Scott Thomas Beauchamp is the latest in a string of bogus Media stories. The bloggers and internet are uncovering these charlatans very quickly as of late. Bloggers are also subject to the same scrutiny and are often turning up no better than the MSM they rail against.

Questions for debate:

With scandals at the New York Times (Jayson Blair,) Rathergate, the fact that almost no one really trusts Fox News Network and the recent debacle at The New Republic why should anyone trust the media to be non-biased entities anymore?

Would it make sense for the Media to publicly align themselves with political ideologies? (Something like NYT = Left WSJ = Right.)

Bloggers aren't held up to the same scrutiny as the "MSM". We're more like digital tabloids with a political focus. For every embarassing Jamil Hussein moment there are dozens of examples of bloggers making outrageous claims and predictions that aren't examined. Bloggers don't have to be careful about attribution. We paraphrase because the nature of hyperlinks makes quotations and deliberation seem redundant. Paraphrasing is a risky practice in journalism. We don't have to worry about keeping First Amendment lawyers on payroll to keep us out of legal trouble. The absence of standards may change in the future.

What I find interesting and sad is how much online journalists resemble bloggers. For example, John Bresnahan has a "blog" on Politico. In one story he wrote House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI) was being courted by Republicans to adopt their alternative corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) proposal. The Democrats' initiative to increase fuel standards for trucks failed. So who knows, maybe Bresnahan turned out to be right. But Bresnahan's single source for the story is "a Republican insider". Later, when Dingell responds with a comment Bresnahan defends himself, saying he did speak with Democratic sources as well as Republican sources. Bresnahan just forgot to speak with the most important source, the subject of the story, Dingell? This is not reporting. This is blogging. Yet Bresnahan wants us to take him seriously because he's "been doing this for a long time, a lot longer than most of [us] have been paying attention to Congress".

With scandals at the New York Times (Jayson Blair,) Rathergate, the fact that almost no one really trusts Fox News Network and the recent debacle at The New Republic why should anyone trust the media to be non-biased entities anymore?
The biggest scandal IMO is our media's willingness to believe politicians are more interested in our welfare than being reelected and repeating everything, or almost everything, the government says without question. Journos who parroted the White House's line prior to invading Iraq should be trounced and fired. Instead they—and the bloggers who agreed with them—are rewarded with new jobs. That's just dysfunctional, and dysfunctional perfectly describes our corporate-owned, saturated media.

Some of the distrust people have for the media can be correlated with performance like the examples cited in this debate question. Some distrust can't. This is the case with the hostile media effect. From an informal paper I wrote:

But is the media really biased? According to Vallone, Ross, and Lepper (1985) the answer is probably "no". In "The Hostile Media Phenomenon: Biased Perception and Perceptions of Media Bias in Coverage of the Beirut Masssacre", observations among polarized members of the public may not be as finely tuned as liberal/conservative pundits and media watchdog groups believe. In the hostile media effect, "partisans claim to perceive hostile media bias, even in news coverage that most nonpartisans find evenhanded and objective" and "partisans sometimes are simply exerting pressure in the hope of more favorable media" (p. 577 – 578). Individual cases like Batiste can help us understand bias on a micro level, perhaps even on an organizational level, but identifying media bias on a macro level is often difficult.

Vallon, Ross and Lepper also found that:

Complaints of media bias, especially when social or political passions run hot, suggest a further, more radical mechanism, one involving a difference not in the evaluation of a given stimulus relative to some standard but rather in the perception or recollection of its basic content and valence (p. 579).

If some partisans simply want to exert pressure on the media for political reasons and people are more likely to perceive media bias when "political passions run hot", then it is reasonable to assume that (1) partisans from both sides of the isle believe their parties have something to gain the longer "media bias" remains a conscious part of our political lexicon, and (2) journalistic practices with a tendency to produce emotive- instead of cognitive-oriented information may condition news consumers to "feel" the news over time. Eventually the media covers a subject everyone cares about. If coverage does not compliment our emotive-oriented relationship with the news we circle the issue, so to speak, and defend it from further attack by impugning the media's neutrality.

