Mar 01 2008
Uncontrolled Bias Destroyed US News Media
Two things on Drudge illustrate how uncontrolled liberal bias in the news media, built up over decades, has destroyed the icons of the US News Media. The rot in the profession became glaringly apparent with the RaTHergate story and the forged documents used to make up a story about Presidential candidate George Bush. The fact that some technologically challenged dinosaurs still won’t admit the documents are forgeries (and they are) is just a sign of the rot.
The News Media created a profession that was so slanted to one ideological view it began to believe that view was the only viable one for mankind. It was not until opposing reasonable views from the conservative side began to come out in the media that the public realized that those it had put its trust in to provide objective information for people had violated that trust. Lying to people and covering up opposing views was an affront to the consumers of the product they once trusted implicitly.
I often said the only thing of value for a company in the news business was its reputation. And once destroyed it cannot be easily regained. Moreover, repeated misuse of a reputation to flaunt biased and erroneous story lines would lead to the destruction of a news media company.
Drudge notes a Zogby poll that shows the depth of damage the liberal bias in the old and dying icons of news journalism has done to itself.
Nearly 70 percent of Americans believe traditional journalism is out of touch, and nearly half are turning to the Internet to get their news, according to a new survey.
While most people think journalism is important to the quality of life, 64 percent are dissatisfied with the quality of journalism in their communities, a We Media/Zogby Interactive online poll showed.
The ‘on-line’ version of these rotted-out news media houses is not any better than the print, TV or radio versions. The key is not being on-line, it is being balanced and striving to be objective. The fact is with the internet you can collate the reporting from various media companies and then create a semblance of a balanced view on whatever is the topic you are interested in. That is why the internet is the preferred avenue, the consumer is in control – not the media filters and spinners.
One of the companies that will fall the hardest will be the one that use to be at the top of the heap in America – the NY Times. That once venerable paper has seen its readership drop off as its inability to contain its liberal bias drop off. The culmination of its rotten core was shown the other weak in the McCain hit piece which had no reporting in it. It was simply a fantasy fiction for (or from) the DNC. And Americans knew it and are fed up with the BS coming from these outlets of spin.
The NY Times is apparently under a lot of pressure to fix itself now:
A dissident investor stepped up pressure on The New York Times Co. Friday, formally proposing its own slate of four directors and saying the company needs to take more drastic action to compete online.
…
The looming proxy battle comes as the Times and other U.S. newspapers are facing huge challenges in adapting to the steady migration of readers and advertising dollars to the Internet. An economic slowdown coupled with a deep slump in the housing market is worsening the situation.
Earlier Friday, the Times reported that its newspaper advertising fell 11.4 percent in January, mainly due to a 22.6 percent dropoff in classified advertising, a lucrative business for newspapers that is especially vulnerable to competition from online rivals like Craigslist, eBay and Move.com.
Unless the plan is to clean house, retire some old and worn out liberal ranters, and get back into the business of being an American news company I doubt it will stop the decay from taking down the Old Gray Lady. Even with massive changes the chances are slim the NY Times will recover any time soon. Darwin was right about evolution and the ability to adapt in order to survive. Evolution begins with the concept of ‘evolving’ to stay current with the environment. There are always those who refuse to change and become extinct. And nothing will change them or their destiny.
Powerline has been following another fascinating bias story at another big dinosaur, 60 minutes. You may recall that not long ago 60 minutes ran a story claiming that Karl Rove helped to “take down” Alabama ex-governer Seligman, now serving time in prison on corruption charges.
Turns out that CBS only bothered to use 2 sources for its story – one was an old friend of Seligman’s who had no knowledge or involvement with the actual case, but who of course felt that his old friend must be innocent, and the other, the primary source, was a woman who it now turns out never worked for Alabama republicans, never was seen with Karl Rove, and who appears to be a serial hoaxer with a long record of making bizarre claims about her exploits.
The only real question left is, was CBS a willing co-participant in the hoax, or did they allow themselves to be hoaxed because of the total lack of any kind of journalistic or objective standards on their part?
Proof positive that they learned absolutely nothing from the Rathergate debacle.
AJ not related to this post but I thought you would find this interesting. I got this through here
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2008/02/at-mercy-of-terror.html
What is interesting is the article he quotes regarding the Mosul Bishop that pretty much class out Iran and others
http://www.theindiancatholic.com/report.asp?nid=9321
As far as I am concerned, newspapers and much of the media have broken trust with me. Their job is to provide me with information with which to understand the big world out there. Instead they have an agenda and are trying to manipulate me. I find even my local paper full of articles shipped in by Fax from the New York Times.
I no longer find this amusing.
