Ad hominem in the media

[Jedi Master Spock]

The VS debate has been most interesting to me not because of its content, but because it is a nice "trivial" microcosm of how public discourse progresses. There's no significant demographic differences between Star Trek fans and Star Wars fans, or even any real links between which side of the debate you pick and your religious, scientific, or political views; both are pulling from essentially the same group of science fiction/fantasy viewers.

And yet, in the political discourse of the mass media, we see the exact same thing. The White House lays out the claim that Fox News is not really a news organization. The primary public response by Fox News (and associated media properties under Murdoch), at least as measured by Google News, is not bringing out journalism experts or communications experts to show how Fox News is doing a good job of investigating and informing. Instead, the top hits are the hit pieces on Anita Dunn, a previously obscure administration person who made some of the choicer comments on Fox News.

And somewhere in this entertaining spectacle of Brit Hume et al crying "Commie pinko!" people are getting well off the original point. That's because ad hominem tactics are quite effective; not logical, no, but highly distracting.

[Cocytus]

What can we say, the news is entertainment. Ad hominem attacks and paranoid delusions of doomsday scenarios make great copy. Thoughtful, incisive reporting? Not so much.

[sonofccn]

I'm going to take a wild guess and say you are not a Fox News fan. Anyway I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. I personally thought another Obama administration offical with comunist/radical sympathies was news worthy and not merely a petty attack but than I am a proud rightwing nut. I personally think it's the other news networks who have stopped even pretending to report the news and merely follow their orders but once again that's my opinion.

[Cocytus]

Van Jones? Well, he's gone now. Point for Glenn Beck. I certainly wasn't pleased by his association with the 9/11 truth movement.

But realistically, every news outlet is biased in one way or another. My issue with Fox is that they perceived a left-wing bias in the media, and decided to counter it by being as biased in the opposite direction, while simultaneously proclaiming themselves to be the middle ground (which is a commonplace tactic partisans use to make their opposition seem that much further from the mainstream.) Why counter bias with more bias?

I will say there is one show on Fox I enjoy: Fox News Sunday, which I watch mainly for Charles Krauthammer and the occasional visit by Lindsey Graham. I like reading Krauthammer's editorials because his opinions are thoughtful and well-organized, and putting together a refutation of them is always a challenge. And I like Lindsey Graham. He's conservative, but he's not an ideologue. He's the kind of common sense guy we need more of.

The reciprocal of Fox News Sunday is, of course, This Week with George Stephanopolous, which I also enjoy because they have a powerful conservative mind in George Will, and a number of excellent leftward commentators like EJ Dionne and Donna Brazile. I enjoy these two programs because everyone by and large offers up good points, and does so without the hateful vitriol that is so common in politics.

Then, of course, when I want a partisan fix, I watch Keith Olbermann. His show is purely entertainment, but I can well understand why someone on the other side would hate his guts. He bombastic and self-aggrandizing, but I find his comically verbose style amusing. He's an entertainer, and he entertains me. MSNBC is certainly quite liberally biased, no doubt about that, and they're as left as I go. I've never read Daily Kos or Huffington Post, excepting when someone links to it in an argument. Keith has those two on fairly regularly, but I tend to skip over those parts of his show. I just like watching him bloviate all by himself. It's a form of masturbation, really.

[Jedi Master Spock]

I'm going to take a wild guess and say you are not a Fox News fan. Anyway I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. I personally thought another Obama administration offical with comunist/radical sympathies was news worthy and not merely a petty attack but than I am a proud rightwing nut. I personally think it's the other news networks who have stopped even pretending to report the news and merely follow their orders but once again that's my opinion.

It may be in some fashion somehow newsworthy, but it's not addressing the argument. Did Fox News respond more directly to the accusation that they aren't a real news organ? Yes. However, that piece of work was less repeated and less linked to.

Why? The only reason Anita Dunn is the subject of news at all is that she's at the focus of the Obama administration's attacks on Fox News' credibility. Saying "COMMIE PINKO COMMIE!" - and I've read the transcripts of the treatment on a couple Fox shows, there's not really much more information being presented - is simply distracting from the issue. I would rather hear the tie-ins, what did Rahm say, what did Barack say, what's the administration's history with this so far. What was Fox asking at press conferences? Was the administration not calling on them/seating them poorly?

And you might even ask, as one favoring Fox News, whether or not the Obama administration's ongoing attacks on Fox News are simply a distraction from "real" news. And there's the tricky point: Sometimes you want, or need, to say things about another party that aren't particularly pleasant, but they can be news. Fine. But this? I consider this gratuitous distraction from the issue. The defense of Fox News shouldn't be a counterattack on some random interim official and a load of frothing about Mao; it should be a meaningful and material demonstration of facts about Fox News. "Look, here we are, here are the stories we've broken, here's why we're not simply a propaganda organ."

