There was lots of slamming of the mainstream media at the recent Yearly Kos conference in Dallas – just as fierce as anything you’ll hear from right-wingers like Bernie Goldberg or Hugh Hewitt or Accuracy in Media. But the progressive bloggers claim the nature of their criticism is fundamentally different:
Issues:
Is this a fair assessment of MSM’s present role WRT the Administration, etc.?
Is this a fair assessment of the actual goals of right-wing press criticism?
If there is a difference in goals, should the progressive media critics use the same tactics as the right-wingers have, or something different? (Both sides of this question are discussed further down in the article.
Will getting simultaneous critical assaults from the right or left be good for the press? Spur reporters to do their jobs better?
Yes. Just compare the press coverage the Clinton-Lewinsky versus Bush-Iraq, and see misguided priorities and slanted bias in action.
Yes. Clinton-Lewinsky/Bush-Iraq proves that there’s no such thing as a “liberal media,” but the right-wing press criticism pounds on, because the mainstream media still has an annoying tendency to report Administration-displeasing facts.
No. If anything, it’ll pound the press into becoming even more milquetoast than ever, afraid of offending both sides of the aisle (to the point where they’ll bring in comedians to provide “balance”).
What the mainstream media should do is simply stick to their journalistic guns – “we’re going to report the truth, no matter who it embarasses and whose ox gets gored in the process.” Of course, such a move will end up having a “liberal bias,” but that’s merely a side-effect of reality itself having a well-known liberal bias.
Ug… Its so much simpler than all that consiracy theory crap. Its simple economics and psychology.
I don’t believe so. IMO The failure of the press can be attributed to a drive for ratings and money which has led to them to the laziness of only framing issues within the bounds given to them by the candidates instead of from a big-picture perspective.
No. The right-wing press assault is meant to create a feeling of victimization and an ‘us vs them’ mentality.
They should push the bounds of the debates to level the playing field. They should push big-picture, big-issue solutions and a method of framing the issues that’s more logical and dump this either/or crap.
They haven’t responded to the right, so why would they respond to the left+right? IMO they need to be participating with the press and framing the issues and solutions more intelligently rather than just responding to conservatives or endorsing candidates.
No, I don’t. I think their only sin is laziness. They just report what they’re given from current politicians. Its not the media’s fault that the (elected) left can’t stand on their own two feet.
No. Otherwise they would count sites like Instapundit and Free Republic as part of the mainstream media. Which they don’t.
The mainstream media consists of the television news networks, including Fox and CNN, the major daily newspapers, and the major monthly news magazines. It does not include right-wing talk radio, the blogosphere, college newspapers, or the foreign press.
That would be my take on it, too. While sometimes, depending on context, Fox is lumped in with the MSM, they generally differentiate it due to its being a ‘movement’ organ.
Is this based on any actual knowledge? Just wondering.
Well, that points up the OP. Lefty bloggers regard the press as an invaluable public utility that, at this moment in American history, needs reforming. Righty bloggers question the civic value of journalism as such.
Well, if these bloggers think the MSM is doing such a bad job, why don’t they take over. It’s not like you need a license to be a journalist. Bloggers can roam around Iraq. Bloggers can slog through mounds of government paperwork looking for evidence of wrongdoing. Bloggers can watch C-Span endelssly. Somehow I don’t think bloggers are able to do these things.
But it is like you need a shitload of money to start a newspaper or TV network. Which right-wingers such as Rupert Murdoch are much more likely than left-wingers to have in the first place. For some reason, there are a lot more Rupert Murdochs then George Soroses in the world, more’s the pity.
Or facts I suppose. I notice you just walked away from the last thread we were both in when you couldn’t document your claims. At least RTF admitted he had no proof before quiting the thread.
