White house goes after Fox News

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Which is worse: Obvious lies and, for lack of a better word "trolls" - or subtle believable lies?

I think that every media outlet tells subtle believable lies. Let's look, for the moment, at the coverage of Fox vs. the White House:

On Wednesday, CNN's Campbell Brown did a story about Fox v. MSNBC v. The White House (near the end here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../28/ec.01.html ).

Now, there are lots of Fox watchdogs who sit there in wait to point out each and every factual inaccuracy and bizarre example of bias that goes beyond bias into "huh???" (ie- "terrorist fist jab" stuff). So when people talk about Fox's bias-- even aside from their Opinion People-- I don't question it, having seen the evidence. I haven't seen the evidence on the other side. I'm not sure where it is. And Brown doesn't try to prove that there is such bias, or even give one example. So we'll assume she's talking about the opinion people, which Fox and MSNBC certainly both have.

Opinionated cable news hosts have a valid but very different role. They either cheerlead or criticize. And in doing so, they connect with those who agree with them. They validate the opinions of those on the left and on the right. They provoke one another; they fight with one another, and, yes, they entertain us. And in a polarized country, that gets big ratings.

I'm not critical of what my friends at Fox News and MSNBC do, but it is apples and oranges when compared to what we at CNN do.

Now, I don't watch Brown. So what she does may be apples and oranges compared to people on both sides. But it's a flawed comparison. It's suggesting that CNN doesn't have opinion people.

And so it seems she's forgotten Lou Dobbs. Who certainly has an opinion that's not always based on.. say.. facts (birtherism). And if he gets viewers, that's great for CNN and they should go with that. And don't think that I'm against the birthers existing and having their say on national television-- the times I have laughed the hardest in the past few months have easily been related to Orly Taitz and when she is eventually disbarred and has to go back to her dentistry practice it will be a VERY sad day for comedy.

But for Brown to suggest that CNN is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from either Fox or MSNBC because what CNN does is serious journalism--- if you ignore the people who aren't doing serious journalism-- isn't journalism either. It's supporting your employer because you like having a job. Which I really do get.

There is no high horse here. The most trusted source in news, it seems to be revealed again and again, really is the Daily Show. Sure, certain people at MSNBC peddle their particular viewpoints. But that doesn't make them unique from any other news network.

[Bayou Bum]

The most trusted source in news, it seems to be revealed again and again, really is the Daily Show.

That would explain a lot, including how Obama got elected. The Daily Show is not news. It is news parody or satire, and biased at that. It is truly sad how anyone could rely on the Daily Show for their information. For those who do, please don't vote!

[MyrddinsPrecint]

That would explain a lot, including how Obama got elected. The Daily Show is not news. It is news parody or satire, and biased at that. It is truly sad how anyone could rely on the Daily Show for their information. For those who do, please don't vote!

http://people-press.org/report/319/p...on-revolutions

That Pew study from a few years back shows Daily Show/Colbert audiences near the top of national and international knowledge levels. There was a more recent study with a much smaller bank of questions that put each show near the middle of the pack.

No, it's not news. Yes, they pretty clearly state that.

But people are still getting a surprising amount of information through this medium.

[Inquartata]

She's weak too.

My goodness. There's no satisfying you, once you've gotten an opinion between your teeth, is there?

When you posted the link I honestly thought it would be a rigorous interrogation of his analysis.

There's no time for that on 98% of the shows on television, alas. Maybe he'll turn up on "Charlie Rose" one day soon...

Instead I learnt that the PBS anchorwomen thinks that if you're 36 years old then your opinions count for nothing.

Then it wasn't so much learning as interpreting. Clearly, she was asking a question of him that has occurred to a lot of people, not necessarily speaking her own mind. That's what journalists do, if they're not pundits in disguise.

I'm 27, so from this point on disregard anything I say.

It's not a matter of all or nothing. Age is however a valid factor to consider. There is simply less time to pack knowledge into ones head in 36 years than in 56. Is this controversial to you?