And frankly, when Fox News responds in the main by ranting and raving about some interim administration official? It makes them look more like a propaganda organ and less like a news service, at least to me. Krauthammer's op-ed column is denser in facts than Fox's "news" stories about Dunn.

[sonofccn]

And you might even ask, as one favoring Fox News, whether or not the Obama administration's ongoing attacks on Fox News are simply a distraction from "real" news.

I believe the President and his Administration have far more pressing issues to contend with and are not in charge of deciding who are legitimate news agencies or not. It makes him look petty in my opinion.

And there's the tricky point: Sometimes you want, or need, to say things about another party that aren't particularly pleasant, but they can be news. Fine. But this? I consider this gratuitous distraction from the issue. The defense of Fox News shouldn't be a counterattack on some random interim official and a load of frothing about Mao; it should be a meaningful and material demonstration of facts about Fox News. "Look, here we are, here are the stories we've broken, here's why we're not simply a propaganda organ."

I guess I don't see much point in offering a rebutal. The battle lines have been drawn ages ago. You either believe Fox provides a fair and even display or you don't. If you do Obama saying otherwise is unlikely to sway you and if you don't Fox news saying they are will not sway you.

And frankly, when Fox News responds in the main by ranting and raving about some interim administration official? It makes them look more like a propaganda organ and less like a news service, at least to me. Krauthammer's op-ed column is denser in facts than Fox's "news" stories about Dunn.

I wouldn't call it ranting and raving. She considered Mao one of her two philosophical leaders, the other being mother Teresa. That is troubling, Mao not Teresa of course.

[sonofccn]

Van Jones? Well, he's gone now. Point for Glenn Beck. I certainly wasn't pleased by his association with the 9/11 truth movement.

But realistically, every news outlet is biased in one way or another. My issue with Fox is that they perceived a left-wing bias in the media, and decided to counter it by being as biased in the opposite direction, while simultaneously proclaiming themselves to be the middle ground (which is a commonplace tactic partisans use to make their opposition seem that much further from the mainstream.) Why counter bias with more bias?

I will say there is one show on Fox I enjoy: Fox News Sunday, which I watch mainly for Charles Krauthammer and the occasional visit by Lindsey Graham. I like reading Krauthammer's editorials because his opinions are thoughtful and well-organized, and putting together a refutation of them is always a challenge. And I like Lindsey Graham. He's conservative, but he's not an ideologue. He's the kind of common sense guy we need more of.

The reciprocal of Fox News Sunday is, of course, This Week with George Stephanopolous, which I also enjoy because they have a powerful conservative mind in George Will, and a number of excellent leftward commentators like EJ Dionne and Donna Brazile. I enjoy these two programs because everyone by and large offers up good points, and does so without the hateful vitriol that is so common in politics.

Then, of course, when I want a partisan fix, I watch Keith Olbermann. His show is purely entertainment, but I can well understand why someone on the other side would hate his guts. He bombastic and self-aggrandizing, but I find his comically verbose style amusing. He's an entertainer, and he entertains me. MSNBC is certainly quite liberally biased, no doubt about that, and they're as left as I go. I've never read Daily Kos or Huffington Post, excepting when someone links to it in an argument. Keith has those two on fairly regularly, but I tend to skip over those parts of his show. I just like watching him bloviate all by himself. It's a form of masturbation, really.

I have to agree with you Cocytus, from the opposing side of the spectrum of course :). I don't mind bias, we are human after all and all are bias to one degree or another, I simply don't like it the other news agencies pretend to be totally impartial and than run a fact check on a SNL skit. It's hard to pretend you don't have a horse in the race after a moment like that.

[Jedi Master Spock]

And you might even ask, as one favoring Fox News, whether or not the Obama administration's ongoing attacks on Fox News are simply a distraction from "real" news.

I believe the President and his Administration have far more pressing issues to contend with and are not in charge of deciding who are legitimate news agencies or not. It makes him look petty in my opinion.

So you see, then.

I guess I don't see much point in offering a rebutal. The battle lines have been drawn ages ago. You either believe Fox provides a fair and even display or you don't. If you do Obama saying otherwise is unlikely to sway you and if you don't Fox news saying they are will not sway you.

I judge them by the content of their arguments. In this case, as in many, the true factual content is minimal, stripped in favor of entertainment value and the ability to provoke an emotional response.

It's a problem of "infotainment" in general, but I would say it is true that Fox News is unabashedly "conservative" (i.e., Republican, not necessarily conservative in the generalized sense of the word as it might be understood in different countries) and makes a visible point out of trying to present the Republican side of any story. And that intentional bias is quite clear

I wouldn't call it ranting and raving. She considered Mao one of her two philosophical leaders, the other being mother Teresa. That is troubling, Mao not Teresa of course.

Citing the two in the same sentence is quite puzzling. They are ... quite different individuals, shall we say.

