<p>With the increased polarization in American life over the past few years, it seems that the media likewise has become more polarized. As an active consumer of the news, I am concerned about what this means for the quality of the information that is being disseminated. Should the role of the broadcast networks, the major news dailies, the wire services, etc, be as an advocate of a certain political opinion or philosophy? Or should these news organizations attempt to portray news in deliberately even-handed way balanced between left and right, even if this means that the “edge” in a storyline is reduced, perhaps even significantly?</p>
<p>Media which strives for professionalism should “attempt” to portray the news in an even-handed way. I say “attempt” because true objectivity is impossible. As a consumer of news, I find that with experience I can tell fairly reliably what “news” is being reported with a goal of objectivity and what is being pushed to advance an agenda, although I am more likely to perceive bias in viewpoints which disagree with my own. :)</p>
<p>I agree with you that with blogs, tabloids, “shock jocks”, etc., Americans are becoming increasingly polarized in their viewpoints, which is probably not a good thing. A plausible story which promises a free lunch or responds to paranoid ideation for some segment of society will find an enthusiastic and uncritical audience, while uncomfortable reality and inconvenient truths will find themselves beset on all sides by arguments which will find willing supporters despite their lack of objective rigor. Examples? 9/11 conspiracy theorists, global warming deniers, pretty much the entire world view of Republicans who get the majority of their information from Fox News… ;)</p>
<p>The corporately owned media has no objectivity.</p>
<p>Media can act as either reporter or advocate. The issue to me is when a media outlet practices advocacy while insisting that it’s objectively reporting the news. New Republic and National Review do not pretend to be objective reporters; they are passionate about their advocacy for liberal and conservative points of view, respectively. I have no problem with that. But when the NYT, or CBS, or Fox start advocating for a particular person, position, or point of view, without placing such views in editorial context, then I do have a problem with that.</p>
<p>Rupert Murdoch recently admitted that Fox news tried to shape the debate on Iraq in favor of the President’s policies. What’s more, he didn’t even seem to think there was anything wrong with crossing the barrier from reporter to advocate. I think we badly need a return in this country to the fairness and equal time standards that prevailed up to the Reagan administration.</p>
<p>by definition, EVERYthing the popular press publishes is biased. Even if the article is extremely well-written, balanced and even-handed, the fact that some editor thinks it important enough to publish over something else just as well-written and balanced, puts the editor’s pov in the news. IMO, the press has way over-done AnnaNicoleSmith, given everything else going on in today’s world, but, obviously, EVERY editor in our nation disagrees.</p>
<p>I thought about this topic after returning from a recent trip to Europe. Portugal had a referendum recently on legalizing abortion and the TV reporting aggressively promoted the idea that this would be a huge and galvanizing issue to voters in a conservative country like Portugal. The only English-language TV channel that I had access to was CNN International (I just can’t follow those foreigners in their native tongues-they speak so fast!). Anyway, the reporter on CNN, in the days leading up to the vote, kept talking about how momentous this was and what a big issue it was in Portugal and that without a positive vote for abortion, then “thousands” of Portuguese women would end up dying in back alley abortions. I am pro-choice (though not rabidly so), but even I was turned off by the one-sided nature of his broadcasts. After the referendum, it was announced that only 44% of the Portuguese had even bothered to vote (50% must vote to make any change constitutional) and that those voting for change had a slight majority among votes cast. The CNN reporter clearly was disappointed in the result, implied that the Portuguese voters were lazy or stupid or both, and that the already elected government had to do something extra constitutional to make Portugal a modern country (he defined having access to abortion as being modern). It was blatant advocacy journalism, and even though I would agree with the Portuguese women having the right to an abortion, it’s their decision and not CNN’s. </p>
<p>We all know many examples in the media where the supposed objective reporter took a political side and moved clearly into advocacy. Virtually every thinking person I know wishes that the press would not do this and would just report the facts, give both sides and don’t so caught in giving a story an edge just to create a (sometimes false and misleading) headline. How do we get them to understand that this is not what we want? What are they teaching kids today in journalism schools across America?</p>
