We Should Have One? We Do Have Several!
Jay Rosen has, in the past, suggested that we need a more openly liberal news network to compete with Fox. In his latest post he writes about the opposition of L.A. Times media critic David Shaw to the idea.
I admit that it is not entirely clear to me what Jay is proposing.
Is he saying that the existing networks should become more liberal, to compete with Fox’s conservatism? If so, I question the premise. There already exist several liberal news networks competing with Fox. Their coverage is just as far to the left as Fox’s is to the right. They just don’t admit their leftist bias. But then, neither does Fox admit its conservative bias.
Or is Jay agreeing that these networks are liberal, and saying only that they should be more openly so? If that is Jay’s point, then I agree that the several networks that are liberal should finally admit that they are. But Fox should also be forthright about its generally conservative perspective.
Jay’s post is a good read in any event, and I especially love the quotes from Matt Welch at the end.
P.S. Incidentally, here is the comment I left on Jay’s site:
I am conflicted about this.
I do see some value in media organizations’ striving for the goal of “objectivity” — even if they (and we) know it’s unattainable. It probably keeps them more honest than they would be otherwise. When you at least have to pay lip service to a goal, it makes it tougher to actively work against that goal.
At the same time, there is value to knowing the perspective of those behind the news. If nothing else, it allows news consumers to apply the principle that statements made against one’s interest are more trustworthy than self-serving statements.
For example, I don’t trust something I see on NewsMax until I see it in the mainstream media — unless it favors a leftist position, in which case it is almost certainly true (or else why would even NewsMax concede the point?). Similarly, I don’t always accept mainstream media positions that favor the left — but if the mainstream media concedes a point favoring the conservative viewpoint, it’s a good bet that it’s true.
One could argue that the various biases of these organizations are known, and so they need not be more explicit about their own biases. To a degree that’s true. But the biases are not clear to everyone. The less familiarity you have with news media, the less prepared you will be to know how a particular outlet is likely to slant a story. Many news consumers (especially less sophisticated ones) are probably fooled a lot by stories in media outlets whose biases are not known to those consumers.
Even those of us who are very aware of media bias are often too trusting of stories in major media outlets — and I say this as a *relatively* sophisticated consumer of news. It’s just such an ingrained response to think: “I saw in the paper so it must be true.” It’s surprisingly easy to forget all the times that the paper printed something that turned out to be false.
If that reaction is not uncommon for *me*, I worry very much about the members of the general public, many of whom may be less aware than I am of the biases in the media. (I don’t mean to sound elitist — there are many who are far more sophisticated news consumers than I am — but the fact is that there are also many who spend far less time than I do following the news.) So I think it would be valuable for media outlets to be more forthright about their biases — perhaps by providing more biographical information on the reporters and editors involved — while still seeking (however imperfectly) the ideal of true objectivity.
Thoughts?
The problem, of course, is that nearly everyone believes that they are moderates. Jesse Jackson, for example, believes he’s a moderate. It’s not unlike everyone believing they’re at the center of the universe. Well, they are. Their universe.
Comment by Dave Schuler — 11/18/2004 @ 9:24 am
Fox News might be less biased to the Democrats than the other news but by what measure do you say that it is biased to the Republicans?
eg Fox News personnel gave 4 times a much money to Kerrys campaign that to Bushs. Of course the other news ratios would be nearer 100 to 1.
Comment by Geoff Dean — 11/18/2004 @ 10:47 am
Pat, I dispute your contention that Fox News Channel has “a conservative bias”… and please note that Fox is far to the right of me.
The top-rated show on FNC is The O’Reilly Factor; Bill O’Reilly is so perilously close to being an out and out populist that at any moment, I expect to hear a ringing endorsement of free silver.
Brit Hume is himself pretty conservative; but he uses the same news reports that appear on Greta Van Susteren’s show and Geraldo Rivera’s show. He will more often interview a conservative than a liberal in the third segment (just before the bottom-hour break) and will more often make fun of liberals than conservatives in the Grapevine segment; but this is balanced by the fact that he typically has two liberals (Mort and Mara) to one conservative (Fred) in the All Stars opinion double-segment at the end.
There are several clearly liberal-leaning shows on the channel (which I don’t watch). The point is that FNC is by and large aligned with a good portrait of the American political spectrum… there is stuff there for center-right and center-left, and even for political non-Euclideans, such as myself.