Batiste is the retired general and political consultant CBS fired after he appeared on an anti-war VoteVets ad.

Would it make sense for the media to publicly align themselves with political ideologies?
To what end? People already gravitate towards news outlets that agree with their viewpoints. Instead of spending manpower and money investigating events and publishing stories that may not sit well with their audience the media keeps their readership by conflating hard news with soft news and drawing conclusions that won't cost them a cancelled subscription. Assuming media moguls will even allow news outlets to declare an ideological alignment the moment a journo writes a story that isn't conservative enough and it slips past the editors in the the story selection process readers will call for the traitorous journo's head, and the news outlets will be further divided along right-left lines.

With scandals at the New York Times (Jayson Blair,) Rathergate, the fact that almost no one really trusts Fox News Network and the recent debacle at The New Republic why should anyone trust the media to be non-biased entities anymore?

I think one should always consider the political preference of anyone on the news, there will be some degree of spin but it really depends on what your watching as well. I don't know how much I agree that almost no one really trusts Fox News Network
There ratings have continued to climb while both CNN and MSNBC have taken hits in their ratings........

http://www.autentico.org/oa09443.php

I have nothing however specifically against any of these networks, I actually watch CNN the most because of Glenn Beck, FOX I think is just as fair as the other networks though. Something has to account for the smashing success of FOX News in recent years, so aparently viewers must think they are doing something right, heck The O'riley Factor is the most successful news show on cable television, after all he does rub that in by having it announced on every show, lol.

Would it make sense for the Media to publicly align themselves with political ideologies? (Something like NYT = Left WSJ = Right.)

Good question, personally I think its fine so long as those who position there views on the left or right make sure they are upfront that there opinion is
in fact left, or right wing. This is why I watch Glenn Beck so much, he is honest and willing to talk about his political affiliation being conservative, and never fails to make it clear whether he is stating fact or opinion. Another one of my favorites is Hannity and Colmes because here you have both a far left and far right wing pair who go over politics and news both in there own viewpoints, they frequently disagree on almost everything in fact, but in the end what that does is leave the person watching to determine for themselves who is closer to the truth, and the truth on some matters is often different for each of us.

Your seven year old article from News Max (June 6, 2000) doesn’t jibe with today’s story from Inside Cable News.



Inside Cable News (August 7, 2007)

It seems MSNBC has the momentum.

I was refering to over the years, this link is 2006, and I hate to have to disagree with you yet again, http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2006/na...t=3&media=6

MSNBC is the bottom runner of the three networks and fox news is firmly on top of both CNN and MSNBC. your link shows extremely recent small fluctuations in both MSNBC and CNN. Lets just hope MSNBC can keep the momentum going for a long while, because they have a long way to go if that Isnt simply a flux. The only one with bragging rights it seems is FOX with a consistent and firm hold on cable news. Not that I care, Ive watched all three, but may I suggest something? I think Olberman might have a thing or two to do with MSNBC's ratings, well just a thought, lol Ive never particularly cared for him much.

Disagree with me as much as you like - this is a debate board.

Your original link was from June 6, 2000. Mine was from today.



net2007’s link

Your new link is nearly two years old. The data was compiled in 2005. - before November, 2006 - when voters turned away from Republicans and possibly FNC. The market changes over time. Please come up with a current link that contradicts the one I provided from
today's Inside Cable News.

BoF



Oh its a debate board? I could have sworn this was the blog for fred the ice cream truck driver who lives down thee street man.
ohh well,

To tell you the truth the reason I know this is because I watch FOX news a good deal and heard it said on TV just a couple months back, so from that I was confident in making the claim but since you insist on wanting proof for such a small thing. after the last link being 2005/2006, and since this is not fred the ice cream truck drivers blog like I thought, here is a third link. Dated July 31, 2007 http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=640910

Here it states............



and........



it also states......



while it later says.......



It does seem there has been some gain in MSNBC, to my surprise they are closer in ratings today than they were in the past with CNN.