Perhaps if he'd been challenged on his beliefs, rather than his entitlement to have them, then he would have.

You miss the point, I think. The point is, why should we weight his opinions or judgements more heavily than those of the many others who have not grandstanded with a melodramatic resignation after a whole 5 months in-country?

But if you simply must have a criticism of his beliefs, I'd start with this one: His presumption that people of a very different culture, background and set of circumstances must think and conclude and decide much the way he would if he were in their shoes is highly suspect IMO. So to say that we've been in a place X years and spent Y dollars and dropped Z bombs and the locals still don't express gratitude or love for us means that they cannot ever be won over betrays a bit of a personal cultural bias, don't you think?

I'd love to see an analysis of mobile phone/communications technology that was available then and not now.

Wait---what?

Where did I say anything about communications devices?

Do you think communication and intelligence are the same things?! Or what?

I'd be even more interested to see the number of military hardware in the country then and now.

Well, the Taliban don't seem to have anything resembling the Stinger missiles we supplied them with when they were fighting the Soviets. They aren't shooting down a lot of fighter planes and helicopters, as they were back then...

Of course we could also make the point that many historians now reject the whole 'the US supplied stinger missiles and won the war' thesis.

Do they?

I'm sure that you have citations?

That Pew study from a few years back shows Daily Show/Colbert audiences near the top of national and international knowledge levels.

And correlation proves causation?

Tsk. ( I need a wagging-finger smily. )

But people are still getting a surprising amount of information through this medium.

Are they? Or might they already have the information and are just tuning in becauuse they find the show entertaining?

[MyrddinsPrecint]

And correlation proves causation?

Tsk. ( I need a wagging-finger smily. )



Are they? Or might they already have the information and are just tuning in becauuse they find the show entertaining?

Okay. Strike "But people are still getting a surprising amount of information through this medium. "

Replace with "If we're going to suggest these people not be able to vote because of ignorance, we're going to have to disqualify a lot more people as well"

Clearly either these people do get information from these shows or get it somewhere else, but regardless, it seems a bit rash to remove them from voting rosters....

[Bayou Bum]

Okay. Strike "But people are still getting a surprising amount of information through this medium. "

Replace with "If we're going to suggest these people not be able to vote because of ignorance, we're going to have to disqualify a lot more people as well"

Clearly either these people do get information from these shows or get it somewhere else, but regardless, it seems a bit rash to remove them from voting rosters....

Damn. The correlation issue was already addressed.

Disqualifying more people sounds like a great idea.

There are a lot of good quotes from the article though ... for those who like Rush for example:

Internet news sources, National Public Radio, news magazines, and Rush Limbaugh's radio show have the best educated audiences, with each of these having at least 36% of their regular readers and listeners having graduated from college.

Maybe I should listen to him sometime and see why he has the best educated audience.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Disqualifying more people sounds like a great idea.

Why?

{plus characters}

[I_luv_saber]

I think that every media outlet tells subtle believable lies.

Sure they do, to an extent. But when generalizing, are we really going to generalize Fox as subtle? Compared to MSNBC? Really? I mean, come on... I just refuse to believe that people who are not already particularly leaning that direction are more likely to believe a lie from Fox than MSNBC. I would think this is somewhat obvious.

Now, I don't watch Brown. So what she does may be apples and oranges compared to people on both sides. But it's a flawed comparison. It's suggesting that CNN doesn't have opinion people.

Sort of. I think what she's alluding to is more the fact that Fox is a bastion of the right and MSNBC is a bastion of the left, whereas CNN swings about a bit. Sure, they have opinion people... they all do, even newspapers have their Op-Ed section. But that's not CNN's schtick. I mean, Fox has some real news that isn't super biased, but being a real news organization isn't their gig. Their gig is to be a show geared for people on the right. Same with MSNBC for the left.

CNN, while having opinion people, isn't really "geared" for a particular side.

I've noted in the past CNN swings with popularity ("newswhores") in order to grab the audience that does not watch Fox or MSNBC. They're all in it for the ratings, they're just catering to different sectors of the market.

