All biases are not equal
Now that FoxNews has been fully outed as a mouthpiece for the GOP (but there are still some who don't realize this), the argument has shifted somewhat to comparison mode. Conservatives can no longer argue that all the media is liberally biased, so the argument has shifted to comparative mode. The cons have FoxNews and the Dems have CBS, and the two sides are arguing all the rest of the media is on their opponent’s side.
For now, let’s just focus on FoxNews and CBS. The cons have tried to equate the two. They want us all to believe that they are each equally serving a biased agenda. Any quick look at the two, however, will show they are not equal at all. (This is written with the assumption that the reader is familiar with both networks.)
FoxNews runs its politically charged content twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The vast majority of CBS’s programming, however, is non-news. The evening news, two 60 Minutes episodes, and Sunday morning shows are only a small fraction of CBS’s weekly schedule. Just on the comparison of time spent on news, the two networks don’t compare.
Where CBS can’t hold a candle to FoxNews is tone. CBS does journalism the old fashion way. They have decades of journalistic standards to live up to. (This is not to say that CBS actually meets those standards, but the bar they have set for themselves is high in the traditional sense.) FoxNews has no such tradition or standards. Unburdened by any personal tradition to uphold, FoxNews goes straight for the sensational. There is no statement, insinuation, or tactic beyond them. When CBS’s Rather used allegedly forged documents about President Bush, the rest of the media raked CBS over the coals for the error--even though the factual content was never challenged and has been verified. The mystery of the documents isn’t the point here. CBS was held to a high standard of journalism. FoxNews, however, routinely distorts facts, takes quotes way out of context, and even allows its hosts to blatantly take sides on issues (and yes, it’s always the side of the GOP). The network’s favorite phrase is “some people say”, which is a low-handed tactic to inject the speaker’s comment without having to own up to them. These different approaches are not equal by any measure.
This not to say that there aren’t biases at CBS. But they are subtle. For example, on this past Sunday’s 60 Minutes were segments dealing with a reopened racist murder case of a black boy and a bit on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show. These segments were not slanted to favor an agenda. They were responsibly handled. However, the bias (such as it may exist) is in the programming. The producers chose these two topics over all the other possible topics. It’s arguable that the murder case is to remind black voters about the oppression they have lived with, to bring back the anger to the black voter--an anger they have long used to vote Democrat. And it’s arguable the Jon Stewart bit is to point CBS’s very mainstream audience to the somewhat left-leaning cable program, The Daily Show--which would help the show’s ratings and encourage more left-of-center news (or quasi-news) programming.
FoxNews’s biases, however, are far from subtle. They shamelessly bring on guests who are willing to perpetuate the “Kerry is French” nonsense, and even air one program that begins with “x-number of days until Bush is reelected.” Hardly “fair and balanced.” And there are thousands of similar examples of such behavior by FoxNews and CBS. These are just examples. If you want to see ex-employees of FoxNews saying the same things, check out the "Outfoxed" DVD.
If there is any question that FoxNews embraces no journalistic standards, it is settled by this: FoxNews owner Rupert Murdoch has made it clear that he believes all news is opinion. And since no opinion can be declared wrong (for it’s just an opinion), then the messenger can make any assertion however unsubstantiated or contradicted by facts. Moreover, the facts themselves become opinion. That way, falsehoods and distortions become virtually immune to criticism. But the viewer should be wary of the danger to journalism and even democracy that this attitude presents. If the public is confused on the facts, then they must make decisions based on impressions and emotions--and that is when they become easy to manipulate.
So it is important for viewers to be able keep their sense of proportion. Just because both networks may be biased, it does not mean they are equally biased in all ways. CBS falls short of FoxNews in both veracity and air time. Pundits who wish to perpetuate the “liberal media” myth will, when shown the media isn’t actually liberal, try to fall back on the argument that “well, each side has their networks, so it’s a wash.” This is a trick. When conservatives don’t get a clear victory in an argument, they try to make it a draw by distorting the proportion of the facts. To the cons, a draw is a win (because it steals your victory from you).
One broadcast network with limited news time plus one left-wing radio network (Air America) does not begin to compare with the right-wing juggernaut of FoxNews, lazy corporate networks (check out Fighting The Tide’s earlier story on this), thousands of conservative radio channels, and dozens of GOP-stumping religious channels.
We’ll never get the media back on track, back to doing real journalism, until the viewers take a stand against the ham-fisted propaganda they are bombarded with these days. This is not an easy cause. Some days it seems as futile as standing on the beach and pushing back the incoming tide. But it must be done. Because if we don’t, the essence of our democracy is at risk. And then where would we be?
2 Comments:
And why does CBS have to right to try to influence an election under the disguise of a news story. Anyone born before 1980 could tell the difference between a page typed on a type writter verses one from a laser printer. I know Dan Rather has seen typewritten pages before.
CBS has lost any credibility that they ever had. They may as well register as a 527 and get it over with.
Thanks for your comment!
Every news story about politics will have its influence on an election. The issue isn’t whether it’s influential, but whether it can be substantiated.
It’s true that Rather presented a freshly typed document purporting it was 30 years old. But the CONTENT of the Killian memo was 1) old facts, not new; 2) verified by the secretary; and 3) not even contested by the White House.
The words: FACT.
The paper it’s printed on: NOT FACT.
Which is more important?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home