A few (lengthy) comments (lengthy because this is a real sore point with me)….
Note: I have no journalism background and no affiliation with any media company. So my takes on the inner workings of the media can certainly be taken with a grain of salt. And I don’t mean to imply that the mainstream media doesn’t have some bad apples or neve…
A few (lengthy) comments (lengthy because this is a real sore point with me)….
Note: I have no journalism background and no affiliation with any media company. So my takes on the inner workings of the media can certainly be taken with a grain of salt. And I don’t mean to imply that the mainstream media doesn’t have some bad apples or never does something wrong. But I believe that they tend to self-correct for the reasons that I give below. It isn’t 100% to 0%, but it’s nowhere near 50 – 50.
1) There is a bad and a worse side to this issue. The bad side can be summed up by the phrase “both sides do it”. When I hear someone say that I assume that they don’t have anything relevant to add to the conversation and just want to move on. But it is also an admission of laziness. It’s just easier to say that than to actually think about how accurate it might be (the degree to which “both sides do it” is not nearly the same for all issues).
But whether born of apathy or laziness, “both sides do it” is an attempt to create a false equivalency between the conservative and “other” media (basically any major news organization not named Fox or OANN or Gateway Pundit or Newsmax). But there is certainly no equivalency to be found.
Every news organization is going to have some bias. It’s not possible to be alive and not have some bias. So if you watch MSNBC and Fox, you will see both of them cover stories that make the “other side” look bad. And they both occasionally make factual mistakes. But there is one huge difference between these two sides. The folks in the “other” media may be biased, but they don’t make stuff up (or so severely twist reality that it might as well be made up).
And why should this be? I believe it’s because of two reasons. The people who work at the “other” media have an internal compass that requires that they be as honest as they can be. It’s what is expected of them. They really care about getting it right, even, as JVL has pointed out, down to the small and sometimes seemingly irrelevant details. They have journalistic integrity.
On the other hand, I have heard Hannity twice say that he isn’t a journalist, he’s a talk-show host. I’ve never heard him answer what that means. Does it mean that we aren’t supposed to take anything he says seriously? Does it mean that he doesn’t bother to try to present an accurate picture? Whatever it means to him, it sure doesn’t sound much like journalistic integrity. And Glenn Beck’s catchphrase is “The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment”. One has to wonder where the “entertainment” ends and the “enlightenment” begins.
The second reason is because of their audiences. I believe that, by and large, consumers of the “other” media want a reasonably accurate story. And they will hold those providing inaccurate or patently false stories in low regard (as they should). They will lose significant credibility. And they might very well lose their jobs.
The conservative media folks look at things differently. They know their audience and they know that their audience isn’t all that interested in facts or a true telling of the tale. They know that their audience just wants someone to repeat some conspiracy theory. The “facts” that are used to back up the story don’t matter all that much. All that matters is that someone has made them feel good by attacking the election or Biden or Clinton or The Deep State or the DOJ or the FBI or George Soros or ….
Two examples come to mind. The first one is the defamation lawsuit e-mails in which the nabobs at Fox (Hannity, Ingraham, Carlson) knowingly broadcast a story that they themselves didn’t believe (and when I say “didn’t believe” I mean they thought it was nuts). And those same e-mails documented their worry about losing viewership. But their concern about lost viewership wasn’t because they were afraid that their audience would find out they were lying to them. It was because they weren’t lying ENOUGH to them. They knew that they needed to up their game by lying even more (remember Carlson trying to get some Fox staffer fired because she “fact checked” (in this case a euphemism for “telling the truth) some tweet from Trump).
The second example is Chris Stirewalt whose duties at Fox included making accurate election predictions and beating the competition. And he was fired for (wait for it) making an accurate election prediction and beating the competition. And that was because his prediction angered Trump and the Trumplicant base (the fact that he was right didn’t enter into the equation). So when faced with a choice between truth and placating their viewers, Fox chose journalistic dishonor (as did their viewers).
I guess I could throw in JVL’s example of David Asman saying that a Ford F-150 Lightning could be had for $10K. Why would he say that? Because a large part of Fox’s audience either doesn’t like electric vehicles per se or doesn’t like them because Biden is pushing them. And if Biden is for something, they must be against it. And people like Asman must cater to them. For Newsmax is always waiting in the wings.
