"Objective" coverage of the tea parties?!

shagdrum

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
6,568
Reaction score
44
Location
KS
No, seriously!

Politico, 3/22/10 (emphasis mine):
David Weigel, who’s been covering the right for the Washington Independent, will soon be heading to the Washington Post.

Weigel joins the Post on April 5, and will be launching a blog focused on the conservative movement, tea party activists, and how the GOP’s preparing for November…

“I’ve been lucky to cover a really amazing, surprising political story in the remaking of the GOP and the rise of the Tea Parties,” Weigel told POLITICO. “I take them seriously; they’re building something brand new, something that defies conventional wisdom. If readers get a deeper understanding of these people, their strategy, and their ideas, then I’m doing my job.”​
Weigel, writing to Ezra Klein’s Super-Secret Mega-Awesome Lefties-Only Clubhouse, AKA JournoList, February 2010:
“Honestly, it’s been tough to find fresh angles sometimes–how many times can I report that these [tea party] activists are joyfully signing up with the agenda of discredited right-winger X and discredited right-wing group Y?”
Flickr, 4/19/09:
3437081360_cbf5b7aa77.jpg
 
Big Government, Bad Journalism
by Doctor Zero

Just the other day, I was discussing the challenge of maintaining cordial relationships in a highly politicized society with a friend of mine. When politics have infused every aspect of our lives, right down to the menus at fast-food restaurants, our political opinions are often interpreted as judgments of character. The conservative sees a diehard Obama supporter as an accomplice to tyranny, while the Obama supporter sees the opponents of socialized medicine as accessories to the murder of the uninsured. No matter which side of the debate you come down on, it’s easy to see that the stakes are high, and participation has become mandatory. The option to stay out of the argument no longer exists, because regardless of your station in life, this vast and activist government is not going to leave you alone.

I found myself thinking along these lines while watching JournoList, the electronic locker room for liberal reporters, collapse beneath the weight ofDave Weigel’s spleen.

Weigel has spent the last few months working as an observer of the conservative movement for the Washington Post, whose readers must wonder about the identity of the vast Tea Party crowds occasionally blocking their view of the IRS building. As it turns out, Weigel really hates the people he’s been covering, and sees himself precisely the way conservatives see most dinosaur-media reporters: as a partisan operative of the Democrat Party. He expressed his hatred, and loyalties, in a series of communications posted to JournoList. These emails became an embarrassing burst of digital flatulence when they were made public. Weigel is out of a job at theWashington Post, and JournoList is gone.

Blogger Ace of Spades wonders why the Post couldn’t find a sympathetic correspondent to cover the “conservative beat,” and answers his own question by pointing out the Post has no interest in publishing material that might lead its readers to begin grooving to that conservative beat. The last thing they want is for their right-wing avatar to come back with a horde of angry natives behind him and lead a successful insurrection.

Here we cross the line between editorial decisions and bias. Why would an unbiased newspaper be afraid to honestly report news that makes one side of a political debate look appealing, instead assigning a reporter to highlight fringe material to cast them in the most negative light possible? Of course, they are biased, but it’s even worse than that. They’re subjective. They pretend to be commentators, but they’re actually players in the game… just like everyone else. Our fates are all controlled by the immense central government worshipped by the Post. They have a vested interest in ensuring its sustained growth, so they can make their fortune writing epic tales of its heroic deeds.

Big Government makes for bad journalism. As I like to point out whenever someone like David Frum gushes over “moderates,” there is no meaningful way to be moderate when a carnivorous super-State is chowing down on huge portions of the private sector, while dismissing bedrock Constitutional rightswith an irritated wave of its hand. You either resist the onslaught of the State with all your might, or bear passive witness to its expansion.

At this moment in American history, there is no functional difference between a genuine “centrist” and Dave Weigel’s right-wing “ratf**kers.” If you think you should be allowed to keep your own medical insurance, and see your own doctor, you’re taking an extreme partisan stance. If you don’t think the government should be able to revoke the First Amendment or due process rights of private corporations at its convenience, you are a declared enemy of the State.

For the same reason, journalists can only make the thinnest pretense of objectivity when covering the super-State. Merely reporting honestly on its past and current activities would qualify a journalist for associate membership in the Ratf**ker Pack. As my Green Room colleague Karl points out, some of Weigel’s most intellectually offensive emails concerned the kind of organized narrative manipulation that appears to have been the true purpose of JournoList all along. In the immense political struggle now under way, there is no room on the sidelines.

