I know most of you who read this blog are Republicans or otherwise socially conservative and likely fans of Fox News, so this may offend the sensibilities of many of you, but I'm sick of the pandering, coddling, and self-important moral superiority oozing from Fox News.
Example: I have heard far more about Miss California on Fox News than anywhere else. Far more. I gather news primarily from NPR (including local news and BBC news), CNN, Fox News, and ABC News between talk radio shows. The Miss California gay marriage thing has, of course, come up all over the news, and most reports have been about what she said and that idiot's reaction. You know, the gossip-blogger-turned-pseudo-celebrity who asked the question. I don't think she's being roasted just because of her views on marriage but because she was launched into the spotlight by said idiot's flatulent ranting, which in turn led to her being touted by NOM (you know, the purveyors of that "A storm is coming, and I am afraid..." melodrama) as a beacon of virtue and courage. Finding any kind of dirt on beacons of virtue and courage has long been a hobby of the media, liberal or otherwise. So I think it too simplistic to decry the "liberal media's" tactics. It's business as usual, unfortunately. Fox News does it, too, when said beacon isn't someone they care to hold up as a martyr. As I see it, Fox News is making far more of an issue of it because they think the American people don't see that those who released the photos or leaked the boob job news are trying to discredit someone with whom they disagree or someone who has a culturally unpopular (even if majority) opinion.
One thing I really appreciate about Fox News is their tendency to cut through the fluffy pop culture crap or to dissect the sociopolitically liberal undercurrent in much of the media which is out of touch with much of America (though I think they often blow it way out of proportion). But therein lies a problem: I'd like them to point out such motives, hidden agendas, and underhanded tactics, and then move on to...oh, I don't know...NEWS!!! Come on folks, I do not need to be Hannitized for a half hour by analysts blathering on about why Miss California's boobs are only news because she's politically incorrect. But they've gotta grab ratings from a hot topic they're trying to make even hotter. You can insult my intelligence, Mr. Hannity, but I can change the channel. And I did. It's like Fox News's clarion call to mind media bias has become an obsessive crusade not to inform the American people but to declare their misinformation. It's old and tired. Give me something to support, not something to decry. Give me stories, not editorial analysts squabbling over motives and credibility.
But then, maybe I'm not Fox News's audience anyway. I'm one of those spineless moderates. I'm one of those gutless, wishy washy, pawns who mask their inability to take a stand with a weak facade of independent, critical thinking and open-minded refusal to demonize the motives of those with whom they don't agree. I guess I can always go get my news from the other pseudo-balanced closet liberals at NPR. Actually, the more I watch Fox News, the more my mancrush on Anderson Cooper grows.
Meanwhile, there's a lot of news to be reported, a lot going on in your backyard, a lot going on across the globe that affects you besides Obama's latest hypocrisy or Miss California's martyrdom. To not realize the turmoil and war on another hemisphere, or to miss out on the everyday personal and social trials of people around the world and their uplifting, humanizing experiences because you're too busy being inculcated about why the liberal media is once again deceiving the American people with boob job news...it just seems sad.
P.S.--Kudos to Greta for her recent report on foster care reform and to Glenn for consistently balancing the big picture (a la "The Real Story") with personal stories. That's the stuff Fox News needs more of, conservative slant or not.
P.P.S.--Don't even get me started on MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.
8 comments:
Yes, I tend toward conservatism, and I believe Hannity is right-headed in many ways; however, he ALWAYS loses, irritates, aggravates, aggitates(you name it) me when he becomes exceedingly childish and absolutely BEAMS when he takes incredibly cheap shots at liberals and uses the same old, worn-out comments over and over and over again.
Yet, Hannity is the extreme on Fox News. I know you don't like Bill O'Reilly, and I don't always agree with him, but he's much more "fair and balanced" than most commentators on either the right or the left, evidenced by viewers' accusations that he's either too liberal or too conservative. At least he sees both sides and takes both sides (although not simultaneously).
Glenn Beck is my favorite. He's passionate and does his homework. Besides, he's a hoot. Kinda wierd, but honest and forthright. He definitely holds my attention.
Gretta is also very up-front and fair minded.
The Fox News "contributor" I like best is Newt Gingrich. He's very bright, articulate, and I hope he runs for president next time.
And yes, don't get me started either on MSNBC's Olberman and Maddow. They're worse than Hannity, in my opinion.
I like Anderson as well, and find myself watching him more and more.
