<p>And never forget: Over 50% of Republicans who got the majority of their information regarding international events from Fox News believed that WMD’s had actually been found in Iraq months after the Administration had publicly admitted that none were there to be found. I guess FF’s beef is that the majority of people who got their news from outlets he considers “leftist” actual had a grip on reality.</p>
<p>There was just a memo leaked where one of the Republican senators openly lamented the fact that thanks to the “liberal media” the American people understood the financial costs and number of casualties involved in the Iraq war. What would we he have had us believe about those things? Scary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gee, I wonder were the 36 or there-abouts percent who believe that 9/11 was an inside job get their news? They certainly have a grip on “reality” don’t you think? At least those who believe that WMDs have been found are technically correct since some indeed have been found.</p>
<p>I think there is definitely a legitimate role for the press to feel as advocates.
For example, the recent Washington Post series on conditions at Walter Reed appear to have led to a movement for change there based on a follow-up that appears in today’s edition of the Post.</p>
<p>I guess the question in this case is whether the Post was advocating for wounded soldiers or merely reporting on what its’ reporters saw.</p>
<p>The worst thing about the claptrap right wingers believe about the “liberal media” is that it’s impaired the right’s ability to govern. They don’t have to be accountable, they don’t have to govern well, because no matter how wrong things go, they can convince their base that it’s all the fault of the media for reporting it.</p>
<p>What’s happened at Walter Reed is a prime example. Over at the Free Republic site, instead of being appalled at the conditions in Building 18, some of the Freepers are calling for the reporters to be hung.</p>
<p>conyat,
how do you feel about the following story-should it have been published?</p>
<p><a href=“http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/cia_rushing_res.html[/url]”>http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/cia_rushing_res.html</a></p>
<p>
The media have long cooperated with government sources in distributing information for tactical purposes. Sometimes it’s a good thing; others, not. It’s hard to tell which one this is from here, although I assume that’s why the anonymous “government sources” and “officials” fed this info to the press. I’m not sure what the point is that you’re looking for here, Hawkette.</p>
<p>kluge, My point is not very well made, but more broadly I am concerned that the media is far more concerned about promoting its own agenda, its own ideology than in getting the story right. You may be right that this is merely a tactical move via governmental leak, but if not, the motives behind the story become more questionable. We will never know for sure, but some might argue that such a story impedes the US effort to capture OBL and makes very public our plans and some of our current actions. I DO NOT want to get into a right or wrong debate on the war, but rather the media’s depiction of this and other news and whether they do so from the point of view of an advocate or a reporter.</p>
<p>If the media is doing its job in “reporting” by definition there’s always going to be some bias, or some view point. Who are the sources for the story- the mayor? City council? Police? Victim? Every viewpoint is going to come from a different direction. A good reporter will seek out a variety of sources.</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. "</p>
<p>It worked for the left, which had control of the big networks and the NY Times, et al., so why would people who shared that view ever want to have an opportunity for the other point of view to be heard? Liberal talk radio was tried and failed due to lack of audience, not regulatory issues.</p>
<p>As if on cue, this article popped up today at USA Today. Titled “More Reporters Embrace an Advocacy Role” it spotlights a lot of the issues, concerns and frustrations that have been raised here. Take a look also at the comments at the end of the article.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2007-03-05-social-journalism_N.htm[/url]”>http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2007-03-05-social-journalism_N.htm</a></p>
<p>It was always surprising to read papers in other countries and realize that certain papers were known for having a right-wing, left-wing, pro or anti-government bias, because we were used to the press in this country being pretty “fair and balanced.” You didn’t have to know in advance what the paper’s agenda was, unlike in other countries where an agenda was taken for granted. That is not true any more.</p>
<p>Plus the line between entertainment and news has been so blurred (we DO like our entertainment) that often the media are creating the news. 24-hour stations means something, anything, needs to be produced to feed the insatiable entertainment maw. They call it “news” when it’s just gossip and opinion. And we sit there and watch it. (Well, I don’t.) ;)</p>
<p>Fox ran the Libby verdict with the headline: Libby found not guilty of lying to FBI investigators. (Even though he was convicted on one of the two counts of lying to FBI investigators, and convicted on all three of the other three perjury charges).</p>
<p>Someone should file a huge truth-in-advertising claim against them over the fair and balanced schtik.</p>
<p>While I am no fan of Lindsay Graham or this war, here is another example of what I hate about the media. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm[/url]”>http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm</a></p>
<p>Uh, Drudge Report is not necessarily an unbiased source. This was clearly an leaked report to Drudge. The unnamed official’s characterization of the CNN reporters questioning may or may not be accurate. It could have been just plain old tough questioning that McCain, Graham, or administration officials are seeking to discredit.</p>
<p>This is not political, however, have any women noticed that Shepard Smith on the Fox Report is extremely easy on the eyes? Or is it just me?</p>
<p>“This was clearly an leaked report to Drudge. The unnamed official’s characterization of the CNN reporters questioning may or may not be accurate.”</p>
<p>A leaked report about a live press conference?</p>
<p>As a liberal, I do believe that the right-wing media has far much too power as shown in Fox News and talk radio.</p>
<p>However, as far as government regulation is concerned, I am not sure how comfortable I am with the fairness doctrine. As I was born only a year before it was repealed, I have grown up with out it. It seems to me that the fairness doctrine would be against the 1sst amendment. </p>
<p>Although the success of Talk Radio/Faux News should not go to the conservatives head. It really only shows that the demographics that the predispositions to those types of media outlets(especially talk radio) are inherently conservative. Think of it like Gerrymandering, but more on a demographic scale.</p>
<p>What really worries me is the massive amount of “entertainment news” over hard or relevant news stories. How much about Anna-Nicole Smith do we need to know?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t seen the press conference. The wire service reports characterize the news conference somewhat differently than the unnamed official who e-mailed the “exclusive” to Matt Drudge. The wire service reports characterize McCain as being “testy”, unwilling to discuss his characterization of being able to drive around Badhad in unarmored Hummvees.</p>
<p>When the media is called upon to cover a photo op, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for them to ask some hard questions. If McCain got prickly, he got prickly.</p>
<p>interesteddad,
The politics of the situation may be obscuring the original question of what is the role of the media. Journalism today seems preoccupied with trying to create “news” and this is not what I, and probably you, want. Personally I object to activism on any side-right or left. Give me the facts, give me some context, but don’t try to give me a slant. Give me both sides and let me draw my own conclusions. Give me reporting-don’t give me advocacy.</p>