So there it is and thats as recent as I'm going.

That is certainly an improvement over trying to float links that were first seven and then two years old, although it took you three shots to get there.

I never said FNC didn't have more viewers, only that MSMBC was gaining viewers. The important thing may not be absolute viewership, but a reversal of trends.

Besides, with as with many things, popularity doesn't equate to quality. If you don't believe this, how is it that a nut like Brittney Spears has abolut 20 Billboard hot 100 singles hits while far more talented performers may not have any?

O'Reilly's popularity, which I predict will go down, is no indication of or substitution for quality. You'll have to undestand, I'm one of those elitists conservatives so hate.

Edited to add:

In the past net2007 you have expressed admiration for Bill O’Reilly. If he is willing to embellish his resume by claiming to have won Peabody awards, when he didn’t, how can you believe anything else he says?



http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1070

Why is 1.9 million viewers for an average daily estimate in the month of July not a sign of substitution and quality? Afterall Britney Spears doesn't do the news
so her lack of talent attracting attention can be related to the career she choose, in Hollywood stupid behavior isn't necessarily a minus. Typically news show host are not helped much by hitting cars with umbrellas after shaving their head, in the news an older more mature audience is responsible for measuring the quality of the product. So are more conservatives flocking to Bill O' Riley, than liberals to Olberman in this day in age where people are more eager to distrust there govermnent than ever while olblerman gives them what they want, something I don't buy, Or is O'Riley simply better at what he does attracting attention from both the left and right by being more believable as a news host than Olberman?

Have you ever seen Olbermans Worst Person in the world routine? Its a trip, he claims he is neither a Liberal or Democrat, yet every person I've seen him depict in a negative way is either Republican or Conservative, go figure right? This is why I don't like him, at least with host like Glenn Beck, or Bill Oriley, you have individuals who are up front and honest of their positions, and you therefore get what you see. Are they always right? No, and on top of this
I'm not even demoting MSNBC as a creditable news channel, even if they lean more toward the left while I am a conservative. However read part of my response to this question in the original post......

Would it make sense for the Media to publicly align themselves with political ideologies? (Something like NYT = Left WSJ = Right.)

Good question, personally I think its fine so long as those who position there views on the left or right make sure they are upfront that there opinion is
in fact left, or right wing. This is why I watch Glenn Beck so much, he is honest and willing to talk about his political affiliation being conservative, and never fails to make it clear whether he is stating fact or opinion.

Many of these news show host state opinions based on there political affiliation from time to time, but the ones who admit this regularly are the ones who get my respect, I'll tolerate Colmes from FOX's Hannity and Colmes because of this, his is as liberal as a Californian teen rock star, yet dispite his political differences with me, there is no mystery with him. He is open about his political preference and even proud of it, and that I can respect, even if I do disagree with him as often as I do.

This last part I dint understand..........



What does that mean? Was that sarcasm in reference to O'riley or are you a conservative? "Highly doubt considering its not what your page says but you lost me on that statement"

Here's what I said net2007:



Here's how you changed it. You can paraphrase anything I write, but please do not change anything you put in quote boxs.





It was sort of a joke, but with as much talk as there has been about "liberal elitists," you shouldn't have too much trouble finding the answer if you look.

Um, I didn't change that, it was a serious question. I really didn't understand the nature of the comment and directly quoted what I didn't understand. I didn't add any words to it, it was a direct copy and paste of a comment of yours I didn't get. Lower the guard a bit, I'm not out to get you. However I guess I must assume if you are being defensive about it that it was no doubt something to be defensive about, i dunno.

Look, net2007, if I have to worry about you "getting" me then it's time to retire. You need to lower your self-appraisal.

Conservatives, including Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough and others have long talked about various types of elites - media elites, liberal elites, corporate elites, etc.

Listen for it and try to fit it into context.

Here's a quotation from Sean Hannity to get you started:



or here's another one...



http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/18/hannity-pathetic/

If I might be so bold as to return to the topic at hand here......


