George Rebane
Well, it appears that they have all been doing it, and now are beginning to admit it. "Foxification" is the term the 9-15jul11 Economist used in its extended report on the future of news to describe news that is delivered with a known slant, commentary, or viewpoint. (more here)
This is nothing new, it was ever thus, and only the charlatans and morons in the journalism industry have claimed otherwise. The Economist itself makes no bones about it, and as “the world’s oldest newspaper” (1843) liberally sprinkles its own opinions into every news story it prints.
Journalists have forever been modifying, manufacturing, and mangling the news. The scandal with Murdoch's News International operation in Great Britain is only the tip of a recent iceberg that reveals the overzealous extremes reporters have gone to in order to give a leg up to whatever medium employs them. Readers familiar with the history of journalism will recall how in 1932 reporters broke into the mortuary housing the casket bearing Lindbergh’s kidnapped and murdered son. As Lindbergh described in his wartime journals, they tore the lid off the casket to take photographs of the baby’s mangled body.
The Economist’s survey of news reporting today concludes that with the entry of the internet, we are going back to the ‘coffee house’ format of disseminating news. News today comes from so many sources – verified, vetted, prioritized, etc, or not – that it most resembles the way people got the news before mass produced newspapers became its prime purveyors. In short, people then went to public houses, read pamphlets, corresponded with associates and family members, and shared what they had received - and all of it came with a slant of the writer or speaker.
Fox News has adopted a format in which it delivers a heavy dose of right leaning commentary and opinion programs that offset its delivery of “fair and balanced” news programming. Its ratings have soared, leaving in the dust liberal outlets like MSNBC and CNN who have continued to deny that they are anything other than the moronic model of objective journalism. Well, those days appear to be over.
Given the blatantly biased programming of outlets like the satirical Daily Show, leftwing Huffington Post, rightwing Rush Limbaugh, and countless blogs (RR included), we now have MSNBC's Phil Griffin admitting what everyone has known for decades about news outlets – “we definitely have a progressive sensibility, a sensibility to the left.” MSNBC will henceforth openly reflect this ideological perspective instead of continuing to push the bullcrap that it somehow avoided any ideological bias in its reporting. Look for the other members of the lamestream to soon follow this trend.
I believe that such openness will be a benefit, and as the Economist foresees, we will accept transparency as the substitute for objectivity. Spin it as you will, but your message will be more powerful and accepted, the more you can source/cite any factual claims that are made. At this point, dear reader, don’t come to confuse commentary (as is this) with those who claim to be sources of news.
Finally, the world’s oldest newspaper believes that the internet is making journalism better, and cites its own surveys that claim broad agreement with that belief (see online debate). The bottom line of it all is that “News is becoming a social medium again, as it was until the early 19th century – only more so.”
Great news source: http://www.zerohedge.com/
Posted by: Mikey McD | 18 July 2011 at 11:33 AM
Does anyone actually watch MSNBC? MSNBC is hard to look at, like one of the cars with dozens of "if the military had bake sales" bumper stickers on the back. At the first chance, pull around them and pass.
I dunno, I've very suspicious of all mainstream news sources these days, especially the 24-hour/day varieties. I mean, there doesn't seem to be more than a few minutes of "news" in any given day. And I wouldn't call the three million people who watch O'Reilly a sizable demographic. Compared to Rachel Maddow? I guess. But 15 million people watch inane shows like America's Got Talent. (Apparently America has talent, but not in the grammar department. Think Different.)
All of this worry about the objectivity of our news sources seems a bit of a tempest in a teapot. From the very beginning, except on rare occasions, our media sources have pandered to our lower instincts in search of wider distribution. The more sensational or incendiary a story, the more copies it sells. You really have to dig deep to get at the truth. And that requires work...like, reading and critical thinking.
