The Truth Machine

16 Comments »

1. 1. Even though the MSM is not objective, many perceive them that way (although this is changing). That is why media bias is so insidious: the veneer of objectivity. The MSM work their finger to the bone to pretend they are objective and leverage that position of trust to mislead.

   2. A predicate factual assertion by X will be challenged by an advocate or journalist whenever it helps their case. The difference is their objective and willingness to explore faulty factual assertions that cut against their ideology.

   3. Generally speaking, MSNBC is a clearinghouse for liberal ideology generally and the administrations agenda specifically. They do not in any meaningful way challenge the administration – except from the left. As two quick (though by no means the most important) examples of material omissions, MSNBC ignored the ACORN scandal (until they could not). They ignored the Vann Jones scandal (until they could not). The day after declaring that the Fox News Channel “wasn’t a news organization” Obama met with Maddow and Olbernann to promote the administrations agenda – and when they “challenge” that agenda, it is from the left for not going far enough – for the purpose of making it appear more reasonable to the the “moderate” “swing voter.” MSNBC does not generally meaningfully question Obama’s policies (except from the left). MSNBC, acting in collusion with the White House, generally seeks to further the administration’s objectives. The fact that a few conservatives may appear on the network does not counter the main thrust of the coverage – pro Obama, pro union, pro government, anti free market, anti capitalistic, anti security/national defense. I am sure you could find a couple of exceptions to this norm – but the overall thrust of the network is to promote left-of-center ideology and most commonly promote this administration’s objectives.

   FNC commentators do correct the record just as MSNBC commentators do – to save face – not because they are journalists. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8HeJuBcI3Y

   I don’t entertain a “thrill up my leg” pretending that FNC is a bastion of neutrality; I don’t think many still cling to the notion that MSNBC is either.

   We will never agree on this, but it has been a pleasant and thoughtful discussion nonetheless.

   Happy Holidays.

   Comment by David Gigan | December 19, 2009 | Reply

   • I guess we will have to just agree to disagree. I have enjoyed the conversation, though I have to vehemently disagree with you on the honesty issue. My biggest problem with Fox News is not that it is unabashedly conservative, it is that it is unabashedly dishonest. I continue to urge that you see the documentary Outfoxed, as I think that it proves that Fox is not in fact conservative MSM, but is lock stock and barrel an extension of The Republican Party itself.

     Comment by David Norman | December 19, 2009 | Reply

   • Just a quick comment on each of your points, then I too will let it go.

     1. Working ones fingers to the bone to “pretend” objectivity is ridiculous. Either one is objective or one is not. You cannot pretend to be objective. Everything is subject to fact check.

     2. Again, Rachel Maddow’s talk me down segment is a perfect example of this objectivity and willingness. And NO she does not always have people on the left or far left of her opinion to talk her down. Many of those guests are conservative or blue dog democrat so you are simply wrong.

     3. MSNBC often questions this administration’s objectives. You obviously do not watch it often as you seem to believe this questioning is a rare occurrence. Perhaps they do critique these objectives from a liberal perspective. They don’t claim not to be doing so. They are not, however, NOT tied to the Obama administration nor do they work for or with them. They just happen to have a similar stance. FOX however is part of the right. They work directly with the Republican party. When you get messages from the White House telling you what to report and you follow those messages to the word, that is working for the party. Having the same opinion as the president, as MSNBC commentators do, is not the same thing as working for Obama. Also, again, FOX does try to fake objectivity. They do not, however, work themselves to the bone to do this. Their advertisements claim fairness and truth, but they are neither. They are very transparent and their lies are also easily contradicted by anyone who reads newspapers or knows how to separate fact from fiction. Also, to state that MSNBC is anti free market is untrue. They are exactly the opposite. By covering stories about large corporations that violate anti-trust laws and about small businesses that are unable to afford health insurance, they are promoting the idea of a free-market. Questioning unfair business practices and labor laws is exactly what must be done to preserve a free-market.
     It is the only way that captitalism can survive in a democracy. Otherwise, this is no longer a democracy, but is what Citicorp admitted it might be — a plutocracy. Also, MSNBC covered ACORN regarding both the phony election fraud accusations and the white guy dressing as a pimp scandal. They did this at the same time as the other news stations. The only difference is that they reported details that FOX decided to omit. Besides Acorn had a few uneducated representatives not knowing how to handle an extremely awkward situation. It was a set up and only incriminating footage was saved. Frankly, it isn’t much. Compare that to Blackwater, a company that used government funds to commit criminal felonies including murder and arms trading and ACORN is a pussy cat. MSNBC did report on ACORN when the rest did. It did not however, make it into a huge story, because it is NOT a huge story.