By contrast, there is nothing news related that I can watch on CBS or NBC; and the only newsie thing I can watch on ABC without gagging is John Stossel, who is a libertarian, not a conservative. I suppose if I really hunted on CNN and MSNBC, I might be able to find something a little less shrilly leftist than Point of View or Hardball. But I would have to spend a lot more time sifting than I’m willing to give.
Please note, I support drug legalization, abortion, increased immigration — all three with rational limitations — and the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn laws against “sodomy,” however defined. There is no possible way to call me a conservative. I would even accept same-sex marriage, IF it were voted by the people of a state or their representatives in the state legislature, not imposed by judges.
As very much a non-conservative, I tell you that Fox is much closer to the center, more “fair and balanced,” than the other members of the MSM.
It may be slightly center-right; but then, so is the country, if you put it that way. There are overwhelming majorities against the DNC position on a number of hotbutton issues. You’re just wrong to say that CBS, say, “is just as far to the left as Fox’s is to the right.”
That’s simply unsupportable.
Dafydd
Comment by Dafydd — 11/18/2004 @ 2:58 pm
I read his post and some others on his site and he wants the “unbiased” MSM to be more antiAmerican. LAT is pretending that they think this is a bad idea, want to be trusted by public, and therefore down the middle. Yea right!
Rod Stanton
Cerritos
Comment by Rod Stanton — 11/18/2004 @ 3:05 pm
The simple problem with Fox is that they lie a lot. Then they lie about lying. Then they claim that everyone ELSE is lying, leaving them the only certifiable source of truth.
OTOH, I do not welcome adding simply a source of opposing lies. Better, I think, the media that IS, the “MSM”, despite all the internal conflicts between conservative ownership and management, and true observers of fact, the resultantly liberal/progressive reporters. (Augmented, of course, by the bloggers, to discover any facts that were otherwise unobserved.)
Comment by Conley T. Gwinn — 11/18/2004 @ 3:34 pm
The main difference I see is that FNC takes affirmative actions to make itself “fair and balanced,” while the other networks pay little attention to ideology and let the chips fall where they may. The latter approach would be the better one, if only the pool of would-be journalists seeking employment in that profession were not so heavily skewed to the left.
There isn’t a liberal media because anyone deliberately set out to create one. It happens by default.
Comment by Xrlq — 11/18/2004 @ 3:46 pm
Of course no one diberately set out to create a liberal media anymore than my six year old planned with Prussian thoroughness to create a new hair style for Pookie the family dog. News media agenda’s don’t appear out of nowhere. Stories are screened and okayed or dropped. This is not an accident.
Fox isn’t conservative, but in comparison to the MSM it is so far right that it appears to be conservative. Besides Mr. Hannity who exactly is a conservative on this network?
Comment by Thomas J. Jackson — 11/18/2004 @ 9:16 pm
Brit Hume is a conservative. Tony Snow hosted Fox News Sunday, and he was a conservative.
I wager that many of their reporters are conservatives.
I love Special Report. It’s on my TV right now. But, come on. It’s conservative.
Comment by Patterico — 11/18/2004 @ 9:59 pm
“I love Special Report. It’s on my TV right now. But, come on. It’s conservative.”
So do I love Special Report; it’s the only TV news show I watch. But what on earth do you mean by saying “it’s conservative?”
I guess you missed the part of my last comment where I noted that I, myself, am not a conservative. If Special Report were “conservative,” like Sean Hannity is, I think I would notice: I find I disagree with about 1/3 to 1/2 of what Sean espouses.
Can you please point out a segment in today’s show (which I haven’t watched yet - Thursday, 18 November 2004) or yesterday’s or somesuch about which you can say “this segment was conservative?”
Then at least I can try to figure out why you think so.
Thanks,
Dafydd
Comment by Dafydd — 11/18/2004 @ 11:06 pm
Sorry, Dafydd — I didn’t document anything from that show.
It’s an impression, and I doubt I can convince you of its truth.
For what it’s worth, I think I am more conservative than you (based on your description) and I still have this impression.
By the way, I don’t see Mort Kondracke as a liberal, but rather as a moderate. Certainly on foreign policy he’s quite hawkish.
Comment by Patterico — 11/20/2004 @ 7:42 pm