Mainstream media figures want to pose as friendly partners in an intelligent conversation, but the size and power of the government they cover makes it impossible to analyze dispassionately. In their hearts, journalists really hate the idea of seeing that exciting mega-government torn down, or they believe it’s impossible to do so. That’s why they see the new breed of aggressive, Tea Party-endorsed Republicans as either enemies or lunatics. It doesn’t help that they’re well aware of ongoing statist efforts to control or subsidize the media. Even those reporters who aren’t True Believers are reluctant to earn a spot on the enemies list of an eternally triumphant statist elite.

It’s striking how much venom Dave Weigel directed at people who never insulted him personally. In the pressure cooker of an overwhelming, and collapsing, centralized government, the personal and political are fused into a single identity. Asking uncomfortable questions is an act of rebellion, and effective resistance to the will of the elite is a declaration of war. Media operatives, who eat and drink politics with every meal, are just a little further down the spiral of bitterness and desperation that awaits us all.
 
And a comment by someone called Sung Chun Kim:
Why is no one calling for the outing of the 400 JournoList members and an investigation of whether there were any other attempts to collude and to coordinate the media narrative? Is no else as disturbed by this as I am? We’re constantly told that the media are special, that they’re the Fourth Estate, and that their proper functioning is vital to the health of the Republic. Well, is no one else profoundly disturbed that no one is watching the watchers? Or that the watchers are actually colluding in a virtual smoke-filled back room to massage and frame the narrative?

Imagine if a conservative listserv were discovered, and that it included Rupert Murdoch and 400 conservative pundits and journalists. Imagine if it were disclosed that the participants actively discussed coordination in framing stories so as to benefit the Republican Party. Do you think there would be a ho hum “Oh, it was just a private list” response? Of course not, the liberals would be howling to the rafters about the existential threat to the Republic.

So why all the frivolity here? Even now, the Weigel story is breaking down into stupid distractions like whether Weigel actually wished death on Drudge, or whether people on a listserv have an expectation of privacy. Seriously, why is that even remotely important compared to the fact that 400 of this nation’s most prominent journalists and pundits were having discusions about killing or promoting stories based on whether they hurt the Democratic Party agenda? If there is any justice or sanity in this world, this should be bigger than ClimateGate. I want to see an archive of the JournoList postings and then compare them to any contemporaneous stories written by participants. Once that is done, we can tar and feather the bastards for betraying their profession and the people of this country.
 
So, Weigel was fired? That means there's a job opening to discredit the Tea Party? Foxpaws, check your pager.
 
So, Weigel was fired? That means there's a job opening to discredit the Tea Party? Foxpaws, check your pager.
Foss - what decade are you living in? Pager? Ah, here in the future we now have cellphones, perhaps I should check my voicemail - or better yet - we now have email too... ;)

Weigel should have been fired - but I am more interested about the accusation on the media working in kind to bolster the dems. I would like to see some hard evidence from Journolist that would collaborate that. Certainly there has been some 'evidence' that Fox does this (albeit it is shady, but interesting).
 
Weigel should have been fired - but I am more interested about the accusation on the media working in kind to bolster the dems. I would like to see some hard evidence from Journolist that would collaborate that. Certainly there has been some 'evidence' that Fox does this (albeit it is shady, but interesting).

Your "study" seems to, by implication, make the mistake of assuming correlation means causation. There is no way it can logically and/or (more importantly) empirically draw the conclusion it is reaching in the abstract or the conclusion you are taking from it. In drawing that conclusion, it shows itself as a highly biased study and worthless "study".

Here is the fatal line:
We also find a significant effect of Fox News on Senate vote share and on voter turnout. Our estimates imply that Fox News convinced 3 to 8 percent of its viewers to vote Republican
This study assumes that it was FOX that convinced these views to vote and had an effect. They possibility that FOX viewership was a reflection of a change in voter sentiment is not considered in the abstract (and is impossible to determine).

What they are claiming cannot be empirically proven.
 
Shag - I could also point you to a movie - but we have been there, done that - I thought this particular study was an interesting, media effect on voters is a really interesting phenomena, that we can't discount, on either side. If you are a politician, how important is it for you to be on a media outlet that is going to 'help' or 'hinder' you? And if you only pander to your audience, is that going to generate enough votes in middle America?

I think the question comes down to is this - does FoxNews have enough penetration into middle America to be an effective force in moving voters? This study seemed to indicate it has a small, but significant effect. It is empirical evidence, but, that is probably the best you can do with this subject matter.

