Last year, Jordan pointed out to me that the group FAIR (a media watchdog group) is anything but fair. While certainly not using the hate-filled rhetoric of AIM (another media watchdog group), they are just as biased. An easy trap to fall into, I didn't pay much attention to it because I agreed with their conclusions. It would be really, really nice to find an independent source of media criticism. Any suggestions?
Re:Spinsanity?
drhyde on 2004-10-26T09:22:37
From a European point of view, both factions of the Republocrat party are rightist, with the Republican faction being far right, the Democrat faction being approximately equivalent to - say - the British Conservative party as it was in its waning years under John Major.But what I really object to in all these stupid arguments is the misuse of the word "liberal". If you mean "socialist", then bloody well say "socialist". But don't say "liberal". Winston Churchill, right wing old bastard that he was, was a liberal.
From europe the US media looks more right ring than our Conservative party
Re:Media Matters for America
pudge on 2004-10-26T16:13:10
Ovid asked for unbiased source. MediaMatters is about as partisan as you can get: it was created specifically to go after the right wing.
It was started by David Brock, the guy who wrote the attack book on Anita Hill, but later switched sides, as told in his anti-conservative attack article, "Confessions of a Right-Wing Hit Man," followed by a book of the same M.O., Blinded By The Right.
As Slate (an online mag that definitely leans left) wrote, And here [Brock] is, back in the news again, on the same theme, unsurprisingly, this time as founder of a new Web site called Media Matters for America. Backed by $2 million raised from liberal contributors, the site promises to monitor and correct misinformation and lies from the conservative media "in real time."
Read the About page and see all the liberals listed on the editorial staff. Then look at the content and just try to find something criticizing Kerry or the left. Really, this is about as biased and partisan as it comes.
Now, the site I like is FactCheck.org, the site mentioned (erroneously) by Cheney in the debate. They also appear regularly on PBS News Hour. Many have claimed the site leans right, but frankly, I find no evidence of that. There have been times this election season when they have been much more highly critical of Bush than of Kerry, and vice versa. Looking right now at the top 7 items, four are against Bush, one is against Kerry, and the other two are against both.
Re:Media Matters for America
lachoy on 2004-10-26T16:53:57
Right on about factcheck.org -- although it would be wonderful if they delivered the checks via RSS...Re:Media Matters for America
rjray on 2004-10-26T18:36:11
Let me second (third?) the vote for FactCheck. They're equally critical of both sides when they exaggerate or mis-state. They don't do RSS, but they do have e-mail alerts you can subscribe to.
Re:Media Matters for America
dug on 2004-10-26T18:43:19
I believe that Ovid asked for an independant source of media criticism. FactCheck.org is dedicated to holding politicians accountable, not the media. I agree that they do a nice job.
I suppose I could have pointed out that Media Matters' mission statement is to "correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media", but I suspect most folks will read that themselves.
-- Douglas HunterRe:Media Matters for America
pudge on 2004-10-26T18:52:09
I know FactCheck is not what he was looking for exactly, but what you provided is what he was specifically NOT asking for.
Their focus is pretty left, but actually reading what they say, it's pretty balanced.
I do think there's definitely an agenda at work there, but maybe you aren't going to find anyone who are really balanced. The only people who would really go to the trouble of doing research and presenting a view are those who are motivated and people who are motivated often have agendas.
I'm going to try really hard to keep an open mind and read widely from things from that are slanted away from my own current views.
I feel the biggest single problem we have in this country is polarization, how the other side is just _evil_. You see it everywhere. A certain prolific blogger on use.perl has been publishing non-stop about the radical Christian Agenda of the right and has turned comments off. Turning comments off is not a good sign, I'm afraid.
Another famous Perl Person ran websites during this election cycle that were nothing but unofficial Kerry Campaign documents. Palpably, he ran a blog that allowed comments, but I tried to balance something he said and found that comments were being "reviewed" before being posted. (I understand about comment spam, but I should have been warned of the "review" BEFORE I went to the trouble of typing something in, don't you think?) Needless to say, my comment was never presented.
The thing is, Bush is just not that far to the right, but he's painted as a monster. He's adopted just about as much of the Left's own agenda that he could while still not alienating his base, and it's gained for him new levels of hatred spinning out of control. Campaign Finance Reform, Prescription Drug coverage for the Elderly and increased spending on Education, the list goes on.
I lived in Texas when Bush was Governor and he was often criticized there for being too moderate, too much like his Father. I think the Bush Administration takes a lot of Right stands to satisfy his base, but his actions are actually pretty balanced. Jettisoning Ashcroft now that he doesn't have to run for reelection is an example of his balance. Of course, you might criticize this as being rather Machiavellian.
Enough ranting. I'm not going to let the left spin me up with outrage anymore. It's a game both sides play to get armies of slogan spewing numbskulls to work. My New Years Resolution will be to listen more and talk less and not let myself get angry, recognizing that both sides are trying to get me angry and turn off my critical facilities, no matter how outrageous the things I'm hearing are.
