need for the sake of making an argument they know will play with their own crowd. I'm kinda disappointed seeing it come from you, though, since you're normally pretty centrist.

 

 

Well, you did mention Fox News earlier, and O'Reilly is on the Fox News network. But I admit, I was getting my slogans mixed up. O'Reilly is the "no spin zone." Potato, potahto — it's still an implication of objectivity.

 

 

Anyway, the issue of whether FNC is "fair and balanced" is a whole different debate. As far as I'm concerned it purports to be news, and therefore it should be held to a news standard (in which bias is wrong). But that's not what we're talking about here.

 

Bill O'Reilly isn't a news program, it's a talk show and political commentary program. So the standard here is that it should be what it purports to be, or else viewers are being deceived, albeit in a fairly minor way. I believe that BOR viewers ARE being deceived, just as Jon Stewart viewers are being deceived. In both cases it's exactly the same deception -- the programs purport to be one thing, but are in fact another.

 

But aside from that minor deception (which I believe is more the fault of society for not standing up and stating that it doesn't want to be deceived in this manner anymore), both shows are honest in what they purport to be.

 

That's where I disagree. People tuning in to a news channel expect objective news and commentary. I don't think anyone tunes in to comedy central with the same expectation.

 

You're not getting the point Swansont. Yes, he makes fun of Slick Willy and impotent democrat congressmen, but not on ideological terms - only the republicans get that. Democrats are made fun of because they're "ineffective", republicans are made fun of because they're "wrong". Spin it however you want, it's obvious. We're not crying in our milk, just making an observation. TDS is a leftie show. Sorry that bothers you so much.

 

 

I refer you to the comments I just made. I never claimed that the show wasn't "leftie." My point was simply that your claim that "I don't expect him to make fun of the democrat president, he'll just stick to the republican representatives." has no basis in actual fact (as well as point out the error of Pangloss's claim that TDS should be required to have an "objective basis for its criticism")

 

———

 

Not every claim is challenged because of an ideological position. Sometimes unsupported/incorrect claims are called out because they are unsupported/wrong. Nothing more to it that that.

[Pangloss]

Depends on whether you think that partisan/non-partisan is a binary state or there can be a continuum. I suspect that distinction is at the heart of what is obviously a misunderstanding of my point.

 

I do agree that there are states between partisan and non-partisan, and I've reflected examples of two of those states in this discussion, distinguishing between the Rush Limbaugh/Al Franken types and the level promulgated by Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly.

 

I'm not trying to draw absolutes here, just make observations, and I realize that my generalizations are not all-encompassing. It's not my intent to pigeon-hole anyone, it's my intent to try and better understand what's happening in the world, and why.

 

 

False dilemma — I don't see those two attributes as being mutually exclusive. Objectivity implies that they would look at both sides of the story, and they don't, but they don't claim to.

 

I misunderstood; I apologize.

 

 

Bill O'Reilly isn't a news program' date=' it's a talk show and political commentary program. So the standard here is that it should be what it purports to be, or else viewers are being deceived, albeit in a fairly minor way. I believe that BOR viewers ARE being deceived, just as Jon Stewart viewers are being deceived. In both cases it's exactly the same deception -- the programs purport to be one thing, but are in fact another.

 

But aside from that minor deception (which I believe is more the fault of society for not standing up and stating that it doesn't want to be deceived in this manner anymore), both shows are honest in what they purport to be. [/quote']That's where I disagree. People tuning in to a news channel expect objective news and commentary. I don't think anyone tunes in to comedy central with the same expectation.

 

I'm respect your opinion on it, but yes, we disagree on this. I do agree that people DO realize that it's not really news, but I believe that they DO see themselves as being informed and educated by the common-sense, no-nonsense, and clandestinely left-skewed perspective that Jon Stewart is clearly offering, and perhaps more importantly they believe that others are informed and educated by that. Gotta wake up the red states, you know.

 

In other words, it's not just comedy, it's political commentary. And it follows a very long, clear tradition of political comedy (ala Mark Russell). I just think it adds a twist of partisanship that hasn't been there in previous political-comedic efforts.