     4. The only time I have ever seen a FOX reporter make a correction for the record is when he/she is called out publicly, such as recently on the Daily Show. When Maddow corrects herself she is also often admitting to a blunder that was brought to her attention through an email or a private phone conversation. Most of the errors she makes would go unknown if she didn’t have the integrity to point them out.

     I agree with you that neither network is neutral. I do however believe that MSNBC has integrity and FOX does not. FOX claims to have neutrality when it does not. If you don’t want to label MSNBC as having “journalistic” integrity, I understand and even agree. It is nonetheless human integrity. FOX does not just share news with a slanted perspective. They intentionally spread lies in the hopes that most of their viewers will not be as smart or diligent as you are and bother to check out the truth.

     Those are my final comments on the matter. Happy Holidays.

     Comment by Blanche Norman | December 19, 2009 | Reply

2. Rachel Maddow has a point of view. She “researches her stories and reports based on facts” – fair enough, but most prominent commentators undertake research to support their position and use facts selectively to support an opinion as well. Pure opinion without any background factual predicate would seem silly. Building a case requires laying a factual foundation. They all do that. I disagree with Olbermann on pretty much everything, but I acknowledge that he attempts to build his case. Because an advocate researches and uses facts does not make them a journalist – it makes them an accomplished advocate.

   As for “lies” – well most conservative commentators (like their liberal counterparts) use facts to support their position. And they, (like their liberal counterparts) retract factual errors as well. This is done, of course to save face; it doesn’t make one a journalist. Rather, it maintains credibility for the mission they are on: presenting a point of view in a way calculated to sway the persuadable. My point here, the difference is that an advocate seeks to sway one to a position; a journalist seeks question authority – to ask the questions members of the general public want asked – even when it cuts against their personal ideology.

   When I discuss this issue with friends and family, it becomes clear to me that if the “message” is one liked by the listener – it is “the truth” – if it is one they disagree with – it is “a lie.” I am genuinely surprised how many people (on both sides) cannot tell when they are in the presence of argument (the selective use of truthful fact to advance a position). I think this is both interesting and unnerving. I think it explains why so many sales pitches take the form of “informercials.”
   I think for many, the format in which information is disseminated guides belief on whether they are hearing “news” or a “sales pitch” (or “news” or “opinion”). Just because one is sitting behind a news desk doesn’t mean that substantively what they are saying is automatically news; what is printed in a paper is not automatically news because of the format in which it is presented. As such, I particularly despise the “veneer of objectivity” where advocates masquerade as journalists.

   Apart from stylistic matters, in my mind, (and having no veneer of objectivity) there is no difference between Maddow, Beck, Olbermann, Matthews, O’Reilly, Hannity, etc. – except ideology. In terms of their mission it is the same: to make a case for a particular point of view. Their objective is to present the facts in a way most favorable to their case, and to dismiss, explain away, ignore, or attack opposing facts. I don’t find this troubling at all – what I find troubling is when Dan Rather (and too many others to name) rebrand a viewpoint as news.

   A journalist should not have “a case” to make: she or he should have a mandate to question public figures and ask the questions that test those figures which will, by necessity, require them to ask questions that cuts against their personal belief system. In the last election, 45% voted for McCain – 52% for Obama. A true journalist owes something to each of these groups. When President Obama is sitting in front of Katie Couric – my questions are not asked, he is not challenged (except perhaps trivially – with all the showmanship of a Don King fixed fight).