However, how about the 'evidence' regarding Journolist - is that somewhere, or am I missing something...
 
Foss - what decade are you living in? Pager? Ah, here in the future we now have cellphones, perhaps I should check my voicemail - or better yet - we now have email too... ;)
Cellphones? What decade are you living in? Today we have handheld computercameras that have phones in them...:rolleyes:
 
Shag - I could also point you to a movie

Yes, and that movie has as much credibility as your typical Michael Moore film; which is to say, none.

I thought this particular study was an interesting, media effect on voters is a really interesting phenomena

It is a phenomenon that is A) impossible to measure, B) a distraction from the original focus of this thread, which was the biased coverage of the Tea Parties by David Weigel for the Washington Post, specifically, and the broader, and likely, possibility of leftist media collusion to demonize the Tea Parties.

Focusing on that study in the way you did only serves to both move the goalposts as well as refocus the discussion in a different direct.

Can you discuss this honestly and in good faith please?
 
Yes, and that movie has as much credibility as your typical Michael Moore film; which is to say, none.



It is a phenomenon that is A) impossible to measure, B) a distraction from the original focus of this thread, which was the biased coverage of the Tea Parties by David Weigel for the Washington Post, specifically, and the broader, and likely, possibility of leftist media collusion to demonize the Tea Parties.

Focusing on that study in the way you did only serves to both move the goalposts as well as refocus the discussion in a different direct.

Is delegitimization the only way you know to debate?

Well, shag - you might have noticed that I have asked over and over again if there is any hard evidence regarding the whole 'Journolist' question and I haven't seen any forth coming - I was just biding time... conversationally, by adding that there is a possibility that rightest media demonizes as well. We can all speculate - it is the name of the game...
 
I was just biding time... conversationally, by adding that there is a possibility that rightest media demonizes as well.

Biding time?! :rolleyes:

Demonization is, unfortunately, part of the game in politics. And when a population is dumbed down in the area of political ideology, demonization sells real well.
 
Well, shag - you might have noticed that I have asked over and over again if there is any hard evidence regarding the whole 'Journolist' question and I haven't seen any forth coming - I was just biding time... conversationally, by adding that there is a possibility that rightest media demonizes as well. We can all speculate - it is the name of the game...
"Rightest media?" Is that another one of your newly coined terms that only you get to define? :rolleyes:
 
Biding time?! :rolleyes:

Demonization is, unfortunately, part of the game in politics. And when a population is dumbed down in the area of political ideology, demonization sells real well.

Yep - ask both sides shag - demonization works great. Ask Thomas Jefferson.. Ask John Adams... it has worked well for ever... You could probably ask Caesar.

And now - for the loaded question - where is the hard evidence regarding Journolist, that continues to be avoided here shag -

A classic case of 'demonization' if you ask me.
 
"Rightest media?" Is that another one of your newly coined terms that only you get to define? :rolleyes:

Whoops, typo - meant to reply in kind to leftist media - however - I do like it... I'll have to figure out how best to use it ;)
 
And now - for the loaded question - where is the hard evidence regarding Journolist, that continues to be avoided here shag

??

Is there a reason you keep harping on this?

The information you want is unattainable and you know it. It doesn't mean that the claim is wrong, just that it is not empirically verifiable. However, considering the evidence available and the history of the mainstream media, it is hardly out of the realm of possibiliyt. In fact, it is highly likely.
 
??

Is there a reason you keep harping on this?

The information you want is unattainable and you know it. It doesn't mean that the claim is wrong, just that it is not empirically verifiable. However, considering the evidence available and the history of the mainstream media, it is hardly out of the realm of possibiliyt. In fact, it is highly likely.
She's just moving the goalposts again. Even if you had a smoking gun .pdf file she'd attempt to discredit Adobe.
 
??

Is there a reason you keep harping on this?

The information you want is unattainable and you know it. It doesn't mean that the claim is wrong, just that it is not empirically verifiable. However, considering the evidence available and the history of the mainstream media, it is hardly out of the realm of possibiliyt. In fact, it is highly likely.

And it is highly likely that the right does it as well on fox - that is why I keep harping on this - and brought in a reasonable study in fact... this is clearly a case of he does, he does. Well, they both do... what is so shocking about that? Get over it. There is no 4th estate right now... it could be with flash media there may never be a 4th estate again...