And his promise to provide the telephone number of the person who could back up the $10K claim reminds me of Jenna Ellis’s response to Rusty Bowers’ request to see the evidence of voter fraud that she and Giuliani claimed they had: “I didn’t bring it with me”.
These examples show that Fox isn’t a “news” network; it is a “narrative” network.
What this boils down to is this: the “other” media folks care first and foremost about getting the story right. Impact on their audience is a secondary concern. And they have the force of their audiences to help keep them in line. Conservative media has it backwards. They care more about the audience impact and less about getting the story right. And they have the force of their audience pushing them in the wrong direction.
The worse aspect of this issue is the fact that most of the conservative media viewers believe that it is the conservative media that is the source of truth and light, and it is the “other” media that is lying to us. It used to be SOP on either Limbaugh’s and Hannity’s show to hear callers claim that he is “the only one telling us the truth”. It’s “Alice-in-Wonderland” journalism.
2) A lot of the above applies to politicians as well as the media and their audiences. Just as with the media, both Republicans and Democrats will spin things to make themselves look better. But the major difference is that the Democrats don’t just make stuff up. Last week, JP reported that Jim Jordan claimed that Devon Archer didn’t say that Joe Biden had nothing to do with Hunter Biden’s businesses – a claim that is contradicted by the official transcript of Archer’s testimony. Think that Jim Jordan didn’t know that was a lie? Or that he will lose any credibility with the Trumplicant base because he lied?
But a guy like Riedel who tells the truth – that can’t be allowed.
and all of what you describe tells us why we dont hear the democrat messaging that Sarah and others are looking for. Where do they do it? And how does boring, true stuff overcome sensational, arousing, untrue comments?
One of the most distressing parts of the Trump era to me is that it represents the triumph of emotion over logic. The idea that emotional stories carry more weight is not new ("if it bleeds, it leads") but Trump has taken it to a new level. And as long as the cult of Trump remains, there is simply no reaching the true cultists. And Fox et. al. isn't going to help bring any real information to those folks. They are a lost cause. I continue to hope that the marginal Trump supporter (the "I'll-hold-my-nose-and-vote-for-Trump" person) can be persuaded next year with the pertinent data.
A few (lengthy) comments (lengthy because this is a real sore point with me)….
Note: I have no journalism background and no affiliation with any media company. So my takes on the inner workings of the media can certainly be taken with a grain of salt. And I don’t mean to imply that the mainstream media doesn’t have some bad apples or never does something wrong. But I believe that they tend to self-correct for the reasons that I give below. It isn’t 100% to 0%, but it’s nowhere near 50 – 50.
1) There is a bad and a worse side to this issue. The bad side can be summed up by the phrase “both sides do it”. When I hear someone say that I assume that they don’t have anything relevant to add to the conversation and just want to move on. But it is also an admission of laziness. It’s just easier to say that than to actually think about how accurate it might be (the degree to which “both sides do it” is not nearly the same for all issues).
But whether born of apathy or laziness, “both sides do it” is an attempt to create a false equivalency between the conservative and “other” media (basically any major news organization not named Fox or OANN or Gateway Pundit or Newsmax). But there is certainly no equivalency to be found.
Every news organization is going to have some bias. It’s not possible to be alive and not have some bias. So if you watch MSNBC and Fox, you will see both of them cover stories that make the “other side” look bad. And they both occasionally make factual mistakes. But there is one huge difference between these two sides. The folks in the “other” media may be biased, but they don’t make stuff up (or so severely twist reality that it might as well be made up).
And why should this be? I believe it’s because of two reasons. The people who work at the “other” media have an internal compass that requires that they be as honest as they can be. It’s what is expected of them. They really care about getting it right, even, as JVL has pointed out, down to the small and sometimes seemingly irrelevant details. They have journalistic integrity.
On the other hand, I have heard Hannity twice say that he isn’t a journalist, he’s a talk-show host. I’ve never heard him answer what that means. Does it mean that we aren’t supposed to take anything he says seriously? Does it mean that he doesn’t bother to try to present an accurate picture? Whatever it means to him, it sure doesn’t sound much like journalistic integrity. And Glenn Beck’s catchphrase is “The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment”. One has to wonder where the “entertainment” ends and the “enlightenment” begins.
