Did Fox News make liberal media bias worse?
As he notes in “Spin Masters,” the establishment media seemed more concerned about Mitt Romney’s dog Seamus and allegations that Romney gave someone a forced haircut, decades ago — than about Benghazi — or the fact that an Obama-authorized drone strike killed a 16-year-old American.
If the subtitle of Fredosso’s book (which says the media “helped reelect Barack Obama”) is true, it means a couple things: First, the notion that the rise of cable news, talk radio, and conservative websites changed the paradigm, giving conservatives license to ignore the MSM, was a terribly flawed assumption.
And second, because the establishment media is still important and biased, conservatives absolutely must nominate effective communicators like Reagan, and eschew easy-to-caricature politicians, like Romney.
But there’s another interesting twist. Not only has the rise of alternative media not solved the media bias problem, but it could be that the rise of new media has actually radicalized the establishment media, making them more — not less — liberal. …
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
No, not more liberal. Just more open about it.
And that is a good thing. At least now the public sees where they’re coming from and can judge their version of the news accordingly.
petefrt on February 2, 2013 at 8:14 AM
Naive. In the age of the low information voter even the smartest and best communicators can be easily caricatured. To borrower from another commenter: This is Obama’s America now–all lies are truth.
Kataklysmic on February 2, 2013 at 8:20 AM
Lose-Lose
vityas on February 2, 2013 at 8:33 AM
Wow. When do we bring out The National Razor?
BigGator5 on February 2, 2013 at 8:38 AM
http://tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com/peoples_resource/image/18967-Guillotine_Retroactive_Abortion.png
davidk on February 2, 2013 at 8:43 AM
No.
1) Open bias is less damaging and preferable than hidden bias masked as authoritarian truth-pronouncement.
2) Their fiscal triage has moved them left; “news analysis” and “fresh takes” are cheaper than news, as has been noted in many places before. If you’ve been paying attention to your MSM outlets, most have issued press releases about their “bold new direction” shortly after laying off loads of staff in the last five years. 70% of journalists being Democrats and 5% being Republicans (at least, those were the numbers 8 years ago; who knows what it is among those still remaining), that’s going to move your product left.
3) Web 2.0 Internet, not liberal bias, is responsible for the idiocy of political discourse.
HitNRun on February 2, 2013 at 9:19 AM
He must be very young not to remember how the media savaged Reagan every day of his political life. It’s only after his death that they’ve decided he was a beloved figure and great communicator.
The only hit jobs that came close to as nasty are the ones they did on Bush and Palin. I’m guessing he’s not advocating more like Bush and Palin.
S. Weasel on February 2, 2013 at 9:30 AM
It’s never a progressives fault, what he or she does or thinks. There is always someone else to blame. For heaven’s sake, didn’t the existence of the JournoListers teach you anything? They were already liberal and organized.
Fallon on February 2, 2013 at 9:36 AM
Could you throw a possessive apostrophe in there at the end of progressive, okay? I gave my editor the weekend off…
Fallon on February 2, 2013 at 9:37 AM
bullcrap. the only problem is that the conservative media still doesn’t ignore the liberal media. Inh fact the conservative media is still upset when the liberal media shows they are liberal. Who cares. Why give the NYT or Wapo any airtime at all. Why link their stories? Why put up a post about what liberal morning joe said today ot chris matthews said last night? By doing so the conservative media reinforces that the liberal media matters.
close but misses the mark. ALL GOP candidates will be east to caricature, all candidates will be slimmed. The trick is to nominate someone who is an effective communiocator because they will be caricatured in the MSM.
bullcrap. that’s like saying the light of day makes the night darker. The liberal media has always been this liberal the fact that people never had a comparision besides Rush to make them see how baised and how liberal they are doesn’t mean that they are more liberal.
Not reading the rest of the artcile its based on three flawed principles. so any conclusions it draws are flawed.
unseen on February 2, 2013 at 10:35 AM
It pains me to say it, but I believe you give the public – at large – a little too much credit…
affenhauer on February 2, 2013 at 10:36 AM
This passage is key:
The good side to this is that this sword cuts both ways, and I hoped that Matt would have made this connection. With the rise of conservative media getting the message out, the liberal media picks up the slack on their side’s communication front. They are now expected to be the communicators by the liberal politicians. They know they don’t have to be effective at communicating a message, because the media will make corrections and hide the political detritus from view. As a result, we get liberal politicians who couldn’t tell you which side the sun rises on without a teleprompter to spell it out for them, and we get people who have taken to cramming other peoples’ feet in their mouth, having already shoved both of their own into their cakehole. Liberal politicians have allowed the media to be the vanguard of the message for so long that they have forgotten how to politick without them.
As their politicians become dumber, the media advocacy increases. Eventually, it’ll start to look so pathetic that even moderate liberals will tune the message out.
mintycrys on February 2, 2013 at 11:01 AM
One of the Daily Beast posters has a better explanation, which I will expand on after his quote:
I would add to this comment that the Democrat Media absolutely couldn’t accept Bush’s victory in 2000, to the extent that they actually went down to Florida themselves to desperately recount the votes to prove he had really lost. When their recounts gave Bush an even wider lead, they got even angrier.
And don’t forget they also lost their marbles in 1998 when the story they tried to censor, about Bill Clinton engaging in workplace sex with a workplace subordinate, was broken to the public by what they all thought was an illegitimate source.
Del Dolemonte on February 2, 2013 at 11:25 AM
Yup, shouldha’ worded that a little differently.
petefrt on February 2, 2013 at 2:36 PM