   As for your point regarding the withheld vaccine for HIV conspiracy theory, I would note that this is a fringe opinion which hurts people suffering from the disease. Maddow had good reasons for cross-examining such a claim/person. First, spurious claims harm people with the condition – so she was trying to protect those people such theories injure. Second, adopting a fringe position does not permit one to “sway the persuadable” who are likely to reject a poorly supported conspiracy theory; in contrast, it results in one being mocked by critics and dismissed by the persuadable. Third, adopting such a position damages one’s credibility going forward. Fourth, usually fringe opinions have a weak factual foundation and require a would-be believer to import a great deal of suspicion into the equation. Challenging the proponent of such an outlandish theory, was completely consistent with her position as an AIDS activist and faithful agent of the left.

   This is not unique to the left. Look at the so-called “Birther Movement.” It is a fringe opinion from the right. It has been denounced by O’Rilley, Malkin, and Coulter, who have vigorously challenged such claims and proponents of those claims. Why? Because (i) the theory is factually weak, (ii) adherence to the theory would damage their credibility; and (iii) would result in being mocked and dismissed.

   Similarly, fringe opinions from the left – (Bush administration complicit in 911 attacks, Louisiana levees detonated, CIA put crack in the cities) are similarly dismissed for the same reasons. Cross-examining proponents of fringe theories advanced by a subset from your own camp, far from challenging core ideology, strengthens it by purging the wacky, the unstable, and the unsustainable theories and proponents which will not influence the persuadable who make a difference in elections (the swing voter).

   In sum, you acknowledge that Maddow: “has a strong belief system and centers her reporting around it.” Under an objective theory of “journalism” I respectfully reject the notion she can be a journalist and that one can “center reporting” around “a strong belief system.” Quite the contrary, far from celebrating his/her belief system by advocating for it, an objective journalist should seek to banish the slightest instances of personal ideology creeping into reporting or editorial decision-making.

   Perhaps, in the end, however, I agree with you more than I would like. Perhaps objective journalism is too elusive, if not impossible. Perhaps, much like our legal system, we should be content in relying on the robust presentation two opposing viewpoints to bring out differing viewpoints as opposed to a neutral factfinder (“objective journalist”). But, I think there something lost when “my” journalist and “your” journalist enter the equation. I think journalism is at its best where the questions asked by the same journalist could make you both wince and cheer (often in the same 30 minute program). I suppose we are on unalterable path to right and left journalists and right and left networks.

   I guess it is more pragmatic albeit painful to accept the realization that there will be no more Tim Russerts.

   Comment by David Gigan | December 17, 2009 | Reply

   • David -

     “Objectivism” in journalism is, and always has been, a myth. My main problem with journalism today is not subjectivism Vs. objectivism but rather Information Vs. Process. So much coverage today tells you what “X” said and then postulates on how “Y” will react – will this work in Y’s favor or not? Missing is the simple question – is what “X” says true? Maddow asks that question, Shepard Smith on Fox asks that question. That makes them journalists, not the fact that they have an opinion. They both offer equal time to opponents of their positions. Yes, they may question them harshly, but that is the true job of a journalist – to force truth from power.

     To see no difference between Beck, O’Reilly and Maddow is simply absurd. Beck and O’Reilly do NOT make corrections, they do NOT correct factual errors, and they GENERATE false information.

     I loved Tim Russert too, but he was not the last of a breed, he was an abberation from the norm. Journalism is, by it’s nature, adverserial. It is our check against government propoganda. Here is where Fox and MSNBC truelly differ. Even with “their man” in the White House, MSNBC questions every policy that comes down the pike, and the players themselves. FOX not only failed to do that when “their man” was in power, they acted as an extension of that power. Every morning GWB’s press office would release a “message of the day”, an internal memo to all party and department leaders of what the white house wanted to hget accross that day with instructions on how to do it. They cc’d Roger Ailes at Fox News, who would then take the same talking points and send them out as a memo to all Fox producers and reporters with instructions to center coverage around making the same point. That is collusion. Don’t take my word for it. See the documentary “Outfoxed”. Is it made by a liberal? Yes. It is meticulously researched with the cooperation of current and former Fox employees? absolutely. Does it actually show physical evidence to back this claim. Yes.