The second reason is because of their audiences. I believe that, by and large, consumers of the “other” media want a reasonably accurate story. And they will hold those providing inaccurate or patently false stories in low regard (as they should). They will lose significant credibility. And they might very well lose their jobs.
The conservative media folks look at things differently. They know their audience and they know that their audience isn’t all that interested in facts or a true telling of the tale. They know that their audience just wants someone to repeat some conspiracy theory. The “facts” that are used to back up the story don’t matter all that much. All that matters is that someone has made them feel good by attacking the election or Biden or Clinton or The Deep State or the DOJ or the FBI or George Soros or ….
Two examples come to mind. The first one is the defamation lawsuit e-mails in which the nabobs at Fox (Hannity, Ingraham, Carlson) knowingly broadcast a story that they themselves didn’t believe (and when I say “didn’t believe” I mean they thought it was nuts). And those same e-mails documented their worry about losing viewership. But their concern about lost viewership wasn’t because they were afraid that their audience would find out they were lying to them. It was because they weren’t lying ENOUGH to them. They knew that they needed to up their game by lying even more (remember Carlson trying to get some Fox staffer fired because she “fact checked” (in this case a euphemism for “telling the truth) some tweet from Trump).
The second example is Chris Stirewalt whose duties at Fox included making accurate election predictions and beating the competition. And he was fired for (wait for it) making an accurate election prediction and beating the competition. And that was because his prediction angered Trump and the Trumplicant base (the fact that he was right didn’t enter into the equation). So when faced with a choice between truth and placating their viewers, Fox chose journalistic dishonor (as did their viewers).
I guess I could throw in JVL’s example of David Asman saying that a Ford F-150 Lightning could be had for $10K. Why would he say that? Because a large part of Fox’s audience either doesn’t like electric vehicles per se or doesn’t like them because Biden is pushing them. And if Biden is for something, they must be against it. And people like Asman must cater to them. For Newsmax is always waiting in the wings.
And his promise to provide the telephone number of the person who could back up the $10K claim reminds me of Jenna Ellis’s response to Rusty Bowers’ request to see the evidence of voter fraud that she and Giuliani claimed they had: “I didn’t bring it with me”.
These examples show that Fox isn’t a “news” network; it is a “narrative” network.
What this boils down to is this: the “other” media folks care first and foremost about getting the story right. Impact on their audience is a secondary concern. And they have the force of their audiences to help keep them in line. Conservative media has it backwards. They care more about the audience impact and less about getting the story right. And they have the force of their audience pushing them in the wrong direction.
The worse aspect of this issue is the fact that most of the conservative media viewers believe that it is the conservative media that is the source of truth and light, and it is the “other” media that is lying to us. It used to be SOP on either Limbaugh’s and Hannity’s show to hear callers claim that he is “the only one telling us the truth”. It’s “Alice-in-Wonderland” journalism.
2) A lot of the above applies to politicians as well as the media and their audiences. Just as with the media, both Republicans and Democrats will spin things to make themselves look better. But the major difference is that the Democrats don’t just make stuff up. Last week, JP reported that Jim Jordan claimed that Devon Archer didn’t say that Joe Biden had nothing to do with Hunter Biden’s businesses – a claim that is contradicted by the official transcript of Archer’s testimony. Think that Jim Jordan didn’t know that was a lie? Or that he will lose any credibility with the Trumplicant base because he lied?
But a guy like Riedel who tells the truth – that can’t be allowed.
and all of what you describe tells us why we dont hear the democrat messaging that Sarah and others are looking for. Where do they do it? And how does boring, true stuff overcome sensational, arousing, untrue comments?
One of the most distressing parts of the Trump era to me is that it represents the triumph of emotion over logic. The idea that emotional stories carry more weight is not new ("if it bleeds, it leads") but Trump has taken it to a new level. And as long as the cult of Trump remains, there is simply no reaching the true cultists. And Fox et. al. isn't going to help bring any real information to those folks. They are a lost cause. I continue to hope that the marginal Trump supporter (the "I'll-hold-my-nose-and-vote-for-Trump" person) can be persuaded next year with the pertinent data.