Asymmetrical Information

Oh dear. This is what bothers me about liberals. I am completely in favor of fox news. I think it's awful and wrong and cruddy. I only read the NY post for page 6 (very good gossip), but I am in favor of them existing. I don't really consider what they do journalism. It doesn't even pretend to be fair, unbiased or accurate (nor do most media outlets, so please don't think I'm picking on Fox or the Post alone), but I don't begrudge Fox and the Post's continued efforts to earn a profit.

It's statements like that from the left which give real liberals a bad name, because real liberals (IMHO) believe we can agree to disagree. The goal of the true liberal is that the demand for FOX or the Post disappears, not that the words never were allowed to be spoken, or never had an outlet. How awful. How wrong.

The irony is that the same people who hate Murdoch in the local markets probably also hate Charlie Ergin in the Sat markets (which only helps Murdoch).

I like Fox News -- even with its irritating "Fox News Alert" -- which is usually as much about some nobody forgetting to match their socks than about real news. Nonetheless, it really sucks that the FCC, led by Michael "my daddy got me this job" Powell, screwed the pooch on the Echostar-Hughes merger; leaving the whole ball of wax to Murdcoh to consolidate his global monopoly.

*That* should get people pissed, not his style of programming.

Let me start by saying that there are some elements of FOX that I dislike (John Gibson for one).

I think there are two important point in regards to FOX and whether or not its biased. First, FOX is clearly programmed in a manner that attracts and retains customers. This is potentially dangerous since this establishes a reason to "skew" the news. However, this issue isn't unique to FOX. NPR and the New York time also have customers and constituencies that they attempt to satisfy.

So to some extent I am sympathetic to arguments that FOX is "structurally" biased but unsympathetic to the notion that FOX is more biased than anyone else.

My second point is that because of the prevalence of what is frankly silly anti-americanism out there it may be that unintentionally FOX actually ends up with the LEAST biased coverage.

If we consdier the recent war coverage one can say that FOX spends less time discussing the negative impacts of American policy (civilian casualties, etc) than its competitors or more generally that FOX short changes the Iraqi / Arab point of view. Therefore if your lense is based on notions of moral equivalence FOX is far to pro American. However if your perspective includes an appreciation of the history of warfare and the Arab world then FOX's coverage is far more legitmate than that coming from Al-Jezeera or the NY Times.

Hunh?

FOX is more pro-american because it ignores a whole side to the war in Iraq? I would think that it would be more pro-american to present both sides of the story and then perhaps make editorial opinions on either side. That's what the jobs of journalists are.

Again, I have no issue with the material FOX presents, but journalists are supposed to complain and make noise and point out all the flaws in the government's logic. That's their role in a democracy. Otherwise we have Pravda telling us what the government wants us to hear, which means this government gets away with a whole bunch of stuff that it's not supposed to.

I know the NYTimes has a liberal bias, I understand that, but I recall it covering all sorts of nasty democratic scandals, and saying quite harsh things about the Clinton administration. I doubt that FOX would ever say anything against the Bush administration. And while I don't begrudge them the right to say anything they want, I don't consider it journalism and I won't watch it.

It amazes me what any smart person will believe because it makes them right, and I feel that's what FOX news does (btw...the NYTimes does the same thing sometimes and I find that pretty offensive too).

Once again, to say we'd be better if FOX never made it on the air is just wrong thinking tho'.

Fox does an excellent job of covering the news. It is indeed fair and balanced---and this is what truly angers Liberals. They are used to preventing conservative dissenting voices from getting prime airtime. Fox goes out of its way to make sure differing opinions are offered to the viewers. It is a vicious slander to compare Fox News to the New York Times and CNN. The latter are definitely biased media entities which distort the truth.

Alas, I must also add a few comments regarding the fatuous American Prospect. This publication caters to Neo-Liberals like Josh Marshall who apparently lack the guts to rock the boat. When push comes to shove, these folks are going to put their tongue up the rear ends of the Liberal establishment. Marshall made me want to puke when he finally decided against the invasion of Iraq because it supposedly would damage our relations with the Old Europeans.

The previous post is evidence of what I meant by "It amazes me what any smart person will believe because it makes them right."

Fox is the arbiter of fair and balanced journalism? Stop listening to their ads and listen to what they actually report.

I don't think there's any question that Fox has a point of view. The thing that's different about Fox is that they are conscious of having a point of view. They'll run the loonie left's comments in nearly every "debate" context; this is rather distinct from the other news nets.

The point is that I'd far prefer a news net that has a point of view, and is aware of it and of a need to balance it, to a news organization like CBS where the bias is unthinking and unconsidered.

