Not Much Analysis in This ‘Analysis’

Photo of Pam Meister.
By Pam Meister | August 7, 2007 - 13:40 ET

At first glance, this piece entitled “Analysis: Who should control how we get political news?” seemed like a good thing:

From a convention of liberal bloggers here [Chicago] to talk-radio studios to the halls of Congress, people are arguing over who should control the way Americans get information about politics.

Among the flash points: Should the government stop conservative Rupert Murdoch from buying The Wall Street Journal, should the government require that liberals get radio shows to counter the influence of conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and what role should new media such as bloggers and YouTube play in politics?

Hooray! We’re going to get to the bottom of things, right? Wrong. This isn’t so much an analysis, but more of a “danger, Will Robinson!” moment. After giving a brief rundown of this summer’s biggest media-related stories (the News Corp. buyout of the “Wall Street Journal,” the wish to re-introduce of the Fairness Doctrine as it relates to talk radio, and the brouhaha surrounding Bill O’Reilly’s criticism of Democrat presidential candidates attending the YearlyKos convention), we get to the analysis part at the end:

The two examples illustrate that in the world of new media, there are multiple outlets where political content can be found, and as those outlets become identifiably liberal or conservative, politicians and voters can pick friendly forums while damning the other side's outlets as illegitimate. Whether this is healthy for our nation's political life is a question worth pondering.

That’s it? Wondering if it’s healthy for our nation’s political life for the proletariat to know a news/commentary outlet’s ideological leaning? The problem as I see it is not that the new media promotes openness about one’s ideological leanings, but that the old media continues to deny the existence of such. This “analysis,” written by Steven Thomma for McClatchy Newspapers, is less of an honest look at the current media landscape than it is a yearning of the days of yore. The clue is in the third paragraph:

All this comes as the traditional media landscape is shifting with earthquake force. Newspapers are watching readers shift to the Web. The big TV networks are losing viewers to cable. And among the best-informed viewers are those who tune in regularly to "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" on Comedy Central.

Historically, a relatively small portion of the population has had control over the dissemination of news. While they claim to be neutral and balanced in their coverage (just ask Diane Sawyer), the simple act of reading between the lines (as NewsBusters does) is a real eye-opener. The fact that newspaper circulation and viewership at the alphabet networks are both way down is a bad thing for them. After all, they are in the business of selling advertising space based on raw numbers – and if people aren’t reading or watching, then the piggy bank isn’t filling up. So it’s in their best interest to “ponder” whether or not it’s “healthy for our nation’s political life” to have so many other news and commentary outlets to choose from.Is the current level of dialogue healthy? Now that’s a different topic. Some say that the new media (blogs, etc.) is contributing to a decline in civility, due to the anonymity the Internet can provide. I can understand that concern, and even agree with it. But while I don’t have a problem with Bill O’Reilly complaining about DailyKos if he desires, I do have a problem with the government sticking its Pinocchio-sized nose into the media with any kind of Fairness Doctrine, be it television, radio or the Internet. Once the barn door is open, it’s difficult to get the livestock back in. While citizens have the right to point out bias if and when they see it, the government has no right to impose what it considers to be fair and balanced on private enterprises. If news outlets of any kind would simply be honest and up front about their ideological leanings, wouldn’t that be best for everyone? (Talk radio hosts, who provide commentary based on their core beliefs, certainly aren’t shy about it.) Then “We the People” would be able to sift through the flotsam and make up our own minds about what’s going on. Those of us who are not too busy obsessing over the latest celebrity gossip, that is.

But that’s the danger big media worries about. The teeming masses thinking? Making decisions without their hands being held? Scary days indeed. Bottom line: the only ones who should be controlling anything are those who provide and those who consume. It’s called a free market, the cornerstone of our society. Anything less is unacceptable.

So beware of Greeks bearing gifts. And beware of “old media outlets” trotting out analyses about whether or not the “new media” is a good thing.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The enemies of freedom.

The enemies of freedom (the Marxist/Leninist left) within this country will not rest until all opposing views have been silenced. They are already well on their way to realizing their goal. The Campaign Finance "Reform" bill was a huge victory for the left, as it gets people used to the idea of the government controlling what can and cannot be said in the election process.

Their next target will be (is) talk radio. Once talk radio has been silenced, the next target on the list will be the very few non-liberal and non-government controlled news outlets that exist in this country, outlets like the FNC. After that, it will be the internet.

