Posted on 07/11/2004 9:18:35 PM PDT by quidnunc
Edited on 07/11/2004 9:50:27 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
When Fox News Channel was founded by Rupert Murdoch, the consensus was that no startup all-news cable channel could possibly compete with CNN, and if any startup had a chance, it was MSNBC, which had the combined clout of NBC's esteemed news division and Microsoft, which in those days was believed to own the future.
Now, almost a decade later, Fox News Channel has left both CNN and MSNBC in the dust. There's no guarantee that this is permanent, of course. But it certainly has the left in a panic. They hated it that American conservatism had any voice at all, back when it was confined to a few radio talk shows — remember how everybody wanted to blame Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk-radio hosts for the Oklahoma City bombing?
Now, though, to have Fox News Channel be the source for the largest portion of America's TV news junkies just sticks in their craw. How could such a thing happen? Scott Collins, author of "Crazy Like a Fox: The Inside Story of How Fox News Beat CNN," thinks he has the answer.
It's not what Fox claims — that the American news media have a pronounced and painful liberal bias, so that huge numbers of Americans had given up on TV news, only to return in droves when Fox News offered them a balanced, trustworthy source of information. No, it's that a large number of Americans believed that the news was biased. How they got this idea is that they were … hmmm … idiots? But no matter. Mr. Collins repeatedly states that the perception is what mattered, and by homing in on the audience dumb enough to think the media was biased, Fox News won the ratings race (but not, of course, the race for quality news coverage).
I'm painting Mr. Collins's book far too negatively, and I'm doing it deliberately. In fact, you can finish "Crazy Like a Fox" and think you have received a balanced story. Nowhere does Mr. Collins actually say that Fox News viewers are idiots. But Mr. Collins is a product of the liberal American news media, which are deeply offended at any accusation of bias. They don't twist the news — they inform their readers of the truth. And when they see Fox News trumpeting slogans like "we report, you decide" and "fair and balanced," they see red. They take it for granted that those slogans are true of every news outlet except Fox News.
So when Mr. Collins sets out to write a fair and balanced account of Fox News's triumph, he does not realize that his own reporting is biased, too. He scrupulously avoids demonizing the folks at Fox News.
But the bias is there. It is simply taken for granted that Fox distorts the news, that Fox is unusual for taking sides, while all of the allegations about liberal bias are refuted so that one could close this book believing that liberal bias in the vast majority of the American news media is a delusion shared only by dimwitted conservatives who don't like it that the world has passed them by — and blame the messenger.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Yeah!
Like, "Can you prove that others' besides yourself have minds and aren't just pre-programmed robots?"
Like, "Are you aware that Albert Einstein laughed at pop-culture junk scientists like Carl 'The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be' Sagan, when he acknowledged that, "The harmony of natural law ... reveals an intelligence of such superiority, that compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
I'm a news junkie, but it's getting to the point where I can't watch/read it.
There is a Nobel Laureate named Buchannan who developed an economic theory of politics - one conclusion of which is that there is no point in becoming a Congressman unless you pass laws. That is, power isn't power unless you use it, so everyone who gets power uses it - and even if it ain't broke, Congress will still fix it.If you apply that to PR power, you conclude that PR power isn't PR power unless you use it to in one way or another induce people to believe something which is not so. So journalists have to put something over on the public to prove that they are somebody, and the bigger whopper they can gull people into, the more of a somebody they are.
And the whopper that they can agree on is that "the sky is falling" - so you had better buy the paper and read all about it. And vote for whoever slings blame for "the problem" the best - vote for a lawyer like Edwards rather than a manager like Bush or Cheney.
Hmmm; old news, eh? Good to see the WSJ pick it up even if they are running a little behind.
FGS
There really needs to be another term for the "mainstream media".
Indeed. I like Orwell's about as well as any:
FGS
"the sky is falling" - so you had better buy the paper and read all about it. And vote for whoever slings blame for "the problem" the best - vote for a lawyer like Edwards rather than a manager like Bush or Cheney."
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm? :-)
Agreed to a point; "If it bleeds, it leads" mentality. It only explains part of their obsession with things utopian. I'd be willing to bet journalism as a profession(?) generally attracts non-producers. After all, what do they actually have to do to make a paycheck? Parrot the party(utopian) line? I knew there was a reason I never liked English 101.
FGS
See post #67
Close - it'sMiasmaStream Reporters.
Here in NC we've got a former beauty queen (D) running against Rep. Robin Hayes (R). Her experience qualification is working for the TV WEST WING show. Her main campaign contributions have come from the producers and staff of that show.
She wasn't exactley attractive, she was somebody's sister who tagged along that night.
After crying for awhile, she went home.
Thank you. :^D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.