You can't prove that Journolist is doing anything - and the proof for FoxNew's bias is pretty circumstantial - but actually better than what you have for Journolist, isn't it?

and I am not moving goalposts - without hard evidence it is pretty hard to get this on circumstantial evidence. Collusion among a large group of journalists? there would be a whistle blower somewhere in the mix - there is always the carrot of the glory of the 'big story' just around the bend...

Pot meet kettle...
 
And it is highly likely that the right does it as well on fox

Not so much.

Yes, the commentary shows on Fox tend to be conservative but you have yet to show credible information to support the notion that Fox news, as a whole is misleading by coloring the news in one direction. All you have shown is a worthless, unempirical (and thus unscientific) "study" and pointed to an discredited propaganda film masquerading as a "documentary".

Besides, your continued harping on Fox news only distracts from the original focus of this thread; that the MSM (not simply one news station) is (possibly) colluding to mislead the public. Focusing on one news station is a red herring.

It is rude to hijack threads.

that is why I keep harping on this - and brought in a reasonable study in fact

No, your "study" was not, in any way, reasonable. It was propaganda masquerading as a "study". The fact that you ignore the specific points made to demonstrate that fact is very telling.

You can't prove that Journolist is doing anything - and the proof for FoxNew's bias is pretty circumstantial - but actually better than what you have for Journolist, isn't it?

Journolist is only an minor example of what is being talked about. There are countless other examples and facts that logically demonstrate that the mainstream media is exceedingly biased in their news coverage, and not by accident.

If you don't want to actually discuss the leftist bias of the mainstream media, then please leave this thread. If you want to focus on Fox news, start another thread. But stop attempting to hijack this thread and frustrate any honest discussion of the issue of left wing media bias.
 
Not so much.

Yes, the commentary shows on Fox tend to be conservative but you have yet to show credible information to support the notion that Fox news, as a whole is misleading by coloring the news in one direction. All you have shown is a worthless, unempirical (and thus unscientific) "study" and pointed to an discredited propaganda film masquerading as a "documentary".

Besides, your continued harping on Fox news only distracts from the original focus of this thread; that the MSM (not simply one news station) is (possibly) colluding to mislead the public. Focusing on one news station is a red herring.

It is rude to hijack threads.



No, your "study" was not, in any way, reasonable. It was propaganda masquerading as a "study". The fact that you ignore the specific points made to demonstrate that fact is very telling.



Journolist is only an minor example of what is being talked about. There are countless other examples and facts that logically demonstrate that the mainstream media is exceedingly biased in their news coverage, and not by accident.

If you don't want to actually discuss the leftist bias of the mainstream media, then please leave this thread. If you want to focus on Fox news, start another thread. But stop attempting to hijack this thread and frustrate any honest discussion of the issue of left wing media bias.

All media is biased.... When will you guys get that through your 'fantasy world' mindset and just accept the fact. It isn't going to change - your harping about it won't make one iota of difference. Bias sells... and sells, and sells.

Fox has discovered that right wing bias sells well, because as of now they are the only purveyors of the product on 'main stream' delivery systems.

So, here we go - the MSM is biased, boy is it biased. Yep, it sure is. See it every day. Getting worse. Because the public has shown it likes it that way. We like to see talking heads that reflect us. Give us dirty laundry once in a while too...

And of course it isn't by accident - it is by design, Wall Street design. Numbers, numbers, numbers... Katie Couric outreaches Bret Baier 3 to 1 with almost the same penetration numbers...
 
So now you fall back on your false comparisons (Couric and Baier) and other misleading talking points and lies. It seems pretty clear that you are only concerned with delegitimizing and downplaying the fact that the MSM has a left wing bias while irrelevantly shifting the focus to Fox News.

If media bias was such a "non-issue" as you make it out to be then you wouldn't feel the need to attempt to downplay it and shift the focus to Fox whenever leftist media bias is brought up on here. Why even bother with a thread that is focused on such a "non-issue"?
 
So now you fall back on your false comparisons (Couric and Baier) and other misleading talking points and lies. It seems pretty clear that you are only concerned with delegitimizing and downplaying the fact that the MSM has a left wing bias while irrelevantly shifting the focus to Fox News.

If media bias was such a "non-issue" as you make it out to be then you wouldn't feel the need to attempt to downplay it and shift the focus to Fox whenever leftist media bias is brought up on here. Why even bother with a thread that is focused on such a "non-issue"?

Nope - Katie Couric is biased - and that isn't a false comparison at all... FoxNews has almost 93% penetration... the numbers talk for themselves shag...