 

Incidentally, I think you make a very valid point about Bill O'Reilly as well -- that people often see his show as news when in fact it is commentary. You're absolutely right in saying that the hosting network (at least in that case) colors the perception of the programming. That's not just a question of partisanship, either. Is it right that CNN has Larry King on every night at 9? Or Lou Dobbs? Where exactly is the line between news and commenatry?

 

These are issues that the entire news industry is struggling with right now. No question about it, it's an accurate observation and a very interesting thing to follow. I highly recommend to anyone interested in following that issue further to check out the books and columns of Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, who is an acknowledged expert on the subject (and considered extremely independent and objective), as well as the magazine "Editor & Publisher", which regularly tracks and reports on this issue.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032401283.html

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/

[swansont]

It occurs to me that if one replaced "Jon Stewart" with "Bill Mahar" we'd be in pretty close agreement. Comedian-turned-political commentator, very partisan, and uses the politics as a source of "humor" and comedy as an excuse to attack policy. (and he's also a whack-job, especially on health issues).

 

Mark Russell did political commentary that was funny, and others do that as well. I just think that TDS is still largely comedy-motivated, using current events, of which one is politics, i.e. comedy/satire that includes politics as one of the targets. (And it's an opinion, so whoever agrees or disagrees, I'm fine with that).

[Pangloss]

True enough, and Mahar, like Stewart, is still in that category of critics who don't lose my respect, at least to the extent that someone like Al Franken has, Franken being a very funny comedic writer who wrote some of SNL's best stuff over the years, but who has completely discarded sanity and reason for the sake of partisanship (and is now running for the Senate!).

[Dave]

As you know, I'm based in the UK so probably not the best judge of this, but I do watch TDS a lot as it's broadcast on More4 here the following day. We also get Fox News which I tune into a few times a month before I'm forced to turn it off to avoid being severely ill from the propaganda.

 

You can't possibly argue that TDS claims to be objective - as swansont said, it's even posted on their website. However, in my mind, it does serve a very useful purpose, and that is to show up the news networks for not covering the important issues of the day. Seriously, when a news network gives Anna Nicole Smith's death the most continuous coverage since the September 11th bombings, you need to be concerned about what they're choosing to broadcast.

 

Frankly, some of the stuff coming out of the networks is shockingly bad, and they need to be called out on it. That this job (from my albeit limited perspective) seems to be left down to a relatively small cable show on Comedy Central is completely out of order, but at least it does a decent job of isolating important stories that either fall through the cracks or aren't given decent coverage by the networks.

[ParanoiA]

Excellent observation. I know I'm disgusted at all the attention they give to the pop tarts. Again, an answer to what society here wants to see. They wouldn't give a crap about Anna Nicole Smith if we didn't insist on it. Of course, I haven't met anybody willing to admit they enjoy that coverage.

[iNow]

As you know, I'm based in the UK so probably not the best judge of this, but I do watch TDS a lot as it's broadcast on More4 here the following day. We also get Fox News which I tune into a few times a month before I'm forced to turn it off to avoid being severely ill from the propaganda.

 

You can't possibly argue that TDS claims to be objective - as swansont said, it's even posted on their website. However, in my mind, it does serve a very useful purpose, and that is to show up the news networks for not covering the important issues of the day. Seriously, when a news network gives Anna Nicole Smith's death the most continuous coverage since the September 11th bombings, you need to be concerned about what they're choosing to broadcast.

 

Frankly, some of the stuff coming out of the networks is shockingly bad, and they need to be called out on it. That this job (from my albeit limited perspective) seems to be left down to a relatively small cable show on Comedy Central is completely out of order, but at least it does a decent job of isolating important stories that either fall through the cracks or aren't given decent coverage by the networks.

 

I quite agree, and also thank you for offering a post from a perspective outside of the US. I suppose it makes it that much harder for your points to be blanketly dismissed as "leftie." ... Which gets REALLY frustrating.

[Phi for All]

I suppose it makes it that much harder for your points to be blanketly dismissed as "leftie." ... Which gets REALLY frustrating.

If there are those in government who are helping corporations to manipulate the press, I feel these blanket dismissals, leftie / rightie, conservative / liberal, Dem / Rep, all serve them very well. Personally, I don't know a single person who is conservative in all things, or who agrees with either major party's complete platform. Politicians seem extremely good at keeping us fighting each other instead of questioning them.

