RE: More enthusiasm than news in Fox's coverage of war

From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Mar 29 2003 - 12:46:53 MST

  • Next message: John K Clark: "Re: [Iraq] More enthusiasm than news in Fox's coverage of war"

    gts writes

    > Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
    >
    > > I like FoxNews the best, and find that in the "Foreign
    > > Policy" realm; Fox/Republicans are spot-on.
    >
    > Well, yes, the FOX/Republicans are most definitely spot-on *if you want the
    > GOP point of view*. You can't do any better than FOX's analyst Newt
    > Gingrich! Gingrich is no longer in politics but he's still a major god of
    > the party.

    Yes. Of course, Gordon, one factor that influences your posts
    is your own political viewpoint. You might not be so conscious
    of it (or you may be), but your own sympathies for the points
    of view expressed by CNN color your judgment; for example,
    in calling Fox News "for morons". You would, for example, never
    hear me say anything of the kind about stations whose coverage
    were biased in a direction different from my own.

    I don't see too much TV, but I do pick up the same bias between
    the cable stations as the rest of you have affirmed. But I can
    hardly criticize you favoring CNN and Mitch favoring Fox News
    because each of you is actually learning more from your respective
    stations.

    I need to get into this concept further when I have time to reply
    to Hal's post on "ideological blinders", but here is what I think
    is going on. Suppose *you* try to watch Fox News. So many of
    the attitudes that seep through, and so many of the conscious and
    subconscious presumptions they make just don't fit your view of
    the world. So the presentation doesn't wholly make sense to you,
    seems insipid, and less intelligent.

    Mitch and I, on the other hand, learn far more readily from the
    cable stations which share our biases. The information we
    pick up further elaborates our own views, supplementing them
    with facts. You on the other hand would have a lot of criticism
    of these supposed "facts", and find them not so digestible.
    Vice-versa when Mitch or I watch Dan Rather or Peter Jennings
    disparage the American effort in every way that they can within
    the bounds of propriety.

    > By the way, I sent a message a couple of hours ago in which I stated that in
    > my opinion FOX News is a news network designed by and for morons. I hope you
    > don't think I was referring specifically to you.

    No, of course not. You just meant conservatives in general.

    > I just have some pretty strong feelings about this subject.
    > I think bias in the media should be investigated and exposed.

    I totally agree. The standard should be this:

       CAN OR CANNOT A REASONABLY SOPHISTICATED VIEWER DETERMINE
       THE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY OF THE REPORTERS, WRITERS, AND
       NEWS DIRECTORS?

    I would like to see the existence of at least three kinds of
    stations:

        1. Those who pass the above test of objectivity
        2. Those who very obviously and clearly lean
           towards the left, and present information
           at a high level, in depth analysis from a
           leftist point of view that EXPLAINS what is
           going on to a leftist audience.
        3. The exact same thing as (2), except for
           rightists.

    (And the list 1, 2, ... could be extended indefinitely
    to cover libertarian and "progressive" views, etc.)

    What has been criminally unfair in American media for decades
    and decades is the bastards under (2) above pretending that
    they were of type (1). I had to endure this from 1960 right
    through 1988. Only in 1988 was a conservative allowed a
    national audience so that he could EXPLAIN and articulate
    in a comprehensive manner of (3) above how the world appears
    from the point of view of my ideology. The screams about
    Rush Limbaugh have not died down to this day. Finding their
    monopoly on public news challenged, the liberals have even
    attempted to pass "equal time" legislation that would force
    radio stations playing Rush and his imitators to provide
    one on one rebuttals to everything said!

    And if you think that I will *ever* forgive Walter Cronkite,
    Dan Rather, and Peter Jennings for their politicizing, their
    constant insidious and underhanded tainting of the "news",
    you are quite mistaken.

    (Just last year that rascal Dan Rather was complaining overseas
    that to be opposed to the American administration (read Bush),
    was to risk being "necklaced", reminiscent of the frightful
    torture and death of dissidents in South Africa. And this is
    what has passed for forty years as "objective" American media.)

    Lee



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 29 2003 - 12:47:28 MST