Programs: UA 1K, IC RA, Marriott Silver, SPG Gold, ¤
Posts: 26,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetFreak
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7C144 Safari/528.16)
Wait. We live in Argentina now? Damn it, nobody tells me anything anymore!
You haven't noticed all the grass-fed beef inundating our grocery stores?
Programs: AA: PLT MM, HA: Pualani Tinfoil, UA: 125 Grocery Miles at a time!
Posts: 16,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetFreak
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7C144 Safari/528.16)
Wait. We live in Argentina now? Damn it, nobody tells me anything anymore!
1. Right Wing commentators (Rush, Glenn Beck, Hannity) invent an issue that is generally non-existent, but build it up to be something its not.
2. Right Wing news organizations (Fox News, Drudge) pick up on the issue and begin reporting on it.
3. Right Wing commentators escalate on the issue based on the right wing news reports.
4. Mainstream media is forced to pick up on the issue out of fear of being called biased.
5. Left say that the issue is bogus (because it is), and doesn't aggressively counter it.
6. Right Wing commentators point to Mainstream media to counter bogus claims.
7. Left is finally forced to counter aggressively.
8. Mainstream media portrays the issue as two sided, worthy of debate.
This is exactly how the whole birther movement happened. And this is the primary criticism that the left has of the media: they become fodder in the hands of the right wing noise machine by elevating bogus issues into legitimate ones.
The opposite does not happen for two reasons. First, the left wing commentators do not generally raise bogus or non-existent issues. They filter out things like 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc. Second, left wing commentators do not have as sophisticated a left-focused news echo chamber to cause them to be picked up by the mainstream media. Huffpost is probably the only left-leaning news organization that is really a news org. MSNBC (apart from the commentators) is not left-leaning, as they heavily rely on the NBC news organization for reporting. They are, however, part of the mainstream media with all of its problems.
The right likes to argue that the left wants to control the media. That is simply not true. What we want is for the media to be independent of corporate interests so that it will do more real reporting and not just become an echo chamber. Many on the left do not like it when the media echos the Democratic talking points any more than when it echos Republican talking points. We want real experts on to talk about issues, not politicians. We don't want spin from either side. We want news that analyzes, and that informs, without falling into the belief that every issue falls into the political spectrum.
Programs: Mileage Plus 1K, Skymiles, EleVAte founding (foundling?!) member
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by stockmanjr
What you do is A)Go on Fox news B) Show people by your actions that your not the evil person that fox makes you out to be. There is a hard core base that won't budge no matter what Obama does,but I believe most people are reasonable and if they see he's being productive they simply won't listen to fox.
While you're being reasonable on Fox, the crawl at the bottom of the screen is calling you a liar. Who needs that?
I'm asking you if you personally think this coverage approaches the coverage given to the birther craze. What do you think?
Are you asking me to compare Fox's coverage of "the birther craze" , as you term it, with their coverage of Ehren Watada's refusal to deploy during the Budh administration? Not being much of TV news consumer, I'm ill prepared to do so. If I had known that you would come seeking a comparison between the two from me, I'd have tried to pay more attention back during the relevant time frames. Sorry I can't help you there.
__________________
"I prefer clarity over agreement" - Dennis Prager
Programs: UA 1K/Million Miler, SPG Platinum, Mourning the Untimely Death of Clear Registered Traveler
Posts: 12,705
I tend to agree that Fox crossed the line when it invented, staged, covered, then whined about the lack of other coverage of the 70k or so birther/teabaggers that came to DC a month ago or so.
Bad enough that their 'corespondents' were caught on camera whipping the crowd up into a frenzy to make it look good for the cameras, but then to have the audacity to put out an ad complaining that no one else did the same?
Jon Steward did a good riff on that Monday, contrasting the coverage that Fox gave the (slightly larger) gay rights event in DC last weekend (fox spent a little less than three minutes talking about it) against the sponsorship and then breathless wall-to-wall coverage they gave the (often hyped-up by Fox employees) teabag event.
Fox went from covering the news to making the news.
I can see the WH drawing a line of distinction there.
They want to act like a partisan advocacy group, that's totally cool. But they can't complain when they are treated like one.
__________________
Be sure to participate in this year's TalkBoard elections!!!
I tend to agree that Fox crossed the line when it invented, staged, covered, then whined about the lack of other coverage of the 70k or so birther/teabaggers that came to DC a month ago or so.
Bad enough that their 'corespondents' were caught on camera whipping the crowd up into a frenzy to make it look good for the cameras, but then to have the audacity to put out an ad complaining that no one else did the same?
Jon Steward did a good riff on that Monday, contrasting the coverage that Fox gave the (slightly larger) gay rights event in DC last weekend (fox spent a little less than three minutes talking about it) against the sponsorship and then breathless wall-to-wall coverage they gave the (often hyped-up by Fox employees) teabag event.
Fox went from covering the news to making the news.
I can see the WH drawing a line of distinction there.
They want to act like a partisan advocacy group, that's totally cool. But they can't complain when they are treated like one.
Completely agree. It's time for the NY Times to admit their bias as well, since they didn't even bother to comment on various stories at all(ACORN, Van Jones, the NEA controversy) until after the perpetraitors had already been disgraced and fired.
Programs: AA: PLT MM, HA: Pualani Tinfoil, UA: 125 Grocery Miles at a time!
Posts: 16,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreequentFlier
Completely agree. It's time for the NY Times to admit their bias as well, since they didn't even bother to comment on various stories at all(ACORN, Van Jones, the NEA controversy) until after the perpetraitors had already been disgraced and fired.
Did they ever apologize for falling for Bush's lies - hook, line and sinker - about Iraq?