 

Is it a Fundamental Attribution Error which tells someone that if I make a statement about a certain issue that seems "leftie", that *all* my statements are going to be "leftie"? No one seems to understand that I can support business in a free market economy but require that that business be done with the future of the planet in mind. Is it liberal or conservative to desire a market base that is alive and capable of purchasing my goods and services?

 

I've said it before, but I think politics in the US have been distilled down to a competition instead of choosing a representative to take your vote to Washington DC. It's not an election, it's a "race" and Americans can't stand losing in a race, so many voters tend to back the person they think will win. That's a really stupid way of looking at the privilege, imo. Every major election is basically a false dilemma; we don't *have* to elect one of the two major candidates but that's the way it's always portrayed.

[iNow]

I didn't say he did. Bill O'Reilly isn't news either, and he has no obligation to represent the other side's arguments.

 

Bill O'Reilly isn't a news program, it's a talk show and political commentary program. So the standard here is that it should be what it purports to be, or else viewers are being deceived, albeit in a fairly minor way.

 

I was looking up something else earlier today, and came across this interview where O'Reilly explicitly concedes that his IS a news show. That seems to me to blow a pretty gaping hole in the arguments you were making above.

 

 

[ParanoiA]

Geez, O'reilly is such a dick. I mean really. Did I really hear him say he thinks he's amongst the three most important people excluding the president? If that was a joke, it was stupid. And then he repeatedly craps on Stewart's show and his audience. Stewart took it with class but it sure would have been nice to see him bitch slap Billy.

 

In response to your point, though, that's pretty tenuous. O'reilly was conceding that John Stewart is a comedy show as opposed to a news show. I don't know any commentator that would stop in the middle of that conversation to parse "news show" from "talk show". Although I do get the impression that if he was pressed, he would boldly label his show as News.

[bascule]

I didn't say he did. Bill O'Reilly isn't news either, and he has no obligation to represent the other side's arguments.

 

Except Bill O'Reilly claims his show represents a "No Ideology Zone" where a "fair and balanced" portrayal of both sides of the argument are presented.

[Pangloss]

I was looking up something else earlier today, and came across this interview where O'Reilly explicitly concedes that his IS a news show. That seems to me to blow a pretty gaping hole in the arguments you were making above.

 

 

It's a reasonable question, but (if I'm making the correct mental adjustment to what we were talking about earlier here) I don't think it's really very relevent what Bill O'Reilly states about what his show is. It is clearly a political commentary program, with occassional slices of variety in the form of cultural analysis (1950s trivia), common causes (e.g. helping the needy), etc.

 

That doesn't mean that nobody watches it thinking it's news -- I'm sure some people do. But I think it's also pretty clear that many people (especially young people) don't watch the news and get what they mistake for insightful political analysis, taking the place of objective news reporting (since they haven't heard the story at that point), from Jon Stewart via The Daily Show.

 

I didn't say he did. Bill O'Reilly isn't news either' date=' and he has no obligation to represent the other side's arguments.

[/quote']Except Bill O'Reilly claims his show represents a "No Ideology Zone" where a "fair and balanced" portrayal of both sides of the argument are presented.

 

That makes him a liar about his partisanship, not a news reporter with bias.

[iNow]

I don't think it's really very relevent what Bill O'Reilly states about what his show is.

I agree. It's clearly more relevant to your assertions that his show is not news.

[SmallIsPower]

OReilly certainly isn't "fair and balanced". It falls on us to decide what is

 

The billionaire who run the Corporate Media can't be trusted not to have ulterior motives.

 

Nor can we trust "leaders" like Bush to look out for our interests. The fairness doctrine is receding in public awareness, for better or worse, it's unlikely to be revived in the next decade.

 

In that decade plus, we have a unique opportunity to become the media. We can communicate around the world to a degree never before possible, and access to information that was previously hard or impossible to access before.

 

Additionally, most of us won't have anything to gain monetarily by lying.

 

There will be mistakes; and a learning curve - when has anything new and useful not had them, but we have the opportunity to create a check on a information that has been controlled largely by the rich and powerful.

[Pangloss]

I agree. It's clearly more relevant to your assertions that his show is not news.

 

Right, I don't think it's news.

 

Do you feel that it is news?