<p>I recall years ago running an errand one weekday and passing by an Allstate insurance building. There were half dozen women leaning on their protest signs while a local TV news people were getting equipment out of the van. 20 minutes later, I returned via the same route and everyone in front of the Allstate building was gone. Curious about what happened, I watch the local news and they had video of the “demonstration” with the story that Allstate’s premiums were unfair to women. This was my first exposure to a media event. What a scam, I thought. Without the news coverage, there would be no protest, and without the protest there would be no news coverage. What did these women say to the local news to get coverage? “We’re interested in shaping public opinion in favor of our cause and were wondering if you would be willing to be manipulated toward that end.” And the local news guy says, “Sure, it’s a slow Tuesday and we need another 90 seconds of video. Do you think you can march in a circle and chant for that long?”</p>
<p>Standrews, what’s wrong with that? I mean, if you’ve got the cash to hire a PR firm, you will get your point of view aired in a variety of ways. If you don’t have the cash, but are willing to do the legwork to get your half a dozen people walking around with signs, notify the press, etc., you get at least a little dissemination of whatever viewpoint you’re trying to get out. Equal Opportunity! Although I doubt that the press spent much time informing their viewers of the substance of whatever it was they were picketing about, so its not a very effective means of publicity, unlike the work of the pros.</p>
<p>
The media has been taking sides long before Reagan. The media, especially after the Tet offensive in Vietnam took a strong anti-war position. Walter Cronkite declared the war unwinnable after what objectively should have been reported as a resounding defeat of the Viet Cong and NVA. Lyndon Johnson’s famous quote which I’ve paraphrased was “if we’ve lost Cronkite, we’ve lost the American people.” From that point on the media lead the turning of the tide against the war and thus let North Vietnam get off the ropes and continue the fight.</p>
<p>I was speaking of a regulatory change in the FCC that occured during the Reagan administration.</p>
<p>An example of the regulatory changes that started in 1987 and were continued in 2000:</p>
<p>Under the old (pre 1987) rules, if someone attacked your character or the character of a small group on the air, the station was obligated to inform you and give you an opportunity to air your side. </p>
<p>No longer. One-sided character attacks with the attacked party having no opportunity to respond are perfectly OK, since 2000. An obligation for balance and fairness no longer exists.</p>
<p>No matter how the media reports news there will be inherent bias. It is impossible for the media to report on every potential story out there. That being the case, leaving a story out or spending a minimal amount of time on it, is in and of itself evidence of bias. I think actually the media should appropriately fill both roles as advocates and reporters.</p>
<p>
You mean that the networks would have to offer equal time for slurs like:
“Bush attacked Iraq for political reasons” (Kennedy)
“Bush betrayed his country” (Gore)
“republicans are evil” (Dean)
and that is just a sample from the Democratic leadership; there is also a vast amount of time owed because of the sputim that comes from the mouths of the likes of Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, Whoopie Goldberg, Sean Pean, etc., etc.</p>
<p>It’s an interesting concept, but I think the networks would really object to having to double the length of their newscasts, not to mention adding rebuttal time to the “entertainment” shows.</p>
<p>It worked in this country for a long, long time. And the rules were changed by the right wing, for the benefit of the right wing. The first main person to take advantage of the rules changes: Rush Limbaugh.</p>
<p>The right wing has control over the FCC. They could put the fairness rules back in place anytime they wanted. So it’s hardly likely that they’ve been more sinned against than sinning.</p>
<p>
Yes. I’m sure that the left enjoyed its monopoly of the media for that entire period of time. Now they see some other views being presented and they start to whine.</p>
<p>That’s a total misrepresentation of the fairness laws, which were all about equal time for opposing viewpoints. You should be ashamed.</p>
<p>But you’ve just given us all an object lesson on why the right wing opposes fairness and truth telling in the media, so thank you for that.</p>
<p>No, the misrepresentation of the “fairness laws” was the name itself. There never was any sort of balance in the media before. Now the left complains about someone like Rush Limbaugh. What is his audience size compared with CBS+NBC+ABC+CNN+MSNBC? And, who goes to hear Rush Limbaugh thinking that they are hearing journalistic “news”?</p>
<p>When Rush first came on the air, he billed himself as a journalist. I used to listen to him believing he was what he claimed to be; I don’t remember now how long it took me to see through the charade. And before you condemn me for being too naive, just think of all the people who listen to Bill O’Reilly today believing they’re in a “no spin” zone. </p>
<p>There was indeed balance. Editorials had rebuttals, for example. When was the last time you saw that? What you’re decrying is that there was a lack of partisan spin in your favor. Well, you should be happy, you’ve got it now in spades. Look at how lies like “Nancy Pelosi requested a 747” are repeated over and over again by all the major networks, even after they’re revealed to be utter balderdash.</p>