There is no high horse here. The most trusted source in news, it seems to be revealed again and again, really is the Daily Show. Sure, certain people at MSNBC peddle their particular viewpoints. But that doesn't make them unique from any other news network.

Sure, absolutely. What my stance has always been is that all of the networks are companies. And as companies, they are looking to do one thing: make money. They all just do it in different ways. Fox hits the right, MSNBC hits the left, and CNN and the other mainstream news networks fight over everyone else.

Daily Show makes it's money on the fact that we've always loved picking on government, and in times such as these where American's trust in government is at an all-time low, they do even better. And it serves it's purpose. It serves to help us keep in mind we shouldn't always trust the government. But I don't think that automatically qualifies it as a good news source.

So, what it all boils down to is this: I don't watch Fox because they are trying to get money by catering to the right, so their programming is naturally going to be right leaning. MSNBC is trying to make money by catering to the left, so naturally their programming will be left-leaning. CNN is trying to nab the attention of mainstream America, so they will broadcast any silly sensationalist story so naturally their programming is focused on glitz and not focused on important matters (also they will swing more in the direction that's currently popular).

Do they incorporate elements from each other? Sure. But I think it's a reasonably accurate generalization.

Bearing that generalization in mind, my question was is obvious-bias really much worse than subtle-bias? One seems more morally wrong for a journalist while the other seems more actually damaging...

[pigeonmeister]

It's not a matter of all or nothing. Age is however a valid factor to consider. There is simply less time to pack knowledge into ones head in 36 years than in 56. Is this controversial to you?

I think it was the absence of any other critique apart from his age that was controversial to me.

You miss the point, I think. The point is, why should we weight his opinions or judgements more heavily than those of the many others who have not grandstanded with a melodramatic resignation after a whole 5 months in-country?

I think we are missing each other's points. I'm saying that we should challenge his analysis by presenting counter-arguments. I am obviously aware that others hold a contrary view (whilst others with equal experience hold similar ones). When publicly expressing a negative opinion is either an act of resignation or likely to land you a court martial, regardless of the validity of the argument, it is going to be in a minority within the public areana.

But if you simply must have a criticism of his beliefs

You make it sound as if this is somehow a dispensable or distracting excercise!

I'd start with this one: His presumption that people of a very different culture, background and set of circumstances must think and conclude and decide much the way he would if he were in their shoes is highly suspect IMO. So to say that we've been in a place X years and spent Y dollars and dropped Z bombs and the locals still don't express gratitude or love for us means that they cannot ever be won over betrays a bit of a personal cultural bias, don't you think?

Wow, another point without any specific operational, historical or political reference to Afghanistan.

This is a red herring. Anything an American says, either in support or in opposition to escalation, can be argued to be a product of cultural bias.

At some point you might actually have to make a specific argument or counter-argument. I'll help by asking a simple question- what is the current political and military objective in Afghanistan?

Wait---what?

Where did I say anything about communications devices?

Do you think communication and intelligence are the same things?! Or what?

Communication= COMINT. It is a means of intelligence gathering and dissemination. One that, like internet propaganda, was not available to the same extent in the 1980s.

What's more, I think that if you talk to anyone who has served, or read some of the books (such as Gerald Shumacher- Colonel in SF unit in Afghanistan), you would know that the Afghan's local intelligence is far superior than American (and far more decisive).

However, you also provide no evidence to suggest that US intelligence sharing was decisive in the Soviet defeat.

I see you skipped over the drugs revenue.

Well, the Taliban don't seem to have anything resembling the Stinger missiles we supplied them with when they were fighting the Soviets. They aren't shooting down a lot of fighter planes and helicopters, as they were back then...

Yes, but they do seem to have more sophisticated IEDs and no lack mines, mortars, small arms etc. Soviet helicopters were not arbiters of democracy promotion. But I will accept that American air superiority is uncontested.

However, if air superiority was the key then we wouldn't be talking about putting 40,000 more boots on the ground. In fact everyone could go home and any 'bad guy's could be blown up by pilots or (even better) drone pilots who get to go back to their Virginia suburbs after every shift.