[sonofccn]

So you see, then.

I do see your point which as always was well articulated. In the abstract I would agree both sides prefer flash over substance. That is the way of the race it seems. My opinion is however even assuming Obama was correct it is not his place to decide who is a real news agency or not. The only ones who have that responsibility, beyond ourselves that is, would be other news agencies, through as you noted would just as likely employ it against the other.

It's a problem of "infotainment" in general, but I would say it is true that Fox News is unabashedly "conservative" (i.e., Republican, not necessarily conservative in the generalized sense of the word as it might be understood in different countries) and makes a visible point out of trying to present the Republican side of any story. And that intentional bias is quite clear

I don't think anyone would argue that Fox News isn't right of center but no more and likely less than the other agencies are left of center. It's a very dangerous game to start decreeing what is and is not a news agency and ultimately will lead down a rocky path.

Citing the two in the same sentence is quite puzzling. They are ... quite different individuals, shall we say.

Agreed.

[Jedi Master Spock]

I do see your point which as always was well articulated. In the abstract I would agree both sides prefer flash over substance. That is the way of the race it seems. My opinion is however even assuming Obama was correct it is not his place to decide who is a real news agency or not. The only ones who have that responsibility, beyond ourselves that is, would be other news agencies, through as you noted would just as likely employ it against the other.

Administrations do always make a certain number of decisions about media access. The Bush administration was quite restrictive towards journalists in general, although friendlier to Fox News (and, of course, granting them special access). I suppose this constitutes a public explanation for refusing to grant Fox similar access to the administration as the other news networks.

If the Obama administration simply refuses to talk to media outlets it thinks are biased against it, that's a little more like the Bush administration than I would like them to be. Perhaps that's good politics.

I don't think anyone would argue that Fox News isn't right of center but no more and likely less than the other agencies are left of center. It's a very dangerous game to start decreeing what is and is not a news agency and ultimately will lead down a rocky path.

I would say that other news agencies are generally not too much further from center; some are less, some are more. Every now and then someone tries to come up with a numeric measure. (We could discuss the methodology used in that article at length, if you like.) Fox News is distinctively an outlier, though, so we can really only consider them less extreme with the intermediate conclusion that all media outlets have a strong political slant. (In the spectrum outlined in the article, there's nothing falling between PBS NewsHour and FOX Special Report.)

There's certainly a strong tendency for those interested in journalism to be liberal, which makes it easy to explain news outlets with a liberal bias - the slant of the news is in most cases a sharply weakened reflection of the slant among those reporting the news. Reporters usually try to filter out their own biases.

However, very few outlets set out to be biased in a particular direction, as Fox News so clearly does. This differentiates FOX from CSPAN, CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, etc - and yet in spite of being distinctive in the clear intention to provide a particular bias, Fox News pitches itself as "fair and balanced." Which, plainly, is a lie. Fox is not the least biased cable news channel by any whole-population measure, and its bias seems far more deliberate than any of the others.

[sonofccn]

Administrations do always make a certain number of decisions about media access. The Bush administration was quite restrictive towards journalists in general, although friendlier to Fox News (and, of course, granting them special access).

I don't have an issue with Bush giving fox special privilege any more than Obama giving one of the others the same. It is their right to talk to whomever they wish, how such actions are interpreted by others is another question, but they do not have the right to decide for us who is a real news agency or not.

There's certainly a strong tendency for those interested in journalism to be liberal, which makes it easy to explain news outlets with a liberal bias - the slant of the news is in most cases a sharply weakened reflection of the slant among those reporting the news. Reporters usually try to filter out their own biases.

How well they, the news agency, filter out their own bias is open to debate, as Memogate and fact checking a SNL skit indicate.

However, very few outlets set out to be biased in a particular direction, as Fox News so clearly does. This differentiates FOX from CSPAN, CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, etc - and yet in spite of being distinctive in the clear intention to provide a particular bias, Fox News pitches itself as "fair and balanced." Which, plainly, is a lie. Fox is not the least biased cable news channel by any whole-population measure, and its bias seems far more deliberate than any of the others.

I don't see the difference if you deliberately set out to be bias or being bias because you, your friends, and your boss all believe exactly the same thing. The end result is the same. To be clear I'm not saying FOX is right( or wrong) and I'm not saying CNN is wrong. I just honestly don't see why FOX is singled out simply because it's the oddman that leans right instead of left.

[sonofccn]

took a quick gander at the media bias rating paper you linked. The methodology struck me as a little loose but mostly because , in my opinion, trying to give a solid numerical number to such an immaterial and shifting construction is like trying to grab hold of falling sand. It seemed like an honest attempt overall in my opinion.

[Mr. Oragahn]

An attack on Fox News from the "Democrats" is pretty much expected. The ad hominems just serves to keep the political debacle at its highest level and the debate at its poorest.