Of course, they won't stop there, as soon we who hold contrary views will notice other rights slowly dissappearing, as well. It will start out very subtly at first, but will soon move into other, more visible areas, such as interfering with and/or seriously impairng we dissenter's ability to make a living (Jimmy the Greek, Don Imus, etc., and many, many more). We contrarians will also see the gevernment take away our right to self-defense, as well as our right to freedom of assembly (Churches, non-liberal political organizations,etc.).

If even recent history is any indication, after the above has been accomplished, we dissenters will face open hostility from the totalitarian state and its supporters. Those of us who own our own businesses and could not be fired or otherwise punished for our contrarian views will lose our businesses. This will soon move into we opponents of the state being herded into re-education camps and then the Gulags. If after that we are still found to be resisting totalitarianism unduly by the powers that be, the gas chamber could very well be our next stop.

And don't tell me this cannot/will not happen here in the United States of America.

It already is.

Help Fred defeat everybody.

For proof of what you

For proof of what you wrote, people only need to Google "The 45 Communist Goals for America". Number 15-45 are very telling. 

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

Ct,

Or, they can just go spend a little time at the Kos, DU, Moveon or similar sites. They can also read the history of Germany in the 1920's and 30's.

I think a large number of people in this country are totally oblivious to the significance of what occurred in Chicago over the weekend. The current leaders of the very politcal philosophy (as well as the party) that will willingly usher in the totalitarian hell I laid out above (including one who may very well just be the next POTUS) were at the YearlyKos convention, bending over backward to kiss the rings, if not the very behinds, of those haters of freedom.

What I find more distressing still, is that the republicans have not so much as said a word about it.

I think this country has finally arrived at the proverbial fork in the road.

Help Fred defeat everybody.

Fairness Doctrine

Dave, good points all around.  I could argue however that the Stalinist already have "re-education" camps through out this country and we're paying for them. Of course I mean the tax payer funded public school system. 

This is where they hook them into thinking like tiny leftist.  So if in the future,   the Stalinist want to institute a "fairness doctrine",  in this generations eyes "what could be wrong with that"?   This is the attitude that has to be constantly railed against.  The left will not give up, ever.  We must show backbone and support those who feel as we do, always holding their feet to the fire.   

Rex,

Don't think for a second that the totalitarian libs don't have home schoolers and private schools on their hit list as well.

After all, the lefties didn't spend the last 50+ years gaining total control of our government school system, which is clearly designed to turn out non-thinking, government-dependent care-free members of the proletariat, only to have their plans ruined by people like us sending our children to a non-government controlled entity to be educated. Oh, no, that cannot be allowed.

This is why the Hildebeast and her apparachiks are currently pushing the idea of the government getting its claws into your children one year sooner.

Help Fred defeat everybody.

Journalistic neutrality...

...is a historical myth. America's press has ALWAYS been biased in one direction or another. Even Mark Twain spoofed the alleged neutrality of newspaper editors in his short story in which he takes a temp job in loco for a small town newspaper editor going on holiday. I forget the exact details, but it was a yellow rag titled something like "The Skunk Hollow Clarion and Rebel Yell." Twain shows up for work, and the departing editor tells him to horsewhip so and so if he shows up, and if such and so appears, throw him out the window. If that blackguard from the "Rocky Top Democrat and Union Holler" shows up, Twain is to shoot him and set him on fire. It's actually a hilarious read.

Anyway, radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt had an interesting take when he had I believe it was Jonathan Alter on his radio show. Alter (or whomever it was) was talking the standard liberal canard that all reporters - except at Fox News, of course - are successful in keeping their own feelings or beliefs out of political reporting, and that what we get is largely the unvarnished truth. Hewitt called him on it and gave him numerous examples of how that just wasn't true.

Hewitt suggested that political reporters, just like financial reporters, ought to be required to reveal whether or not they have a personal stake in the outcome of a story. He cited some S.E.C. regulation which requires of all financial story reporters that, if they have a financial stake in a story they are reporting, they must reveal that stake to their readers. The idea is to ensure stability in the market, and to allow readers the opportunity to judge for themselves whether or not the reporting, upon which they will be making their personal financial decisions, is reliable. In other words, the financial readers aren't forced into the position by the press of having to accept what they write simply "because we SAY it's true."

If a political reporter were required to reveal his/her party affiliation at the top of every story they write, then the reader would be able to easily judge for themselves whether or not the writer is attempting to influence the outcome of the story.

