Still, a drop in ratings at Fox News has to be a good thing.
Before Fox, many in the media scoffed at the notion of a liberal bias and figured only a handful of people really believed that, said Erik Sorenson, former MSNBC president.I love this quote. The way it's phrased, it's as if the media really is liberally biased, and FOX, being "fair and balanced", exposed that bias. Reality, of course, is that FOX is conservative, but the Republican Lie Machine has convinced people that it's not, and so the MSM looks liberal. If the MSM was liberal, they would be working hard to nail the Republicans to the wall for all the lies told since Bush was placed in office in 2000 (we'll ignore the lies that came before, during the Clinton years).
4 comments:
Dave, I tend to agree that there were no real “liberal” mass media outlets before we were all informed that the media was liberal and Fox news came on the scene. Then, in reaction to Fox news, liberal media did emerge in an effort to combat the so called “fair and Balanced” BS spouted by Fox News. I loved Colbert’s comment on this, that he loves Fox news because they give both sides of the story: the president’s side and the Vice president’s side.
I read this great article from GQ August by Tim Carson. Carson said, while speaking about the growing importance of comic news platforms: “maybe the term ‘fake news’ didn’t gain currency until John Stewart and the Daily Show came along, but O’Reilly’s boss, Fox news head Roger Ailes, deserves credit for pioneering the concept. . . think about it: Didn’t Fox’s transparently tendentious ‘fairness’ do more to make us aware of the phony dimension of TV news than Stewart, whose humor simply takes advantage of that awareness?”
Hum, so true. R
The "liberal" tag was around before Fox was a gleam in Roger Ailes eye. I think it really kicked into gear with Nixon and has been accelerating ever since.
But the funny thing is that the "conservatives" of that era couldn't get elected today because they'd be too liberal.
My pesonal opinion is that the media as a whole isn't really all that liberal or conservative. Both sides blame them for their respective biases so I'm inclined to believe the problem is with the audience. I believe it is located right between their ears.
I believe that Dan Rather did the fox folks a heap of good and the dems a heap of harm in the last election. That might have fueled the media baised thing.
js
As I understand it, in the MSM, the reporters are liberal (and dont you really have to be, to ask questions?), but the management is conservative. So they're pulled both ways. I think the problem is less with the bias (people on both sides complain, so most papers' bias probably runs to center), but with the lack of real content. Who really gives a fuck about stars, except, unfortunately, the public? But does the public not care because the MSM doesnt tell them, or does the MSM not tell them because the public doesnt care?
I had an arguement once with a friend, where I complained bitterly about the lack of variety in the music on the radio. He replied that the stations were merely playing what the public wanted to hear. I said a good DJ would play what the public ought to hear, which even as I said it sounded a bit suspect. Nevertheless, surely a good balance could be reached, where the public gets their "hits", but we dont pander to the lowest common denominator?
In news as well as music.
Post a Comment