What we are really trying to gauge here boils down to perspective.
To most red state citizens/conservatives, the mainstream media is liberal. To the majority of SDMB members, it’s conservative. Yes they are judging the same organizations just from vastly different points of view. Hence the opinion of Fox News as “fair & balanced” by conservatives and as conservative by liberals.
And to answer Myakot’s question, Bill O’Reilly is not viewed as a conservative by some members on the right.
You’re painting with a pretty broad brush. I would say that those things have happened and do happen in all wars (on either side). Does it happen the majority of the time, no. But to say it never happened?
The point is that if it had happened and come to light, everybody, including sympathizers of the regime fighting the insurgency, would have regarded it as an atrocity, or at any rate as something not strictly permitted by the rules. Whereas in the present situation, the Bush Admin is arguing forcefully that it is not obliged to treat insurgents in Iraq with the considerations accorded military combatants, and that’s just plain wrong, Geneva Conventions or no. Hell, even in Vietnam we didn’t try to brand the Viet Cong as common criminals.
No, it goes a lot deeper than that. Fox is trying to redefine the terminology, in fact redefine the basic norms, of the journalistic profession. By “fair and balanced,” they do not mean what a pre-Republican-Noise-Machine journalist would have meant by the phrase (if he or she used it at all), that is, presenting as complete and accurate a report of the facts as possible; rather, they mean giving both ideological wings a chance to weigh in on the story from their own POV. By their lights they are “balancing” the media field by presenting a perspective the “liberal” media don’t.
I suggest it would be appropriate for some really progressive, left-of-liberal journalists (if they could find financial backing) to respond in kind by starting their own cable news network. Then we would really have balance in the media. You the news-consumer could watch Fox on Mondays, CNN on Tuesdays, Revolution News on Wednesdays, Fox again on Thursdays, etc., and maybe you could get a more or less complete picture of what’s really going on in the world. On that point, see this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=292551
Here’s your Cite:
So, if a left-wing organization had a chief editor or head of the news send a memo reminding its news people that WMD had not been found, you’d have a problem with that?
Sam, are you admitting you don’t see a difference between opinions/spin and cold, hard, facts?
I will be happy to cite it. But before I do, what about the rest of my post? Since you failed to address it should I assume that you understand that you were wrong and will in the future refrain from posting such drek? And once I provide citations for The Memo, along with the evidence that annaplurabelle has helpfully provided about how upper management at Fox News instructs their underlings on how to frame the issues, can I expect that you will in the future refrain from making the absurd claim that the only difference between Fox and the mainstream media is their ideological slant?
Here is my cite. It’s from former Fox News employee Charlie Reina, who brought The Memo to light in a letter. Here is a good place to read the significant parts.
‘Editorially, the FNC newsroom is under the constant control and vigilance of management. The pressure ranges from subtle to direct. First of all, it’s a news network run by one of the most high-profile political operatives of recent times. Everyone there understands that FNC is, to a large extent, “Roger’s Revenge” - against what he considers a liberal, pro-Democrat media establishment that has shunned him for decades.’
…
‘But the roots of FNC’s day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel’s daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it.’
I also looked for a seperate source to confirm The Memo. Here’s Cal Thomas’ take. Thomas works for Fox on some of the very shows Reina produced.
‘The Reina memo says Fox executives suggest story angles. That isn’t necessarily bad, because reporters, editors and producers must be reminded that Fox News is often the “other side,” giving perspective ignored by the other networks. Fox employs many liberals, whose numbers probably are greater than the number of conservatives employed by CNN and the other networks. A liberal producer of one of Fox’ top-rated shows told me last week that at another network where she worked, no memo from management on story coverage was necessary “because we all thought alike.” ’
Far from denying the existence of The Memo, Thomas implicitly confirms its existence by quoting a fellow Fox News employee saying that at another network no memo was needed.
IMO, a competent news team shouldn’t need that kind of reminder. It would depend on the context of the memo…
But speaking of WMD, look at this from 2sense’s cite:
I think there is a big difference between what this news chief tried to do and your hypothetical scenario.
The Geneva Convention explicitly states the conditions of its applicability (having a fixed distinctive sign, carrying arms openly, etc.) so that, as Sam Stone said, it can’t be used as a military tactic. One can reasonably extrapolate that the convention does not apply to those who don’t meet those conditions. This is true of the insurgents. This is not a technicality but true to the spirit of the doctrine.
There is a big difference between the Fallujah Marine incident and summary execution. Your analogy doesn’t apply.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about “balance.” I just want a true picture of what’s going on in Iraq. Again, covering war is fundamentally different from covering domestic issues. We ONLY know what the media tells us because we can’t experience any aspect of it first hand. There is a status quo to New York City, but not to Iraq. If good news doesn’t apply at all, then fine, but it does; and it goes signficantly farther than soldiers handing out candy.
Abu Ghraib and the Fallujah incident are better examples of spin rather than how excessive coverage or omission of stories can constitute bias. I would think the French massacre of 60 innocent civilians at least warrants mentioning. That story doesn’t even need spin to make it atrocious.
Sorry, not good at parsing out quotes.