Why would I consume bad food or accept other contamination? There are many reasons; NYT has well written and often interesting articles, but now I just say NO.
This stuff is not healthy for me intellectually. It is full of twists, lies and bad data. The effects are insidious and hard to correct. The fast changing real world is hard enough to understand without starting with corrupt information.
For one thing now, I do not subscribe to a newspaper, the weekly news magazines are slowly expiring un-renewed. I try to send that money to Michael Totten or the other web based journalists working to bring the real situation in Iraq or Afghanistan to us.
Why would I give the old corrupt news sources any of my money.
Enough I say, begone!
They have their own agendas and those agendas are not about telling the truth.
I believe that misunderstanding is the source of most people’s irritation. The job of the media is to make money. They do not make a dime providing you with information. Chances are you don’t pay NBC or CBS anything at all so their informing you or misinforming you don’t make or cost them a dime.
Their job is to sell ads. That is how they make their money. And they get more money for their ads when they have more eyeballs watching. So if it is the latest “Pop Tarts” news that draws people to look at the ads, then that is what they will show.
50% of the population is below the median intelligence level anyway. They want to know what the sexologist says and what the latest news in on the scandal story and what the movie stars are up to. That is what makes the news outlets their money and so that is what they will produce. They just need to make sure the news content they produce doesn’t alienate the ones who are most receptive to the ads … you know … the stupid people.
A person who believes that it is the media’s job to inform people has an unreasonable expectation of the media. It is their job to make money and that is it. Period.
Crosspatch,
Rubbish…
If the media’s only job is to make money then why are they losing money at a rapid rate? Why are so many laying off by the 100’s and many print outlets going out of business. It seems if that is their first priority then they would be doing it instead of doing just the opposite. Those polls AJ sited are further proof that the content of their news stories and op-eds aren’t bringing in the eyeballs required to attract all the ad revenue needed to keep them afloat it’s chasing eyeballs away.
And if “50% of the population is below the median intelligence level” the newspapers would still be selling because people wouldn’t be smart enough to know any better. How many times do we have to hear that the population of this country isn’t smart enough to understand what we are reading or what we are seeing? Seems to me that population has proven smart enough to see through the MSM.
And yes, A.J. that is primarily due to the conservative side being heard in the media…but please don’t forget that many of those responsible for “getting the word out” are those you have chosen to cast aside. That struggle to be heard was a long time in coming and it hasn’t occurred without missteps and mistakes along the way, but the intent was always for the conservative voice to be heard. Where would we be without it?
Whippet1:
Rubbish? Sure some NEWSPAPERS are losing money but there is more to “media” than just newspapers. And even then, they aren’t losing money in many cases, just making less.
NYT, for example, was still earning 44 cents a share in Q4 and 1.03 a share in the last fiscal year. The Washington Post was still EARNING 8.71 a share last quarter.
Who is losing money?
And what do you mean “if” 50% were below the median. By definition that HAS to be the case. I know now on which side of that line you fall.
I can remember many many years ago when my father had a bumper sticker on the back bumper of his car
CBS NEWS is RATHER Biased..
When I lived in the DC area in the early 1980’s there were stickers something like “I don’t believe The Post”.
Crosspatch,
It is hardly an “unreasonable expectation” to expect the truth from a journalist and his media outlet than it is to expect honest medical treatment from a doctor or honest knowledge from a teacher. Giving the media a pass for putting profits ahead of the truth is just lousy consumerism on your part. I’ll pay for the truth, thank you.
Crosspatch,
You got me there! Lack of reading comprehension and incorrect choice of words did me in…
You are correct that it is less revenue earned.
Now, go back to your little elitist corner and I’ll go sit with ” you know…the stupid people.”
75, yes it is an unreasonable expectation. Nowhere is there any mandate or even any claim for truth. All they claim is that you will want to turn to them for news.
They make their money on ads, not on accuracy. People of lower intelligence are more responsive to ads and they don’t talk back much. They just accept what they are told without asking many questions. The news media doesn’t want smart people watching, smart people are a pain in their rear end and they aren’t influenced as much by the ads.
If you had a news organization that had NO ads and was completely subscriber supported, you would then, maybe, get some reasonable news. But that depends on who subscribes.
And don’t fall into the trap of thinking that things were any better “back in the day”. The difference was that you had more choices. A town had Republican papers and it had Democrat papers. Now most cities are one paper towns. Newspapers have ALWAYS been agenda driven. That is the socio-political agenda of the publisher. San Francisco at one time had a dozen daily papers, some morning, some afternoon. Now they have one, morning only (for all practical purposes, the Examiner is now a freebie rag and doesn’t count).