     Comment by David Norman | December 18, 2009 | Reply

3. The fact we are comparing Russert and Maddow is concerning (and interesting) to me and, I believe, proves my point.

   Maddow is an advocate. It matters not that she has gusts with differing opinions (for the purpose of cross-examining those opinions and damaging the position). Bill O’Reilly as an advocate does that too.

   The test: Maddow would never critically questions (cross-examine) a supporter of gay rights; such a supporter would be questioned in a direct examination style (i.e. no hostile – questions designed to underscore or at least elaborate the position- not challenge it).

   When Tim Russert passed away, I remember Chris Matthews saying “we lost our quarterback.” My feeling is – Matthews and Russert weren’t even playing the same game.

   One is an advocate one is a journalist – there is a role for both in life – the problem arises when the distinction is blurred.

   Comment by David Gigan | December 10, 2009 | Reply

   • I partially agree, but not fully. Maddow, unlike O’Reilly, is a journalist. The difference is that she researches her stories and reports based on facts. In other words, she does not lie and publically and prominently corrects herself when she is wrong. She definitely has a strong belief system, and centers her reporting around it, but so did Murrow. Also Maddow advocates issues, not people. I have been following Maddow for a very long time (about 8 years now) and have researched her even before then. As an AIDS advocate before she became a journalist she often criticized Act Up!, at the time the leading AIDS advocacy organization in the world. She has also spoken forcefully against Obama on several issues, and even questioned him directly on some of them when she interviewed him.

     Finally, she has passed your test. On her first radio program for Air America, back in 2003, she very strongly cross-examined a gay rights advocate who believed that the pharmaceutical companies actually had a viable vaccine for AIDS but were not releasing it. He was a guest on the show for a different reason, but brought that up in the conversation. She immediately pounced on it, gave him a tough cross-examination, and concluded by pointing out that it was a shame that a person who stood up for the same rights as she did would do such discredit to her beliefs and to his own organization with such unsubstantiated and frankly unbelievable claims. Clearly a case where she put her own journalistic integrity ahead of her advocacy – probably at a cot to herself in the AIDS advocacy movement.

     On her MSNBC show she has regularly had guests with differing opinions whom she has not only allowed to question her thinking, but that have impacted it. A perfect example is her occasional “talk me down” segment, in which she starts convinced of something but admits she does not necessarily know all there is to know about it, so she will invite someone of a differing opinion to “talk her down” from her position. On more than one occasion she has, in fact, been talked down and changed her outlook as a result of these interviews.

     In opposition to that, Bill O’Reilly never offers someone with an opposing viewpoint a true opportunity to make their point. His interview style is to insult whenever he cannot come up with an argument, and then to cut off the other person’s mic if they don’t take the bait.

     Comment by David Norman | December 10, 2009 | Reply

     • Not to mention the fact that Bill O’Reilly has gone so far as to have people he disagrees with stalked by his staff. If you don’t believe me, read it for yourself, the actual video is on the Huffington Post. Amanda Terkel of Think Progressive was followed to her country home in Virginia and asked intentionally provocative questions as she got out of her car. The hope was that she would crumble under the anger and shock that she had been followed. I don’t even know what to call Bill O’Reilly. Advocates are proponents of a cause or issue. Being an advocate does not mean publicly harassing those who disagree with you. O’Reilly isn’t an advocate, he’s a stupid lying thug who loves the spotlight. If he wasn’t doing his show, he’d be selling used cars.

       Comment by Blanche Norman | December 11, 2009 | Reply

4. great analysis (fair, balanced and witty)
   Tim Russert was great at making blowhards squirm in the chasm between their own words and the truth…I don’t watch Rachel M but guess she musta liked big Russ.
   I like NPR…in two hours or less All Things Considered pretty much does just that. It’s so good, I can listen to it twice in a row and not feel at all bloated over my own little four-hour news cycle. but, alas, it is socialist politburo radio, so WTF do I know?