I find it odd and somehow disturbing that this has turned into a Fox is biased discussion...didn't anyone read CNN's apalling op-ed in the times last Friday? *That's* bias.

Sheesh.

If someone would point out an example of bias interfering with Fox's journalism I might accept it. Now, don't get me wrong I can see the idealogical difference (and I'm not talking about the pundit shows) but I fail to see the effect of the bias.

I don't doubt the newcasters at Fox have a biased view of the world, we all do, and it is going to affect their work. But just because Sheppard Smith grins when delivering some good news for our side, and shows chagrin with the bad news doesn't neccesarily mean his bias in anyway changes the content of the news. After all, it may gall you, but if the content is not seriously affected so what.

From what I have heard the majority of the complaints relate to what is considered improper cheerleading. It may leave a bad taste in your mouth, so change the channel

"Fox does an excellent job of covering the news. It is indeed fair and balanced---and this is what truly angers Liberals."

is this an ironic statement?

i understand that you might like fox news, but a question for you david: do you think that the ny times or npr has a liberal bias? if so, why not subscribe to the view that fox has a conservative bias?

i think what the american prospect is doing is trying to do what much of the conservative press has attempted to do quite successfully over the recent past--ignore the other viewpoint, and promote their own views. that is a reason why cmany conservatives hate paul krugman--he has become an effective attack dog, using the same techniques that cons and neo-cons use. yes, that is not a classical liberal approach, kate. but liberals are not dealing with folks who play by those liberal rules. consider: the guardian is a liberal paper (just look at steve bell's cartoons!) but it does a pretty good job of presenting both sides of the issue. i would not expect that from the ny post. even the ny times has its fair share of conservative commentators. and even if it is liberal, its not as liberal as many folks make out. it is plugged firmly into the (liberal & conservative) establishment.

i do not think the liberal viewpoint is lily white in all this, but they at least they have tried to show something of the other side. consciously conservative media today, for the most part, don't bother trying. maybe that is a wrong perception of mine. but it is a growing one that is shared by more and more folks. just like the "media is liberal and biased" myth. and it can do conservatives a great deal of harm in the long run if they don't reel it in. an ounce of prevention...

cas,

.....paul krugman--he has become an effective attack dog, using the same techniques that cons and neo-cons use. yes, that is not a classical liberal approach, kate. but liberals are not dealing with folks who play by those liberal rules.

cas, what are liberal rules? a 360 degree analysis without any inference or opinion but i find it in a very few journals out there. opinion more often than not has filtered into the front pages of most journals.

krugman is an effective attack dog? krugman is a poor commentator, usaully getting lost in his own rhetoric. he lacks both wit and edge.

go to the pages of the nation or the new republic, corn immediately comes to mind on the left whereas any of the wsj commentators come to mind on the right, both can be razor sharp with twist of humor. my favorite page is the FT as it mixes a wide range of opionion.

IMHO Krugman would be better off if he just out-and-out lifted Josh Marshall's work instead of trying to rewrite it (poorly).

I think it might have been nice, in an article which is all about balance, to point out that the linked article monstrously misrepresents the views of Calpundit's Kevin Drum.

hi twd,
"go to the pages of the nation or the new republic". yes i do. would you classify tnr as a "classic liberal" magazine? i don't get the sense of the weekly standard gives the same breadth of views (but i admit that i have not read it for as long a period). does ft stand for "financial times"?

as for krugman. your response is the point--he raises passions on the right of the political spectrum (and on the left). he can be dismissed in all sorts of ways, but he has become an effective irritant for exactly the characteristics that you decry him for (a less jarring rush limbaugh? ann coulter?). in the past, there would have been a greater consensus that the actions of one-sided commentary were unproductive, but i do not see that consensus anymore. its a nietzchean world of competiting wills to power out there.

cas, ft does stand for the financial times. as for your comments on krugman, krugman is consistently fisked on his positions (which he porports as facts, Kaus is a good reference). there is just no entertainment value; begala is a much better example of good entertainment.

I think it might have been nice, in an article which is all about balance, to point out that the linked article monstrously misrepresents the views of Calpundit's Kevin Drum.

I think we can assume that anyone inclined enough to click the link will probably also be inclined to read the comments, no?

>> "Fox does an excellent job of covering the news. It is indeed fair and balanced---and this is what truly angers Liberals."

> is this an ironic statement?

I wonder what the response to "The NYT/CNN does an excellent job of covering the news. It is indeed fair and balanced---and this is what truly angers Conservatives." would be.

> i do not think the liberal viewpoint is lily white in all this, but they at least they have tried to show something of the other side.