I'm sure that you have citations?

"The widespread assumption that the stingers turned the tide of the war, forcing Moscow to sue for peace, flies in the face of an objective assessment of the militayr situation on the ground during 1985, 1986 and 1987."

Diego Cordovez, Selig S. Harrison p.199

See also Mark Urban, Alan Kupperman, Craig Karp (amongst many others)

[chase]

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Bearing that generalization in mind, my question was is obvious-bias really much worse than subtle-bias? One seems more morally wrong for a journalist while the other seems more actually damaging...

Coming from nearly 20 years in the news business, here's my take:

1. The cables generally have a niche ideological basis. That's how they attract their audiences. CNN in its infancy was an exception, attempting to do on a 24-hour basis what ABC, NBC and CBS network news did for a half hour each evening.

2. The real problem I see with the Fox News cable organization is that it pretends to be impartial news: "We report, you decide," when it clearly is not. Over time, when organizations that do not hew to the generally accepted standards of journalism enshrined in the 1st Amendment pretend that they do so, then the trust of the public is diluted for all journalists.
And frankly, there is not an abundance of trust in the first place for journalism, and that cynicism already portends poorly for the prospects of an informed populace.

I just don't think it helps anyone for such a rabidly partisan organization as Fox News cable to equate itself with other actual journalistic organizations, because if that kind of "reporting" eventually becomes what most people equate with "journalism" then the bottom line facts of any situation or issue can hardly ever be made clear.

And that doesn't make for effective voting or public policy.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Sure, absolutely. What my stance has always been is that all of the networks are companies. And as companies, they are looking to do one thing: make money. They all just do it in different ways. Fox hits the right, MSNBC hits the left, and CNN and the other mainstream news networks fight over everyone else.

Now, Chris Matthews ain't any kind of liberal in my book, but I understand he has been affiliated with parts of the Democratic party so I'll not argue this one.

But please explain how Joe Scarborough, who is in charge of 3 hours of programming, who was a Republican in the US House of Representatives, leans to the left. Or even caters to those who do.

[I_luv_saber]

But please explain how Joe Scarborough, who is in charge of 3 hours of programming, who was a Republican in the US House of Representatives, leans to the left. Or even caters to those who do.

... I think you must have missed this part:

Do they incorporate elements from each other? Sure. But I think it's a reasonably accurate generalization.

...

I'm not saying MSNBC is 100% liberal programming, but it's obviously meant for a more liberal audience.

... this is getting silly. If we can't even agree MSNBC is mostly liberally biased, there's no point in proceeding further...

[I_luv_saber]

2. The real problem I see with the Fox News cable organization is that it pretends to be impartial news: "We report, you decide," when it clearly is not.

This is what I'm saying. Fox is very obviously (to most people) biased, whether or not they claim otherwise. There's just no question. Since most people know it's biased, most people are probably not going to take them on their word. MSNBC, the line is a little fuzzier, and people are more likely to believe the crap that comes out of there (not saying it's all crap, but when it does come around, it's more believable).

Over time, when organizations that do not hew to the generally accepted standards of journalism enshrined in the 1st Amendment pretend that they do so, then the trust of the public is diluted for all journalists.
And frankly, there is not an abundance of trust in the first place for journalism, and that cynicism already portends poorly for the prospects of an informed populace.

I think that's a fair statement.

I just don't think it helps anyone for such a rabidly partisan organization as Fox News cable to equate itself with other actual journalistic organizations, because if that kind of "reporting" eventually becomes what most people equate with "journalism" then the bottom line facts of any situation or issue can hardly ever be made clear.

I agree. Also, please don't take any of this as me defending Fox. Trust me, I'm not.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

... I think you must have missed this part:



...

I'm not saying MSNBC is 100% liberal programming, but it's obviously meant for a more liberal audience.

... this is getting silly. If we can't even agree MSNBC is mostly liberally biased, there's no point in proceeding further...

