Objectivity and Ratings.
The goal of a television program is to attract viewers. A higher number of viewers means the station can charge more for advertising. When critiquing any television program one must remember always that the goal of the program is to attract viewers. So when Bill O'Reilly does something asinine one must remember that, in part, he is being asinine to attract viewers. When Keith Olbermann releases a Special Comment attacking a President he is, in part, playing to his viewers.
So when I read multiple stories discussing MSNBC's persuit of the "left" demographic I am conflicted as to how to respond.
Fox news tends to have a conservative view on issues. MSNBC, thanks in part to Keith Olbermann's Countdown, has drifted steadily to the left. So are they not both guilty of the same crime? By shifting their programming to reflect the political stances of those who view the network, rather than objectively presenting the news, are not MSNBC and Fox News identical in their guilt with regard to objectivity?
As I said, networks and television shows exist to attract viewers. So is having a liberal or conservative stance necessarily evil? It is certainly not the case that either station is objectively presenting the news; that has not occured for years. But is this wrong? Bad? Detrimental? Can Olbermann continue to refer to Fox as "Faux news" when MSNBC is adopting a liberal stance? Can the pot call the kettle black and somehow be justified? Are Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly two heads of the same non-objective beast.
Or are Keith Olbermann and MSNBC objectively presenting the news and it happens to be the case that reality has a liberal bias?
17 comments:
This is the crux of my issue with objectivity as the end-all-be-all of news reporting...
Also why I lit on Transmet like I did so quickly. Any journalism class tells you to remove bias in reporting.. an admirable thing, in getting to understanding an issue, but it comes at the cost of being able to react to it, and when taken to extremes, creates new issues.
The issue of "fair and balanced", of giving equal weight to unequally held sides of an issue.
I think it's of note to recognize that Cable News is almost entirely editorial or News Analysis. When news actually BREAKS, like a mine disaster, or a crashing plane, a shooting, what have you, all of the networks move to covering as actual news sources. Granted, some do it better than others, and as news stops trickling in, some anchors move to anaylsis again...
I'd argue that Fox News as an entity is unobjective, while I have a harder time, though not impossible arguing MSNBC or CNN are... and I think that's more a case of being unable to dissassociate FNC anchors from the network. I'd also argue that's not FNC's major problem.. Rather, they appear to be very much a "News organization" with an agenda beyond covering news. Something I don't see with the other two...
Two heads, one beast.
Also,
One fish, one hole, millions of years.
Another note... one that should probably kept seperate from my rambling above..
There's a pretty big case to be made that 1) MSNBC isn't shifting at all, and feature articles/media-tracking articles are looking for a hook to explain MSNBC's growth,
that 2) MSNBC is not so much consciously tracking left, as it is recorrecting to match the national majority viewpoint.. Criticism of the Right is taken as evidence of supporting the Left, when it should be taken as simply criticism of the Right.
Having a stance in and of itself is not evil.. It's been the de riguer state of news since the printing press. Major cities end up with multiple papers which stake out claims and slants, and end up competeting by lauching editorials at one another.
Bias itself is not an evil.. in fact, when held by jounalists who are not willing to let it guide HOW news gets covered, but only the manner it gets experessed, I'd argue it's a good thing. Consider Spider Jerusalem. He doesn't let his biases stop him from pointing out his mistakes, the mistakes of those he supports, or the things that his opponents do well.
Spider Jerusalem is a fictional character.
The Daily Show that reran today at lunch time was the one with a segmenton the wild fires. It talked about how CNN used the fires as a promo for its "Planet in Peril" special, MSNBC had a guest who talk about how the War on Terror sucked resources from California, and Fox had someone who talked about terrorist suspects who said that one of the means of attack might be starting wild fires.
I think an objective means of reporting the news would be, for example, "8 did in Finland school shooting" and that is the report. Anything one does to expound on that which is not a pure statement of facts is going to have some bias.
I think I agree with Caleb in that Olbermann and O'Reilly are two heads of the same beast. I just happen to agree with one head more than the other, which is, sensibly, the nature of the beast.
The problem is you're applying to Cable News Networks, standards that they can't possibly fill.
Namely, how do you deal with news 24-7, when you can cover the important news in a very short amount of time. Say.. under 15 minutes.
Like Headline News.. which itself is getting shifted to more closely match the pundit stations.
You can't keep attention/ratings that way. So you move to news analysis. And ESPECIALLY with something like the wildfires, where almost everything is said in the first five minutes. There's a big ass fire raging. Okay.. now what do we say? And that's when editorial takes over.
