People defending the show based on comedy, that does not pass for comedy. How about I go around stereotyping all Christians as inbred rednecks in a snarky manner and call it comedy, how many conservatives do you think would get up in arms? And again, many people can tell the difference between comedy and news, but how many people do you think just buy into the Fox agenda and take anything that's broadcast on the Fox NEWS Network as news? If the answer is greater than one, it's too many.
As for liberal bias, first taking values competely out of the equation, when you compare the actual reporting of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox and ABC it's not even funny. People like Stossel have records of just making things up to support their viewpoint, and overall the ratio of actual reporting to propaganda is pretty low. I'll just use one example, I frequent the Marajuana Policy Project website. One day they had a video posted of one of the MPP's heads being interviewed by Glen Beck. Beck had clearly not done any research and spent basically the whole interview asking pretty idiotic questions that were designed to support only his point of view. That is rule number one in reporting for Fox News, and it's completely ass-backwards. What's the point of having people on if you're not going to gain a different perspective? Switch to a Rachel Maddow interview with a member of MPP and she actually asks for his perspective, asks him to clarify things, asks for his numbers on certain things, comes prepared with numbers of her own. THAT'S reporting, that's what being a newscaster is about. You can talk about being biased to a certain perspective all you want, but when you look at the manner in which Fox conducts their business as compared to how MSNBC conducts their business there is very little comparison. MSNBC is not nearly as full of propaganda as Fox.
Also, people throw around bias a lot. If I go on a news program and show stem cell research in a completely value-free light that's bias to some people. There's always going to be bias, editors are always going pick and choose what to report on. My problem is the way in which it's done. People like Bill O'Reily go on the air and basically throw self-righteous rants and call it news. EverythingI hear from these commentators is totally emotion-based ranting, basically them trying to stir up emotion for their causes. I think this country is well on its way to losing its sensibility. People don't approach issues in a manner of what's best for everyone anymore, they approach it as how do I feel and how can I get my voice heard. When you start talking about value issues and legislation related to them, what's the most objective way to report on them? Take abortion, one group's suggested solution would restrict everyone to one choice, one group's gives individuals their own choice. Take gay marriage, one group's solution restricts all of society to their own values, one group's allows for personal freedom in deciding one's values. If you want to talk about bias then you have to allow for discussion of objectivity, and then you have to allow for the discussion of the objectivity of your own view point. So who's more biased, Bill O'Reily when he talks about keeping gay marriage illegal because that's the way he feels or Rachel Maddow when she talks about gay marriage being legalized because that's an objectively fair solution?
Which basically leaves us with economic issues. I believe this should be the place where there is the most discussion, but there is the least. The problem I have with both sides of the American media here is that no one talks about functionality. We've regressed to just mud-slinging, using propaganda, and basically not having any discussion whatsoever of what each side hopes to accomplish and what consequences there are for each side. I do, however, blame programs like Fox for this state of affairs using the ,"he started it," rule. The thing that pisses me off to end about being a liberal is that I can make a fair and balanced economic argument using facts, studies, evidence, logic, and someone can just come in and say the, "C," word and the discussion is suddenly over, I lost. When I hear Bill O'Reily talking economics I don't hear him talking in an operational sense, I hear him appealing to emotions. This is what's right, freedom, personal liberty, just throwing around buzz words without actually going into the actual functional operation of his theories. Why? Because that would actually hurt his argument. Every libertarian likes to talk about personal freedom and keeping what you earn and the evil of taxes, and people buy into it because it sounds very noble-minded. What they don't talk about is how total economic freedom affects personal freedom, how the idea of a meritocracy needs government intervention to realistically survive, and basically the general operation of their theories. To be fair, I don't hear liberals talking about these things on their mainstream programs either. What got us to this state, however, is trying to bypass the argument. What got us here were libertarians going around talking about freedom and equality without anyone ever calling them out on it, and now whenever someone does call them out they're a communist. There is no intelligent discussion on economics on the mainstream media, period. If you want one here in America you have to go to public TV.
Log in to comment