Here's the problem--- They are compared as equals. "Fox is on the right, MSNBC is on the left"--- only that's not true. Fox is on the right all day, and it seems to be regardless of if it's news or opinion.

MSNBC is to the left at night. But during the morning, it's at least centrist if not tipped to the right. I have not seen any data or even examples that suggest that MSNBC's programming that's not their nightly opinionish shows or Morning Joe are biased in any way.

I'm happy to read a link, I'm happy to listen to examples. And you may have provided them on page 2/a lot. I haven't seen them. I've seen plenty of "Fox caught being a dick", and not a lot of "MSNBC caught being a dick", and that's partially because of what I watch/where I go. I do not know where to find the examples--- the actual examples, not just the commentary-- of MSNBC telling the lies. But I have no evidence that this point of the egregious leanings of anyone other than Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. And, seriously, Rachel Maddow is pretty up front about her leanings. Not so much with your complained "subtlety" there. Keith Olbermann has probably never been accused of being subtle about anything.

it's not that I'm never going to believe it, it's that you haven't even tried to convince me. You consider it a premise taken for granted, I don't.

[Inquartata]

I think it was the absence of any other critique apart from his age that was controversial to me.

You must have missed the part about his having only been in Afghanistan for a few months...and the real question, which was "Who are you to say what the United States should be doing, when there are others who have been there longer, studied it for years, and so forth?"

I think we are missing each other's points. I'm saying that we should challenge his analysis by presenting counter-arguments.

That would be a better plan had he bothered to do the same for the arguments which his rationale was labeling 'wrong'. But I haven't seen any of that---just "I've talked to people and have concluded that the consensus analysis is wrong". So why should we treat him more fairly?

When publicly expressing a negative opinion is either an act of resignation or likely to land you a court martial,

I beg your pardon?

What it's "likely to land you" is a book deal and a lucrative spot on the lecture tour.

And mark my words, there is a book.

Wow, another point without any specific operational, historical or political reference to Afghanistan.

Add "the Aghanis", if you must. It doesn't change the criticism of an American who clearly believes that everyone everywhere thinks and reacts to things just like he would, and bases his conclusions on evaluations of what he would think or do in their circumstances...

This is a red herring. Anything an American says, either in support or in opposition to escalation, can be argued to be a product of cultural bias.

Are you doing so? If not, you're attacking a straw man.

I'll help by asking a simple question- what is the current political and military objective in Afghanistan?

Since I'm neither in the military or the government, I have no idea.

And neither do you.

The difference between us is that I know that I don't know...

Communication= COMINT. It is a means of intelligence gathering and dissemination.

Sigh...

Where do you get your definitions, anyway?

If I tell you some bit of intelligence on your cell phone, that does NOT make your cell phone an intelligence tool...

If I get some bit of intelligence by listening into your cell phone conversation, that doesn't make your cell phone an intelligence tool, either. It may make the technology I used to intercept your signal one, but when I pick up the sat phone to call the Pentagon to report on what I've learned, my sat phone is not one.

What's more, I think that if you talk to anyone who has served, or read some of the books (such as Gerald Shumacher- Colonel in SF unit in Afghanistan), you would know that the Afghan's local intelligence is far superior than American (and far more decisive).

Hilarious.

Maybe you could muster a specific quote?

However, you also provide no evidence to suggest that US intelligence sharing was decisive in the Soviet defeat.

Nor am I likely to do so.

I see you skipped over the drugs revenue.

How is it relevant to the essential difference between the Soviet and American Afghan experiences, viz. having a superpower supporting the enemy insurgency?

Are you saying that the support of drug lords is as valuable as the support of a superpower?

Soviet helicopters were not arbiters of democracy promotion.

Dude, stick to the subject!

The point here was that aircraft are high-value assets, and destroying large numbers of them was one of the main factors in bleeding the Soviets dry fiscally in Afghanistan. Yes, depriving their ground forces of air support was also important, but the Soviets lost there mostly because their economy could not sustain the costs being imposed on it any longer. Those costs were imposed largely as a result of American help. Field expedients like mortars firing chains, while impressive in their cleverness, were just not going to do what Stingers could do in that respect.

