by
joellerose | October 18, 2007 at 05:33 pm
317 views | 4 Recommendations |
3 comments
As a resident of Florida’s Gulf Coast, I am bombarded daily by newspapers that are blatantly biased in favor of Democrats and liberal ideas. I find it hard to understand since Florida often goes Republican in national and state elections, and since such a large number of residents in this area are successful retirees who have little use for liberal nonsense. Each morning for me is a time of alternately grumbling and outright laughter at the way the news is presented, the biases of the columnists selected and the letters to the editor that are culled. Conservative ideas are routinely trashed, and liberal proposals that have failed everywhere are hyped.
Most major newspapers, like the Washington Post, the New York Times and the LA Times are decidedly liberal, and are rapidly going out of business. I know that the internet and the deteriorating reading habits of the public (a product of liberal ideas turning our schools into places for social experimentation) are the main causes of their plight,
but cannot they learn something from the success of Fox News? People respond to a balanced presentation. I may choke when Alan Colmes spews his foolishness, but at least I know that Fox is trying to present both sides.
(As an aside, I think Sean Hannity is too far right).
Right now I am trying a little experiment on my
blog. I signed up for a news service to present several capsules of news in a large box just under my profile to the right. The capsules change a few times every day. The interesting thing is how the news is presented in the capsules compared to the actual articles cited. Not only are the articles selected usually biased and sometimes just wrong, but often when you go to the article you find just the opposite of what the capsule said.
I know Americans have always had to deal with sensationalism and bias in the press, but we don’t have to put up with it any more. This is the real story behind the major declines facing TV network news and many newspapers. We don’t have to listen to Walter Cronkite lie about Tet, or Dan Rather lie about forged documents any more.
THIS JUST IN:
Silicon Insider: How The New York Times Fell Apart
Once the Paper of Record, the Newspaper Now has Investors Bailing. Why?
OPINION By MICHAEL S. MALONE
Oct. 18, 2007,
ABCNews (Excerpts)
“Boom! And down goes the biggest newspaper name of all.
As you may have read, yesterday brokerage giant Morgan Stanley dumped its entire stake -- $183 million worth -- in the New York Times, in which it was the second largest shareholder. Not surprisingly, Times stock immediately slumped, bottoming at a nearly 3 percent drop to $18.28 -- the lowest it has been in a decade.
The actual damage is probably even larger than that. The Morgan Stanley sell-off has been expected for some time now. Ever since April, after Hassam Elmasry, managing director of Morgan's Investment Management Group failed in his attempt to challenge the Sulzberger family's iron grip on the Times, the market has been expecting Morgan to pull out -- and it is probably no coincidence that the stock has been in downward slide ever since….
As hard as may be for younger readers of this column to believe, twenty years ago, the New York Times was unquestionably the newspaper of record for the United States and (with the London Times) for much of the rest of the world. It had the most famous reporters and columnists, its coverage set the standard for all other news, and its opinions, delivered ex cathedra from the upper floors of the Gray Lady on 43rd Street set the topics of this country's political debate.
Incredibly, almost every bit of that power has been squandered over the last two decades. It's been a long time since anyone considered the Times to be anything but the newspaper of opinion for anyone but the residents of a few square miles of midtown Manhattan. Indeed, about all the newspaper has left of the old days under "Pinch's" dad, Arthur "Punch" Sulzberger, is that old Time's imperiousness -- earned back then, and more than a little absurd today.”
ABCNews
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (3)
at 22:42 on October 18th, 2007
joellerose, very good stuff. Yes, it is amazing how much the "Gray Lady" has become tarnished. The New York Times has sadly fallen in its standards, and hence, respect for it.
I'm an "old school" journalist, trained very early on by editors who insisted on objectivity. Opinions were for the editorial page. But today, somehow, that seems to have gone by the wayside. Pack journalism clearly aligned with one side or the other predominates.
The frantic rush to get things on TV also has contributed to a kind of vulture scavenger hunt, in which tiny tidbits are gobbled, then regurgitated in wildly dramatic format. And how many times do we see major media, as well as local media, giving a "live update" from the site of an "important" event (often in front of a courthouse) saying something like "Well, we're still waiting for word on xxxxx"? Essentially, we have news breaks consisting of someone saying, in heightened urgency, that nothing is happening.
Back to my theories of "social physics"--the bias you mention has created an opposite reaction. It's amazing how self-righteous many get about Fox News and their commentators, when Fox's stance actually is a direct response to the acceptance of pack media liberal bias. Two sides of the same coin--but Fox is condemned while others do the same thing on the other side of the fence.
Meanwhile, whatever happened to objectivity? "News" today is all too often just a slick, glossy package of predictable cant and phrases.
at 04:35 on October 19th, 2007
Thanks for your great comment, and thank God for the internet.
at 09:42 on October 19th, 2007
joellerose, I like this story. It's good stuff.