With scandals at the New York Times (Jayson Blair,) Rathergate, the fact that almost no one really trusts Fox News Network and the recent debacle at The New Republic why should anyone trust the media to be non-biased entities anymore?

Would it make sense for the Media to publicly align themselves with political ideologies? (Something like NYT = Left WSJ = Right.)



I think what's happened is that there has become a blurring between the lines of what constitutes news, and what is in reality opinion. It's an unfortunate trend lately, especially in television that news has become more about what "good TV" is rather than what is really news. It's a battle that's fought every day at television stations across the country between the true journalists and the "tv people", and unfortunately, the TV people are winning. O'Reilly isn't news, he's commentary, and so is Sean Hannity and Olbermann and Mathews and Dobbs and most of the others on the cable "news" stations. They don't report the news, they tell you what they think about the news. Frankly, I could care less what they think and thus I seldom watch them.

Newspapers used to be better because they maintained a separation between their editorial departments and their hard news people. The LA Times was and is pretty liberal in its op-ed sections, but when it came to reporting news, they were pretty darn good, at least under the old ownership. Not so sure about them anymore. I don't know that a news organization needs to identify their political affiliation, it's pretty apparent when one reads or watches it.


Aquilla

This was the original sentence in its entirety...



The reason I didn't get it I suppose is because it didn't make sense to me as a sentence, the last part as I'm rereading it would have made more sense if you had said """ You'll have to understand, I'm one of those elitists conservatives many so like to hate.""" rather than I'm one of those elitists conservatives so hate. it just threw me off for whatever reason. However I understand it now.

In light of what I think you meant now, I can tell you for one I don't judge based on political preference, perhaps other conservatives have cracked at you for your views that are obviously pretty far left, personally I don't know, and while somewhat amusing and resembling something Id say myself with the word conservative substituted with Liberal, I guess it is true that we get our share of nonsense on both sides of the table, however personally I'll comment on you sooner for things you may say than the party you may be affiliated with.

Instead of going any further into that I think its best we leave it at that. I think I know what you meant now.

I'm glad you figured it out. I'll agree to leave it there.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming, or as Aquilla put it:

I haven't trusted the media to be unbiased for quite some time....way before "Rathergate". Anything presented by human beings in going to be skewed in some way even without malicious intent, and we all know that the media picks its candidates. I'll never forget Tom Brokaw's indirect attacks on Ross Perot during that election campaign in the early 90s. And I think Brokaw was one of the least biased by comparison to most...in fact, he is still one of my favorite news commentators ever, but the rolling of his eyes and little jabs towards Ross Perot were unmistakable. I think that's when I first became jaded towards all things media. But since then, I've seen how accurate, innocuous information can easily be turned into a sort of attack, or simply lead the reader towards a different conclusion.

One of the reasons for this is to simply make the news more interesting. Authormusician did a thread on this a while back, entitled 'stupid journalist tricks', which was very informative. For example, take a straight story about a man whose dog attacks a child. He sees this, then runs over and uses his cane to rebuke the attack until he can get the dog under control. This story could be portrayed many ways, using information that is true but omitting context and information so as to lead the reader to form an erroneous conclusion:

Dog attacks child while owner watches!
Owner beats his dog with a cane in front of a traumatized child!
ect....

When military members deploy, their families (in my experience at least) are generally requested to not speak to the media for this reason. Whatever they say can and likely will be skewed to fit the fantasies of the story writer.

Edited to add:
If you go to the journalism department on your average campus and ask a random journalism major what his/her motivation is for going into journalism, you won't often hear, "I want to report the news!" It's usually more along the lines of "changing the world" or "making the world a better place" (try this, I have!). That subjectivity shows in their work. It has to.

As pointed out you are way off on FOX. They at least have tried to be more mainstream and less left biased as are ABC, NBC, etc. and they are reaping the rewards.


They do now. Does anyone think the NYT editorial page and most of the coverage is politically neutral? In fact most papers come out for one candidate or another at election time – enough said.