I think criticism of the media is an important activity, one I wish more would practice. Those who claim outlets Fox News is some kind of conservative "balance" to other media organizations are merely entertaining themselves in some kind of fictitious mental battle between their side (the good one, after all), and those liar sacks of horse manure in the Liberal Media trenches. All folly, really. Coke. Pepsi. Democrat. Republican. Buy more. Sleep more. Vote less.
One a related note, did you ever seen so many life, home, auto insurance commercials during the recent televised Fukushima nuclear disaster? I counted one afternoon...in one hour, I counted over 15 insurance ads on CNN. We're a target demographic whether you watch Fox News, CNN, or the Daily Show. The more you watch (stare really), the more advertisers can convince you that using Axe Body Wash will get you more love because you currently stink. For the record, I do not stink. Not that much. Although I do have plenty of insurance.
Posted by: Ryan Mount | 18 July 2011 at 03:01 PM
I think the major difference between opinionated "news" networks is that MSNBC has always labeled themselves as progressive --- their newest tag-line being "Lean Forward" -- while Fox still insists that their "news" is "Fair and Balanced". There may be little truth in journalism left in our current world, but at least MSNBC is honest about their slant. Fox just attempts to convince it's sheeple that they are the only "real" news source.
Heidi & Atticus Uncensored (fellow SacConnect partner)
http://www.atticusuncensored.com
"commentary to give you paws..."
Posted by: Heidi Alberti | 19 July 2011 at 06:53 PM
Welcome Heidi! Are you differentiating between the opinion pieces (Hannity, O'Reilly, etc) and the straight news (Special Report, Shep Smith, etc)? I think the latter can make a case for 'fair and balanced' while the former don't because they admit their slant. Do you take exception to that?
Posted by: George Rebane | 19 July 2011 at 07:23 PM
MSNBC just this week decided to be out front and claim their news is slanted left. Before that they never did.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 19 July 2011 at 08:04 PM
When Murdock dies, his wife will have no say over the direction the news takes.
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 20 July 2011 at 12:03 AM
It's hard to not have a grudging admiration for Rupert Murdoch, a guy who loves newspapers and whose young Fox network signed up a then-young cartoonist named Matt Groening to develop an animated cartoon series to compete with NBC's Cosby Show. Doh!
Same with William Randolph Hearst, who employed an army of cartoonists for half a century, starting with the famous "octopus" cartoon depicting the strangulation of California's commerce by the Big Four monopoly.
Posted by: RL Crabb | 20 July 2011 at 08:09 AM
US History, taught through the medium of historical cartoons, could be a great addition to our public schools. Yes, I am aware of the Cartoon History of the USA (or some such title), popular back in the 70's. It was not exactly unbiased...
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 20 July 2011 at 10:54 AM
Murdoch's father broke the Gallipoli fiasco of WW1. There was a huge waste of Australian young men on the killing fields of Thraqcian Turkey. He is quite a success and the scofflaws of life always try to destroy people like him. Sarah Palin comes to mind and now Michelle Bachmann.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 20 July 2011 at 05:17 PM
The problem with the left is that you don't think of themselves as left. Somehow the left has become the middle, at least in their minds. Bernie Goldberg nails it in "A Slobbering Love Affair". You'd think the abysmal ratings would clue them in.
I still watch most all the cable news stations, along with C-Span and The Cal Channel. Getting the bullshit straight from the whore's..uh, I mean horses mouth is usually the best source.
Fox isn't much better. Just slanted in a different direction. The hosts of Fox and Friends (In the Morning)are as funny as The Three Stooges, and about as smart.
Posted by: RL Crabb | 21 July 2011 at 01:53 PM
FOX has the best looking women. LOL. They also talk about things that were never talked about by the traditional media. I used to throw stuff at the TV because Blather and his pals only talked to lefties and when they talked to a righty they demeaned them. Same with the newspapers. The front page story would have the libs all the way to the bottom and you had to go to the back and bottom paragraph before a conservative viewpoint. This still goes on today and I am finally able to feel less angry because the internet and FOX, along with Rush, and many others give us stuff we want to hear and can agree with.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 21 July 2011 at 06:33 PM