So what you are saying is that the "major" media outlets should be held to a different standard than the others do? You're saying that ABC, CBS and NBC as television outlets, and the New York Times and the Washington Post as print outlets, get held to a much different measuring stick than everyone else? FoxNews, The Wall Street Journal, etc. get a free pass for some reason?
When did I say that?
I don't hold Andy Rooney to any more severe of a standard then I do O'Reilly or any other commentator. I do hold CBS Evening News, and 60 Minutes to a higher standard than a commentator because they are reporting the news. If you want a comparable, I hold CNN and FOX accountable for their news desks as well. If Fox ran a news story showing Kerry's military record leaked from the Pentagon in June but held until 4 days before the election I'd be equally as wary.
I find it funny that you hold te New York Times as the standard, yet call them left wing media. If they are the standard or the bench mark are they not the centerist position media source? Is not ABC the centerist TV media? Where is that magic benchmark that you can measure everything to?
I don't hold them as MY standard, I said they are THE standard for network news largely based in New York. Benchmark? I'm not sure where it is ... if I was forced to pick one on television it would be MSNBC though. Tim Russert for example, is likely the most fair guy out there if you watch him day in day out.
You may also want to change your tune on the print media. The Times and the Post are still consider the benchmark for journalism, but they hardly have that huge impact they once did. USA Today reaches more readers. The NY Post and Washington Times have pulled neck and neck with their "left wing" competitors in readership and have the more popular Op-Ed writers, many of which get exposure on other media outlets as well. More people are reading other sources for information these days than the Times and the Post, so I am not sure why they are special and considered supermen in their market.
I'm not talking readership, I'm talking influence on what stories tend to end up on the nightly news of the big three networks. The Times acts as a menu for the big news companies to order off of for their 1 hour slots each night.
That's impact.
From there you name three right wing radio guys, and a few right wing sites on the net as having influence, but ignore the similar sources from the other side, not to mention an active Hollywood presence that campaigns only in one direction.
None of that is news ... does it have an impact? For some, for others not so much.
The problem I see with the whole media argument is that people are enamoured with the arm waiving going on by the right and ignore the impressive multi-media edge they have over the so called "liberal media elite". The line has quietly shifted left, in leaps and bounds, leaving the old establishment in the wake wondering how they went from the center to the left. This is what people fail to acknowledge. The whole industry changed in such a manner that those that were centerist were left in the dust, and while bing left there became a very easy target for those with a smear agenda to attack.
I agree that stations like Fox have had an impact, but I don't see that impact as moving them from central to left, I see it as moving them from far left to not so far left, but still left. They've made them more honest. A healthy thing for everybody.
I don't think you have a right to say people have failed to acknowledge something that you believe is true. They may feel to acknowledge it because they simply don't agree with the basis of your point.
|