It's not just Hannity, though. It seems like any time there's a culturally charged story, if ANYONE is talking about it, it's Fox News, making mountains of molehills at the expense of reporting the daily goings on of the world. It's very ethnocentric and very ideological. But...I guess that's part of the value of having lots of different news stations that specialize in reporting the news in different ways, so maybe what Fox News offers is just not normally what I'm looking for, and I can just switch over to CNN or listen to NPR to get what I am looking for. And when I want to hear more analysis around Miss California's boobs or what the "liberal media" is lying about now, I'll go back to Fox News. :-)
I have to be careful what I say, since it sounds like I'm the minority in this crowd... Honestly, I don't even know that much about the Miss CA pseudo-story because I don't watch Fox News (or TV, for that matter).
For my own sanity's sake, I've learned to watch the news like I would a comedy- it's mostly entertainment, with a very thin veil of "reality". I'd rather read the news online. It's easier to filter out the crap.
Ha, funny you should say that, K. I actually deleted a paragraph from my comment about news shows being more about ratings than about informing. That's natural, but it's annoying, particularly when the news feels like an entertainment show but gets pawned of as "reporting" because they're "analyzing", not "gossiping". Bah.
Actually, I don't think investigating both liberal and conservative news sources makes for more balance. It seems more like a waste of time, as neither 'side' is interested in objective and honest journalism. It's all just propaganda and whiny self absorbed blathering.
If you want more objective reporting, you have to go to independent news sources. Have you ever heard of Democracy Now? It may be less exciting (you won't hear them babble on about boob jobs, for instance) but I think it's the best alternative, and they cover A LOT more international news than most mainstream corporate-owned news sources.
I do also listen to NPR daily, and I don't see any problem with them being more liberal than moderate. Then again, I don't think to be fair and balanced that you have to be politically moderate, just open to new information. Critical thinking does not necessarily result in moderate positions.
Brittany, I do think well-rounded critical thinking generally leads to moderation. That doesn't mean you won't take a clear stand on an issue but that you'll be more moderated in your approach to solutions.
But I agree with most of what you said. News reporting should not be about conservative or liberal ideologies but about providing information with balanced analysis. The trouble is that everyone has at least some bias, whether they recognize or admit it or not, and there is NO SUCH THING as completely objective reporting. So when it comes to the social implications of certain legislative actions, for example, there is real value in listening to staunch conservatives and staunch liberals and parsing out their arguments. I mean, even "objective" organizations are going to choose what statistics they believe to be most valuable or reliable, so I don't want them headed by a bunch of supposedly objective people (because there are very, very few people that capable of divorcing their ideology from the facts) but by even numbers of conservatives, moderates, and liberals. Good luck getting them to agree on anything, though.
I also think that as society changes and as political ideologies become refined and evolve, tried and true "solutions" may not always be so cut and dry, and there's a lot of guesswork and experimenting to be done in politics. So when it comes to many political issues (the economy, what's best for the American worker, whether gay marriage harms society) there's no such thing as objectivity because what worked yesterday may not work tomorrow, what was true yesterday may not be true tomorrow. It's all about trade-offs, and different people believe different trade-offs are of different value...that's all subjective and somewhat fluid. That's tricky to report without bringing in opposing ideologies to sound off their perspectives and values.
There are, however, reporters who are better about bringing in all sides of an issue, focusing on the facts and leaving the conclusions or value judgments to the viewers, keeping their own opinions mostly silent, and giving fair time and respect to various arguments. I think Anderson Cooper is better than most at doing just that, and I wish more reporters respected the value of at least attempting objective reporting.
Yes, I said 'critical thinking does not necessarily result in moderate positions' I did not say moderation itself. Moderation has its place in the process of thinking critically, but I still do not think that moderate-ness is always the product of critical thinking. Moderate-ness is necessary in creating policy, but not in arguing differences. Productive dialogue often relies on diametricality.
I believe I can take a firm stand on something without closing my mind on the issue. However, most of my disagreements with conservatives stem from ontological and epistemological differences. Those things are less likely to change easily. Finding common ground among philosophical differences is difficult, which is why pundits stick to the easy cheap stuff.
Also, while most are blatantly subjective in their reporting, I do believe that more objectivity can be found, it's just more intellectually heavy and often boring to listen to, which is why it gets ignored while the bombastic red faced shallow jerks get all the attention.
Ha, ignored like our conversation at this point, right? :-)
Post a Comment