In the old days, reporters and editors made no bones about whom they supported, and their writing reflected it. Readers were easily able to discern the editorial slant. Alter and his ilk recoil mightily from such reform suggestions because they know that they will either have to report truly objectively, OR their credibility flies right out the window. As long as they don't have to tell the reader their party affiliation, they can keep spouting their crap as the unvarnished truth. However, I say that opening the window and letting a little fresh air in is good for the whole process.

The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. ~~ Ecclesiastes 10:1-2

Addendum..

Over at The American Thinker, a letter writer laments the following:

My daughter, a student at LSU's Honors College, is a Mass Communications major in the Manship School of Journalism. While reading the course outline for one of her journalism classes, last semester, she was intrigued by the title of one of the lectures: "How To Bend The Truth." She, a very honorable sort, was flabbergasted to learn that, rather than being a cautionary lecture, it was, in fact, an encouraging tutorial (wink, wink).

So much for journalistic integrity, when this is the course content at a prominent journalism school...

 

The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. ~~ Ecclesiastes 10:1-2

Historically, a relatively

Historically, a relatively small portion of the population has had control over the dissemination of news.

   I guess it depends on how far your historical perspective is.  Prior to the rise of the tv networks in the fifties people got their news similar to the way we now get information from the New Media.  News from outside the region where people resided was primarily from a locally owned and produced paper.  But unlike today, newspapers had competition.  If you didn't agree with the politics of a certain publisher you could read his competitor.  (we go to certain websites) The other source of information was word of mouth as people discussed issues of the day.  (we join discussion groups)

   So our 'New Media' is actually a return to equality politics where every voice can have a say.  The highly controlled 'Old Media' has been a historical aberration.

Not Much Analysis in This ‘Analysis’

For some reason a great many people are under the impression that there is no such thing as fact, there is only interpretation, only opinion. We need to get away from this relativism and report facts as facts, opinions as informed by facts and sanction those professionals who confuse the two.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts
Facts are great, opinion is fine too and even better if it's based on fact.

Talk radio blurs beyond recognition the already vanishing line in this country between fact and opinion. From sun up to sundown, the streams of consciousness blurted out as facts over the airwaves wash any semblance of common sense back into the ocean.
From TV news to radio talk, Americans have a serious problem - distinguishing perspective. Not just fact or fiction, but what's fun and what's foremost.
On the radio, news updates every half hour bleed into talk radio shows. Hosts huff and puff on the latest events seconds after they happen. Listeners soak it up while they simmer in traffic jams. With nothing but undivided attention to give the radio, drivers turn into devoted listeners.

Pick a talk radio host and put them on a ballot. I guarantee they'll be voted into office. Doesn't matter the government position.
But why would a talk radio host run for office when they can smear their untested theories across the airwaves without a worry or regret. No one keeps the runaway mouths in check. In fact, companies like Clear Channel are happy to pass these articulate tongues onto as many radio stations as they can gobble up in their Pac Man attempt to swallow up our nation's over 44,000 radio stations.

That's the problem. Talk radio hosts are exceptionally adept at passing along their opinions as fact, for hours on end.
Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity also appear on television's Fox News Channel. A place where fact and opinion are invisibly intertwined.
O'Reilly even leaps to the conclusion that his world is fact and the rest of the media world is a Spin Zone.
If you need evidence of how our country mistakes opinion for fact, just pick a daily newspaper and read a week's worth of letters to the editor. Or better yet, have a conversation with a Dittohead.

"Talk radio blurs beyond

"Talk radio blurs beyond recognition the already vanishing line in this country between fact and opinion."

Fear not friend, Air America is all but DEAD!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

   ian2000 says:  For

   ian2000 says:  For some reason a great many people are under the impression that there is no such thing as fact, there is only interpretation, only opinion.

  OK.......  Tell me the sources of news information that are completely devoid of any personal or corporate opinion.  In other words, just raw facts, no point of view.

   P.S.         also consider what they won't report as well as what they will report.

  But I suspicion you consider reports you agree with as facts and those you disagree with as opinion.

}}---> Edwards the Black Female?

Elizabeth Edwards lamented yesterday; 

 "We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman."

Obviously Elizabeth regrets being married to a milquetoast white boy?

How incredibly racist/sexist is her statement?  Sounds like Lizzie thinks being Black or Female would get Johnnie boy some affirmative action boost.  Why Libs everywhere aren't pouncing on her insensitive remark is beyond me.

I know there's an artist's rendering of this forthcoming.

Too funny.