Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Evan Zimmerman <evan.zimmerman AT gmail.com>]

> Does nobody remember Eason Jordan's apology after the fall of Baghdad?

I didn't  --  I went and read his statement, and it sounded more like
someone who felt forced to conceal information for the sake of
protecting sources or to prevent further harm from coming to an
employee. That may be a limited reading or only the "intended
takeaway", but on the whole I find it disagreeable but not something
to indict him for. Maybe I missed the bigger picture.

> There's plenty of blame to go around, people.

Agreed. I completely agree with you that the standards for such things
have slipped. I would add that as the level of media saturation has
risen and people become more networked allowing them to share
skepticism or support of an idea, the bias has become more obvious. I
think media is changing -- not because of the "blogosphere" etc
necessarily, but because the audience has greater immediate access to
find differing opinions or fact check something they are skeptical of.
I'm not sure even newer media such as CNN and Fox know how to deal
with that yet.

> I gotta wonder: why does everybody pile up on Fox News?

But! Despite CNN and co's failings, there is a difference. Maybe you
dismiss it, or maybe it's all in my head. I find it's all the
difference in the world though. The difference is of degree of bias,
of intention, and of the "background" for lack of a better word of the
network.
By degree of bias I mean Fox tries to convice viewers to believe ideas
presented to it by people (management/advisors), rather than basing
it's case on facts.
By intention, I mean that there is intent to deceive -- Jayson Blair
was a blight, absolutely, but he was a failing of Raine's ego and a
general lack of oversight. The bulk of the NYT is not nor was not
comprised of Jayson Blairs, but I would be hesitant to say the same of
Fox's news teams.
 
By background, I mean that the network is backed by Rupert Murdoch,
who is an outspoken activist conservative who encourages his media
outlets to convey his message/ideas to the public. Ted Turner and
whoever at other networks may have bias -- I don't know -- but they
don't send memos or call their reporters to dress them down for
getting out of line by reporting facts. Add to that Roger Ailes, a
republican operative, who heads the network, and the fact that many
Fox employees have left the company after complaining about being
forced to deliver GOP talking points... well, then we have a problem.

Again, I'm not trying to defend other outlets -- I'm just saying CNN
is the guy who trips and falls and smashes your window and then
apologizes, while Fox is the guy who breaks it with a baseball bat and
then flips you off. There's a difference in my mind.

 

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 23:38:16 -0400, James Dasher <jdasher AT ibiblio.org> wrote:
> I gotta wonder: why does everybody pile up on Fox News?
> 
> Does nobody remember Eason Jordan's apology after the fall of Baghdad?
> 
> What was CNN's reporting for that dozen years if not editorialized?
> (Not that CNN was the only network tarred by that brush.)
> 
> There's plenty of blame to go around, people.  I'd say covering up for
> Saddam is worth a healthy dose of skepticism.
> 
> As Edwards said on Thursday, they did business with the sworn enemies
> of our country during a time of war.  The word for that is "treason".
> (The word for covering up someone else's crimes is "accessory".)
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers --
> 
> --
> James Dasher
> misterdasher dot com
> IM misterdasher
> 
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!  
> http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers
>