And I bother to show people that it is on both sides, and that it isn't going to go away, People need to learn to get information from many sources, rather than plop in front of the TV at night and believe it all, from any source. Don't think by tuning into FoxNews you are getting the 'fair and balanced' reporting they say they are giving you. You aren't - it is balanced to get fox ratings and make them money. Murdock isn't concerned about fair and balanced - he is Aussie - he just wants American dollars.

Just like Couric isn't long for this world - she can't put up the numbers and so she will be ousted... they all chase the mighty dollar shag.
 
Nope - Katie Couric is biased - and that isn't a false comparison at all... FoxNews has almost 93% penetration... the numbers talk for themselves shag...

Cal has already shown this to be a false comparison. Basically, a 24 hour news source is not comparable to a nightly news source on cable in the manner you are comparing them.

And I bother to show people that it is on both sides

Which downplays the fact that it is still, exceedingly one sided. Outside of FOX and AM news, the vast majority of media outlets are leftist. ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, NPR, NYT, LAT, WaPo, etc., all have a decided left wing bias and inject editorializing into their coverage; blurring the lines between commentary and coverage, unlike FOX.

People need to learn to get information from many sources, rather than plop in front of the TV at night and believe it all, from any source

Agreed. However, a simply diversity of sources is worthless. They need a point of reference and a way to distinguish between misleading rhetoric and wisdom. That is where ideology (in the general sense) comes in.

Don't think by tuning into FoxNews you are getting the 'fair and balanced' reporting they say they are giving you.

Actually, you are. The commentary can be one sided, but the reporting; the coverage is generally fair. To ignore that distinction is to mislead.

they all chase the mighty dollar shag.

It is not that cut and dry. The MSM has sacrificed monetary gain in the name of ideology. That has been pointed out numerous times on this forum.
 
Cal has already shown this to be a false comparison. Basically, a 24 hour news source is not comparable to a nightly news source on cable in the manner you are comparing them.

Yes it is shag - if you understood ratings, book, penetration, etc, how media is changing, it is a fair comparison. The biggest word here is penetration - FoxNews used to languish - it no longer does. They are almost at 100%, and are a fair comparison to nightly news. Bret Baier is comparable, just because he doesn't draw the numbers doesn't mean you can't look at them head to head - especially if you look at other cable events in comparison to network - and the difference there is becoming smaller - you do compare Monk to ER... it is becoming single platform, the duality of cable/network is becoming a thing of the past - the lines are very blurry, and just about gone.


Which downplays the fact that it is still, exceedingly one sided. Outside of FOX and AM news, the vast majority of media outlets are leftist. ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, NPR, NYT, LAT, WaPo, etc., all have a decided left wing bias and inject editorializing into their coverage; blurring the lines between commentary and coverage, unlike FOX.

I personally would put Brian Williams against AM News for 'fair and balanced' any day shag - talk about injecting editorial...

When you advertise Beck on Baier, you are blurring the lines a lot... When you have hours devoted to a tea party rally, and no mention of a gay rally of equal size - you are pandering to an audience.

It is just what they do - I am not condemning them for it - what you see is what you get.

Agreed. However, a simply diversity of sources is worthless. They need a point of reference and a way to distinguish between misleading rhetoric and wisdom. That is where ideology (in the general sense) comes in.

Actually, you are. The commentary can be one sided, but the reporting; the coverage is generally fair. To ignore that distinction is to mislead.

FoxNews is at least as biased, if not more so than network news. You can go to your sources, and I can go to mine - but FoxNews is biased, to say that they aren't is foolish shag. I have many, many examples, just as you probably have many examples of Brian Williams being biased - right?

It is not that cut and dry. The MSM has sacrificed monetary gain in the name of ideology. That has been pointed out numerous times on this forum.

On cable - not on prime time news shag - they don't sacrifice monetary gain - it is big, big business. MSNBC can play in the pig pen, but NBC News cannot.
 
I personally would put Brian Williams against AM News for 'fair and balanced' any day shag - talk about injecting editorial...
Brian Williams - the guy who did an Obamacare infomercial from inside the White House, thus cementing permanent derision as the 'State Run Media' - Brian Williams, the guy who creamed his jeans when Captain Kickass bought him a greasy hamburger from Five Guys? :bowrofl:

"Cheeseburger...from the President. Life wouldn't be worth living without it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_ZUTVESJPk



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLYtHHxTTmc
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top