Oh, they'll show something, but the bias is in what they show. Gun control is the classic example, with abortion a close second.

What? That's not what you meant?

>>I think we can assume that anyone inclined enough to click the link will probably also be inclined to read the comments, no?

Not necessarily. I, for example, never read comments as people who post comments are invariably full of crap.

so andy,
"What? That's not what you meant?" are you saying that fox is not biased?

"Again, I have no issue with the material FOX presents, but journalists are supposed to complain and make noise and point out all the flaws in the government's logic. That's their role in a democracy. Otherwise we have Pravda telling us what the government wants us to hear, which means this government gets away with a whole bunch of stuff that it's not supposed to."

I think the primary role of the press is to report the truth. Pointing out the flaws in government's logic can be a public service but I'd rather have the straight facts first and foremost. Then I can decide on my own whether the gov't is trying to pull a fast one.

"I think the primary role of the press is to report the truth."

The added problem is the emphasis given to a particular story. Why are some ignored while others get front page coverage. The very selection of a news report says a lot about a news organization.

> "What? That's not what you meant?" are you saying that fox is not biased?

Effective communication requires some some shared context. To achieve that end, I try to use the same meanings as those that I'm conversing with.

For example, if someone says "the NYT is not biased", I'll reply "fox is not biased". If, on the other hand, someone says "the NYT is biased", I'll reply "fox is biased".

I wonder how DSquared feels about ""The NYT/CNN does an excellent job of covering the news. It is indeed fair and balanced", with and without the "---and this is what truly angers Conservatives." closing.

Thanks for the link, Jane!

Dsquared -- I did not "monstrously misrepresent" Kevin Drum's views at all. I said that he endorsed Tomasky's "broader point." Here's what Kevin wrote: "But that's a quibble, and Tomasky's overall point is well taken: it's time for mainstream Democrats to stop being such wallflowers."

Ah, Matt, is "monstrous" a new epithet or has it been flung at you before? Nice piece by the way.

"The added problem is the emphasis given to a particular story. Why are some ignored while others get front page coverage. The very selection of a news report says a lot about a news organization."

Exactly. Maybe I should have said "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

Matt Welch got off easy. He’s merely described as a monstrous misrepresenter. Dsquared is the same individual who called Steven Den Beste a "grave robbing cunt."

My feelings are hurt. He merely considers me to be some sort of idiot who cites books that I've allegedly never read. Why can't I be called a #@%&*%? What's wrong with me?

I just found the following on Slate.com. These are the conclusions reached by Mickey Kaus concerning the New York Times:

"(Tim) Golden seems to have quit in large part because Raines spiked investigative pieces about New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli that would have run before Torricelli pulled out of his re-election race in October, 2000. Golden's sources subsequently turned to a TV station, which ran the stories that finally appeared to drive Torricelli from the race.

It seems likely that the Times, not WNBC, would have delivered Torricelli's coup de grâce—had Raines not killed key stories in the heat of the election campaign.

Remember -- and, I agree, it seems like six years ago rather than six months -- that at the time control of the Senate was hanging on a single vote. Retaining Torricelli's seat was considered vital for the Democrats. So Raines spikes stories that might have tipped the Senate to the Republicans (just as he or his henchpeople spiked Augusta columns he disagreed with)."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2081571/

Oh well, it time for me to watch Fox so that I can get my news fair and balanced.

I stand by all my assertions, although not necessarily specific epithets, and believe that the plain facts of the matter, easily accessible via the internet, support me.

I think the debate over news bias is tiresome. Part of the problem is that the perception of how "news" is covered is strongly colored by the predominance of analysis and opinion. Conservativism rules on the op-ed pages and the hours of talk on the cable networks. As such, I think there's something for everybody if they go to the right sources.

Sometimes I think it might just be better for everyone to do away with pretense and with this whole debate by consciously aligning their news outlet with an ideology or a party. That way we all know what the deal is, and we can feel we're getting the big picture by getting our news from various sources. I think if I were to watch Fox News and al-Jazeera, I'd have a pretty good idea of what's going in in Iraq than if I were to just watch one of the two networks.

Am I the only one who can sniff out David Thomson's posts in the first sentence by their tone, before ever seeing the tagline scroll onto the screen?

“Am I the only one who can sniff out David Thomson's posts in the first sentence by their tone, before ever seeing the tagline scroll onto the screen?”

I’m sure that you are trying to offer me a compliment. I do not, however, give away free autographs. You must pay still me $10,000 for such an honor. Does that sound a bit too harsh? OK, I’’ll accept monthly payments until you pay off the debt. Ain't I a nice guy?

Comments are Closed.