Crosspatch, the free market is the final arbiter of excellence in any industry, including journalism, regardless of how their revenue is obtained. The means of revenue only matter depending on sales, and sales ultimately depend on the product being sold. It’s why the liberal media is slowly dying on the vine and alternative media who set the record straight are flourishing. It’s also why you and I are commenting on AJ’s site rather than writing letters to the New York Times. So, I will continue to shop for the truth in my news and blogs, reputable doctors for my medical care, knowledgeable teachers for my education and you…well…you can continue to shop using your standard of “unreasonable expectations”.
“An economic slowdown coupled with a deep slump in the housing market is worsening the situation.”
Notice how this is used everywhere…even in our local market a carpet store that is having a huge sale is using the line above.
Dems are trying to CREATE the slowdown by sapping confidence and therefore causing budgets at companies large and small to contract…and not to forget their attack on capitalism…for what purpose? THEIR RAW POLITICAL POWER GRAB. AMERICA BE DAMNED.
I despise these people. We need to stay alert and to bat down all their toxic hostility to America.
These are dangerous times. Very.
Ivehadit: yeah, they did the same thing when George HW Bush was running against Clinton. They manufactured an economic slowdown that existed only in the papers. “Worst recession since the Great Depression” were the headlines then … and the bashing of Bush over FEMA handling of hurricane Andrew.
Once Clinton was elected the headlines changed to “Continuing the longest economic expansion in history” because there had been no recession.
Any slowdown in Q1 of 2008 is likely to be due to weather. It has been the coldest year in people’s lives in many parts of the country. People don’t get out to buy a new car or house when things are frozen solid. And the heating bills are high and cut into disposable income.
Inflation is a bug, though, due to Congresses passing of even more ethanol requirements for fuel which is pushing food prices through the roof.
Crosspatch,
But they’re just trying to make money, right?
In the end, yes, Whippet. They have to in order to survive. But they don’t make or break their profit on news content. The “paper of record” for a town or county has a certain built in base of circulation because it also publishes official government notices in addition to news articles.
But the newspaper does not make a single dime from the news content and the price you pay for the paper is nothing compared to what they make from ads. The Examiner, for example, doesn’t even charge for the paper. They make ALL their money on ads.
TV and radio news make all their money on ads too.
If they don’t make money they die.
Perhaps, that is why the liberal media is dying, Crosspatch. Because wiser businessmen and salesmen than yourself are unwilling to pay top dollar to news sources hemorrhaging readers.
If you are the only paper in town it is hard to be put out of business. Thing is that NYT is also somewhat of a more global paper, or at least it was. It used to be that the NYT was read by the movers and shakers in government and industry so they could keep their fingers on the pulse of goings on in the world. But the NYT became so driven by agenda that they lost their ability to provide objective news. Basically their coverage is worthless these days as it is all political propaganda and little else.
Murdoch’s paper, The Times of London had increasingly been filling that role and Murdoch had such an increase in subscriptions in the Northeastern US that he started having the paper printed here. He has since purchased The Wall Street Journal and so it will probably fill that role here in the US.
The term yellow journalism was coined in another century. Papers have always been biased, had an agenda etc.
Back in the 80’s I remember reading an article in the Washington Post by its ombudsman in which he said that the Post {like many papers} had missed important changes in the country because reporters were no longer part of the community. In other words they missed the civil rights movement coming on because they were at cocktail parties in NYC and Washington DC rather than out in the real world. He claimed that elevation of reporters to professionals had removed them from their working class roots.
I think there is truth in that, but in the good old days those working class roots were encouraging racism, lynchings, glorifying outlaws, and making stuff up to sell papers on a regular basis.
We yearn for a return to something that was never there. Who was the journalist from the NYT who got the Pulitzer after he helped Joe Stalin cover up the Ukrainian famine? Dulaney?
At any rate I think crosspatch has a point here. We can look for unbiased news, but it is everywhere…the question is whether we recognize the bias for what it is.
I agree that that media is trying to make the economy seem as bad as possible. I also think that expecting home sales to take off in the dead of winter is ridiculous.
However, downturns do happen. They are part of the business cycle. Things have been good enough long enough that we have forgotten that. It might take a downturn to bring the oil prices down and to bring housing prices down enough that people want to invest in real estate again.
Look at oil prices for instance….this rise is just absurd. I can remember a time when Iran and Iraq were at war for almost a decade. Iran tried to mine the Persian Gulf. The Sudanese civil war was worse than it is now and yet the price of oil did not go up or stay up like this. I don’t know if the constant bleating of the press is responsible, if it is automated buying by oil rich nations or if the weak dollar is the culprit…but this will have a real effect on the economy. Not just a media created effect either.
It has effected me and my spending habits and I doubt that I am all that unusual.