You're absolutely correct on bias-free reporting. But you're also in danger of falling into the same trap. Bias can stand in danger of misrepresenting or even excluding important information in a story. The issue is not removing bias, so much as it is restraining bias, keeping it in service to the story, as opposed to making the story serve the position.
That, in a tangible sense, is what FNC does. And I'd wager, it's part of why you disagree with O'Reilly and agree with Olbermann more. Becuase you're casually aware that O'Reilly's leaving things out.
Oh, certainly cable news cannot spend 24 hours reporting only facts. That is an unrealistic demand.
I think a better, or realistic, style would be to have a network that had an O'Reilly and an Olbermann. And not in some retarded Crossfire 2-head show, but just had both shows on the air. Perhaps one after the other.
Unfortunately I do not think that would yield high ratings. People don't want to be exposed to differing views. They want constantly suckle on a teat with which they agree.
You're looking for CNN, then..
but I think you're misreading MSNBC.
or rather, giving your articles a little too much credit.
Do you really get the feeling the rest of MSNBC is solidly, staunchly left leaning?
I'd go so far as to say MSNBC is that station you're looking for. Matthews swings equally but seems a bit conservative for me. Scarborough is very much right, as is Carlson. Dan Abrams is.. just.. anomalous. He seems to have no bias, save for ratings.
"Do you really get the feeling the rest of MSNBC is solidly, staunchly left leaning?"
They want to hire Rosie O'Donnell.
What on earth for?
Ratings, pure and simple.
But the thing is, you know she wouldn't last long.
so it's at once a stunt, and a backhand to Carlson.
's all.
And I'd argue that if she's being hired on those grounds, MSNBC's not looking to grow into a liberal image, so much as they are trying to LOOK like they're doing so.
I mean.. MSNBC is also the station that canned Donahue when he had their highest ratings.
All I'm saying is don't mistake the surface details for everything.
Hmn.. Let me revise that with proviso..
he attracted the highest Debut ratings, according to Wiki..
but Wiki also claims they evaporated..
without ever giving numbers for either one.
"MSNBC's not looking to grow into a liberal image, so much as they are trying to LOOK like they're doing so."
That's an interesting thought.
Because if they want to look like they're growing into a liberal image, then they are, in fact, growing into a liberal image.
"image" and "look" and "appearance" are all the same sort of thing.
And if the goal was to not be liberal, but rather appear to be liberal, then I'm confused.
Also, a wiki entry without citation or statistics/facts to support claims? Gasp!
I totally disagree.
By that argument, Bill O'Reilly is the mouthpiece of Mainstream America, becuase he says he is, and markets himself that way.
You're saying that something can't be marketed towards an audience without actually being FOR that audience. And I respond with the Transformers movie, which clearly, was designed to appeal to people with fond memories of the cartoon.
Was Bay's movie for Transformers Fans?
Quote time.
R:
"MSNBC's not looking to grow into a liberal image, so much as they are trying to LOOK like they're doing so"
J:
"Because if they want to look like they're growing into a liberal image, then they are, in fact, growing into a liberal image.
"image" and "look" and "appearance" are all the same sort of thing."
R:
"By that argument, Bill O'Reilly is the mouthpiece of Mainstream America, becuase he says he is, and markets himself that way."
No, by THAT argument Bill O'Reilly appears to be the mouthpiece of Mainstream America, because he says he is, and markets himself that way.
image/look/appearance ≠ "is"
We're talking about appearances. We are not talking about what things actually are.
Bill O'Reilly can appear to be a culture warrior, the mouthpiece of the United States. That's fine.
But it doesn't mean that he actually is those things.
Appearances.
I'm still not sure I grant the premise. I see what you're saying, but my use of liberal image was shorthand for your MSNBC wanting to become the leftleaning Fox.
Read that way, do you agree or disagree with the statement?
I disagree with you.
I think MSNBC wants to be seen as the alternative to Fox, so they are presenting themselves as anti-Fox. They can't be non-Fox, because Fox has such significant market share and viewership. They can't get the numbers they need by neutrality, they have to persue the "We are not them; we're anti them" marketing approach.
They feed off the discontent Fox fosters, as it were.
And I respond to that by saying that if MSNBC were serious about doing that, they'd be putting forward serious attempts at left-leaning, ethical journalists.
Not Stunt Casting something like an O'Donnell hour show.
ESPECIALLY when such a show would inevitably be more like a Larry King type show and less a pundit show.
Post a Comment