I love hearing all the rants by hard-core conservatives that the mainstream ("lamstream") media is liberal and/or that whenever a presidential election rolls around, they're "in the tank" for the Democratic candidate. This was very much the case in this past election, where conservatives all over claimed that the media was in favor of President Obama winning a second-term, over the Republican challenger Mitt Romney.
As I've been saying for quite some time, I see the mainstream media in favor of one thing and one thing only - good ratings. Whether that comes at the expense of a Republican or Democratic politician is really of no matter. These networks want the best story and the best ratings.
Whenever I hear these claims by uber-conservatives that the mainstream media is liberally-biased, I ask them to watch opinion shows on Fox News and MSNBC, and then to watch the nightly news on ABC, NBC, or CBS, and report to me any differences they observed. If they're going into the viewings with an open mind and then report to me honestly, they'd report a number of stark contrasts.
I don't think it's too difficult to differentiate the two types of "news" programs, but it seems to be quite the troubling task for many. In opinion-oriented shows, once in a while these pundits will showcase a fact here or there to provide themselves with a stronger argument. However, those occasions seem to be very few and far between, and for the most part, all we see are rants being relayed unto the masses that don't appear to have any factual backing. These rants are largely directed toward one party or the other. For Fox News viewers, the rants will be directed toward the Democratic Party and for MSNBC viewers, the rants will be directed toward the Republican Party. On actual news programs, however, the process unfolds a little differently. These programs typically just report the news. They don't call in someone with whom they debate on an issue. They simply report on the major events from the day. If the event is seen as a positive or a negative to a particular politician or party, that doesn't mean the news organization is biased in favor of or against that party/politician. They're simply reporting things as they are. When ESPN reported that the Baltimore Ravens had defeated the San Francisco 49ers to win this year's Super Bowl, was that ESPN being biased in favor of Baltimore/against San Francisco? No. They were simply reporting what had happened.
Given all of that, I discovered that I wasn't alone in not believing that the mainstream media was "in the tank" for President Obama. Who agrees with me? Former Mitt Romney strategist Stuart Stevens.
On CNN's Reliable Sources Sunday, Stevens was asked by host Howard Kurtz, "Do you believe today that much of the media is in the tank for Barack Obama?"
Stevens responded with, "It's not a yes or no question. In the tank, I would say no. ...I think after that the election, you're going to have a lot tougher questions that are going to be asked because you're out of an election environment."
So, how much airtime can we expect this very story to receive?
MSNBC: Off and on throughout an entire day
Fox News: Fewer times than zero if that's possible
Nightly news: Maybe briefly mentioned, if that, for it's not likely to improve ratings
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/stuart-stevens-media-obama-mitt-romney_n_2758266.html
As I've been saying for quite some time, I see the mainstream media in favor of one thing and one thing only - good ratings. Whether that comes at the expense of a Republican or Democratic politician is really of no matter. These networks want the best story and the best ratings.
Whenever I hear these claims by uber-conservatives that the mainstream media is liberally-biased, I ask them to watch opinion shows on Fox News and MSNBC, and then to watch the nightly news on ABC, NBC, or CBS, and report to me any differences they observed. If they're going into the viewings with an open mind and then report to me honestly, they'd report a number of stark contrasts.
I don't think it's too difficult to differentiate the two types of "news" programs, but it seems to be quite the troubling task for many. In opinion-oriented shows, once in a while these pundits will showcase a fact here or there to provide themselves with a stronger argument. However, those occasions seem to be very few and far between, and for the most part, all we see are rants being relayed unto the masses that don't appear to have any factual backing. These rants are largely directed toward one party or the other. For Fox News viewers, the rants will be directed toward the Democratic Party and for MSNBC viewers, the rants will be directed toward the Republican Party. On actual news programs, however, the process unfolds a little differently. These programs typically just report the news. They don't call in someone with whom they debate on an issue. They simply report on the major events from the day. If the event is seen as a positive or a negative to a particular politician or party, that doesn't mean the news organization is biased in favor of or against that party/politician. They're simply reporting things as they are. When ESPN reported that the Baltimore Ravens had defeated the San Francisco 49ers to win this year's Super Bowl, was that ESPN being biased in favor of Baltimore/against San Francisco? No. They were simply reporting what had happened.
Given all of that, I discovered that I wasn't alone in not believing that the mainstream media was "in the tank" for President Obama. Who agrees with me? Former Mitt Romney strategist Stuart Stevens.
On CNN's Reliable Sources Sunday, Stevens was asked by host Howard Kurtz, "Do you believe today that much of the media is in the tank for Barack Obama?"
Stevens responded with, "It's not a yes or no question. In the tank, I would say no. ...I think after that the election, you're going to have a lot tougher questions that are going to be asked because you're out of an election environment."
So, how much airtime can we expect this very story to receive?
MSNBC: Off and on throughout an entire day
Fox News: Fewer times than zero if that's possible
Nightly news: Maybe briefly mentioned, if that, for it's not likely to improve ratings
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/stuart-stevens-media-obama-mitt-romney_n_2758266.html
Comments
Post a Comment