I, for one, have already agreed that Fox is farther right than the other networks are left. You don’t need a memo to prove to me that they have an agenda. I would, however, want to be sure that it wasn’t Dan Rather who didn’t break that story. On the conservative side you’ve got Fox while on the liberal side you’ve got CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS. That’s four to one. Now, having said that, the talk shows definitely have a conservative bias, but the network news is blatantly biased liberal.
I’m not Sam, but I will point out the Halperin memo as a counter-example of how the rest of the mainstream media is no different from Fox News. Memos, slant, and all.
So the claim is not absurd - it is simple, established fact. Fox News and talk radio other than Air America tends conservative. ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. all slant liberal.
The only difference is which way they lean.
Regards,
Shodan
If we only know what the media tells us, and you are so certain the “good news” is more than soldiers handing out candy, then you must have learned that from the media.
So the media must be covering it. How else would you know of all this “good news”?
If it wasn’t mentioned, then how do you know of it?
The media, in general, conforms to the political slant of those who view the media, such as newspapers, TV, etc. … this is how the free market works. This is basically the entire US population. So, the media is center with regards to the US population.
The US electorate, however, is right-leaning compared to the US population, and thus the media seems left-leaning in comparison to US politics. But the bias only shows in editorials. Occasionally you might find bias in story selection, but mostly they want attention grabbing, money making stories.
Recently, an influx of conservative talk radio has shifted media way to the right, with radio shows that are basically hours of conservative editorializing. Conservatives can sustain radio shows because they can get sponsors easily, as the average conservative tends to be richer than the average liberal and can afford to buy more expensive stuff.
Compared to the rest of the industrialized civilized world, US media is far far right.
I wonder who Time Magazine will choose for Person Of The Year? Based on conservative claims of a liberal media, it will probably be some super lefty like Michael Moore.
Blogs written by US military serving in Iraq and Iraqi civilians.
The Halperin memo is hardly the same thing as The Memo. I don’t think anyone would argue that it is improper for management to issue a memo in response to specific circumstances. That’s hardly the same thing as a daily directive on how the news should be framed. Plus if we compare it to the examples from Fox News that annaplurabelle provided we can see that the Halperin memo differs in both style and substance. For those of you not familiar with it, as I wasn’t until now, it was issued by ABC News’ Political Director Mark Halperin. It was leaked to Drudge who, like Shodan, tried to use it to show the supposed liberal media bias. Here’s a copy:
( This copy is direct from Drudge. Apparently the “( sp? )” is misplaced. It appears to refer to the word “and” that follows it and not the term “set off” that precedes it. )
The difference in style between the Halperin memo and those sent out by Fox’s Moody ( which can be read in their entirety on the webpage annaplurabelle linked to ) is immediately apparent. Moody tells his people how things are. Period. “…the real news [in] Iraq is being obscured by temporary tragedy…” On the other hand, Halperin is engaging in give and take. “Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.” Judging just from this management at ABC News seems interested in feedback to provide the best possible coverage. Management at Fox News seems interested in giving marching orders.
Plus there is the substantive difference. Halperin doesn’t tell people how to frame a specific story, he tells them how not to frame a story in general. He tells them they shouldn’t “reflexively and artificially hold both sides “equally” accountable when the facts don’t warrant that.” OTOH, Moody tells his people how to report. ‘It won’t be long before some people start to decry the use of “excessive force”. We won’t be among that group.’ Or this, “The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting… Do not turn this into Watergate.”
No, you’re also still completely wrong about the G-Convs. The only salient feature you drift towards is that US personnel become disentitled to their protection on account of US govt non-application.
The pro-US Iraqi blogs are written by US agents. e.g. Iraq the Blog.
Actually, it is practically identical, except that it is calling for a leftist, anti-Bush slant instead of the opposite.
You mean specific circumstances like the war in Iraq, or specific circumstances like the election?
Well, you are right that the Halperin memo is not daily. But it was certainly a directive on how the news should be framed.
The style in which the memo is written has nothing to do with anything. And the substance differs only in that the Halperin memo is anti-Bush, and the Fox pro-Bush.
And in contrast, Halperin tells his people how things are. Period. "the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.
Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win."
What utter nonsense. This is exactly what Halperin is telling his people. He is stating, very clearly and specifically, that his reporters should spin their stories against Bush.
As I mentioned earlier, the difference is only that one memo is telling reporters to spin in favor of Bush, the other to spin against him.
No, they are exactly equivalent, except one is from the left, and the other from the right. If the Fox memo is proof that they are biased, then the Halperin memo is equal proof that ABC is biased. And the forged documents is proof that CBS is biased.
Liberals have picked a particularly unfortunate period in history to complain about conservative bias. The election gave us two pretty clear examples of media bias, including forged documents, and memos directly ordering reporters to assist the Kerry campaign. It takes a sort of determined blindness to deny this (not that determined blindness is at all rare among some on the SDMB), and both the examples are of bias against Bush and the Republicans.
Liberals are welcome to continue to deny that the sky is blue and that the old-style media is biased to the left, but it does nothing for your credibility. It is becoming more and more like arguing with creationists - interesting more as an exercise in rationalization, special pleading, and willful blindness, than as part of the Fight Against Ignorance.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ll stand by my previous post. I don’t expect “true believers” like Shodan will ever change their minds but for the rest of us, what I have already posted should be enough. This is nothing here. If there is any real evidence of the supposed liberal media bias to be had then let someone bring it forth so we can examine it.