"The widespread assumption that the stingers turned the tide of the war, forcing Moscow to sue for peace, flies in the face of an objective assessment of the militayr situation on the ground during 1985, 1986 and 1987."

Diego Cordovez, Selig S. Harrison p.199

See also Mark Urban, Alan Kupperman, Craig Karp (amongst many others)

Were these written by guys aged 36 who had spent five months in country, by any chance?

[Inquartata]

2. The real problem I see with the Fox News cable organization is that it pretends to be impartial news: "We report, you decide," when it clearly is not. Over time, when organizations that do not hew to the generally accepted standards of journalism enshrined in the 1st Amendment pretend that they do so, then the trust of the public is diluted for all journalists.

Heh, probably they're just following the examples of the pols they cover, who are always telling us that they're there to serve our interests and help us, when clearly they are not...

[Inquartata]

I've seen plenty of "Fox caught being a dick", and not a lot of "MSNBC caught being a dick", and that's partially because of what I watch/where I go.

Or maybe entirely because of what you watch?

I mean, from whom are you going to hear about them? Jon Stewart? The other major networks? Not likely.

You might hear about them from Fox, probably not from any other source on TV. But you don't watch Fox, so...

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Or maybe entirely because of what you watch?

I mean, from whom are you going to hear about them? Jon Stewart? The other major networks? Not likely.

You might hear about them from Fox, probably not from any other source on TV. But you don't watch Fox, so...

Welcome to the age of blogs and YouTube. Usually, when there's something particularly exciting, it shows up online. When it comes to conservative/republican leaning online media, I mostly only pay attention to TheNextRight.com, and they've been spending their time worrying about the real issue of NY-23 rather than this media issue.

So I readily admit that if that evidence exists, I wouldn't have it. But if someone believes it to be true, they might have seen evidence for the bias. They might have a better idea of what to google to get this information than I do. If someone can get me some data/evidence/etc, I'm happy to look at it. And, seriously, I'm not looking for a Pew Study, I'd be happy with a Daily Show type clip created by some blogger somewhere.

But I really don't have to settle for "because I said so! Everyone knows it's true!" . I also don't have to settle for "you don't know because you don't watch the right things, trust me I'm right". We have an internet, it's useful for evidence in arguments.

tl;dr: http://xkcd.com/285/

[I_luv_saber]

Here's the problem--- They are compared as equals. "Fox is on the right, MSNBC is on the left"--- only that's not true. Fox is on the right all day, and it seems to be regardless of if it's news or opinion.

Which is why I was pointing out Fox is far more blatant with it.

I'll even go so far as to say MSNBC's obvious bias to the left is not as extreme as Fox's obvious bias to the right - but that doesn't mean they aren't still heavily biased.

And citing criticisms of Obama on MSNBC doesn't disprove bias (that was thrown about somewhere in the thread, IIRC). Fox bashed McCain quite a bit too, but I don't think anyone will argue that proves they are not biased .

I'm happy to read a link, I'm happy to listen to examples. And you may have provided them on page 2/a lot. I haven't seen them. I've seen plenty of "Fox caught being a dick", and not a lot of "MSNBC caught being a dick", and that's partially because of what I watch/where I go.

Do we really need to bring up the "oddly cut" video of the man with the semi-auto at the town hall meeting again?

it's not that I'm never going to believe it, it's that you haven't even tried to convince me. You consider it a premise taken for granted, I don't.

Yes, I do very much consider that premise very self-evident. To me, this is akin to saying "Well, Fox news is biased and up front about it, but at least they present both sides".

Having a TV on 24/7 in the lobby, I've watched a lot of news. It doesn't take more than 15 minutes of viewing to see Fox and MSNBC is biased. MSNBC is just more smart about how they go about it.

Honestly, I don't feel compelled to record and cut together what I'm seeing to prove a premise I already see as amazingly obvious.

EDIT: It's even talked about in the Wikipedia article...