   Comment by dug | December 9, 2009 | Reply

   • Thanks. Russert was very good at it. Stephanopolous has the potential, but he does let people get away with a bit too much at times, and he is moving to GMA – which I find odd. Chris Matthews could be good at it, but he likes the sound of his own voice too much. You should try watching Rachel Maddow, she really does pick up where Russert left off, and is very good at getting people with opposing view points on her show. Just yesterday she, a lifelong lesbian, had the leader of the “gays can be cured” movement on to discuss the role of his teachings in the Uganda anti-gay legislation (which includes death sentences and life imprisonment for being gay) and methodicaly took him apart without being disrespectful. It was a beautiful thing to behold.

     Comment by David Norman | December 10, 2009 | Reply

5. From the perspective of someone on the right, I think there are very few actual “journalists” out there, and I think ideological bias is the norm which must be actively confronted by any organization or individual striving to deliver unvarnished “news.”

   That said, I think Tim Russert was the closest thing to a journalist I’ve seen in recent memory.

   I miss him because he was a journalist – not an advocate. Most today are advocates masquerading as journalists.

   With Russert, I feel his loyalty was to his craft: vigorous (though civil) cross-examination of everyone and anyone sitting in front of him. And I think that should be the role of a good journalist: to ask the questions which maximally test the guest and his/her ideology.

   The problem: most people cannot distinguish news from argument – and in recent history the latter is far more prominent.

   Comment by davidgigan | November 9, 2009 | Reply

   • As someone from the left, I couldn’t agree more. As I have mentioned in earlier posts Condition Critical (Thinking) I – III, our education system combined with our media has created a generation that cannot tell the difference. The result is a media that is not only argumentative but self-reinforcing.

     Comment by David Norman | November 9, 2009 | Reply

6. Good point about how an hour of good news is worth a lot more than 24 hours of repetitive b.s. on balloon boy. Aside from Rachel Maddow, both Jim Leher and the BBC Worldwide News deserve praise. I do believe, at times, that Leher spends too much time having experts give too much detail about topics that may or may not be of great importance. However, he does manage in the space of an hour, to report all of the most important news, at least as it pertains to the United States. The best example of good television/radio journalism, however, to me, is the BBC. They continue to cover, in detail, the important stories that you mention — i.e. Darfur, Russian Politics, etc. They often interview people on the street, regardless of whether that street is in California or Bangladesh. They don’t tell us what we should think or feel, but allow us to step in to the shoes of people across the globe. I believe the main problem with American news (not commentators – that’s a different animal) is that it is so focused on America it forgets that there are other people in the world. For example . . . every time there is a tragedy in the world, we hear all of the horror stories about what happened to the Americans involved. It is as if the French couple who were, let’s say, taken hostage and held at gunpoint don’t matter as much as the couple from the U.S. The BBC truly is worldwide news. It reminds us that we are all basically of the same species. It tells us about politics in Sri Lanka, in Brazil, in Kenya, etc. etc. It uses its time constructively to actually report news. Hats off also to “All Things Considered” on NPR. They actually do bother to consider all things . . . what a concept.

   Comment by Blanche Norman | November 8, 2009 | Reply

   • I totally agree about the BBC. I think they are the best proof of my item Number 1. I think the fact that they are not 24 hours has a lot to do with the quality, though a large part of it is the lack of the American obsession with process over proof.

     Comment by David Norman | November 8, 2009 | Reply

     • A correction: bbC does provide a 24 hour news service. I started getting it this month when I switched to Fios. It is very good and uses the 24 hours to cover a worldwide range of topics in detail, rather than just lather rinse repeat.

       Comment by David Norman | December 10, 2009 | Reply

7. Looks like you pretty much have it covered Dave

   Comment by Roger Sands | November 7, 2009 | Reply

« Previous | Next »

Site info

The Truth Machine
Theme: Andreas04 by Andreas Viklund. Blog at WordPress.com.