Any organization not in lock-step with the traditional media would automatically be labeled “to the right.” It could be the most ideologically neutral, unbiased outlet ever created, and it wouldn’t matter, because if you’re not to the left, you must be to the right.
I’m not sure I agree about denying Newsweek access. I called Obama, Edwards, and Clinton pussies for not showing up on Fox (until it became necessary/convenient for them) because it doesn’t carry their water like the rest. Don’t deny them access, just don’t go out of your way to accomodate them - they’re gonna report in whatever fashion they want, don’t have to accomodate them in doing so.
In market competition, it doesn’t make sense to be biased unless you’re a periodical like Mother Jones or National Review, because there you are preaching to the respective choirs. But for Newsweek, Time, et al, I don’t get it. I’ve had subscriptions in the past to those and other magazines, and the bias just got to be too much and I cancelled, and I won’t be going back. But, bring out a magazine where anybody could go “okay, that’s fair....or that’s a good question (both sides)” and I would think people would be extremely interested. You can leave news to news, and opinion to opinion, just let the people know up front. Sorry for rambling, but is that too much to ask.
Hoss - 11:05am on 05/16/2008
It’s actually even more ironic that you’d complain about an ill-informed public and then get in a dig at the only cable news network providing any ideological diversity in the media at all.
This has to be one of the best lines I’ve read all month. I think they should change their slogan from the delightfully Orwellian “Fair and Balanced” to the poetically ambiguous “Ideologically Diverse.” Awesome.
Jay - 12:05pm on 05/16/2008
I think they should change their slogan from the delightfully Orwellian…
I don’t think “Orwellian” means what you think it means. You can’t just go applying “Orwellian” to anything that doesn’t suit your pallet. You’re going to dilute the word’s meaning. Orwell was actually quite keen about using words for their specific meanings.
Any organization not in lock-step with the traditional media would automatically be labeled “to the right.” It could be the most ideologically neutral, unbiased outlet ever created, and it wouldn’t matter, because if you’re not to the left, you must be to the right.
I’m not sure I agree about denying Newsweek access. I called Obama, Edwards, and Clinton pussies for not showing up on Fox (until it became necessary/convenient for them) because it doesn’t carry their water like the rest. Don’t deny them access, just don’t go out of your way to accomodate them - they’re gonna report in whatever fashion they want, don’t have to accomodate them in doing so.
In market competition, it doesn’t make sense to be biased unless you’re a periodical like Mother Jones or National Review, because there you are preaching to the respective choirs. But for Newsweek, Time, et al, I don’t get it. I’ve had subscriptions in the past to those and other magazines, and the bias just got to be too much and I cancelled, and I won’t be going back. But, bring out a magazine where anybody could go “okay, that’s fair....or that’s a good question (both sides)” and I would think people would be extremely interested. You can leave news to news, and opinion to opinion, just let the people know up front. Sorry for rambling, but is that too much to ask.
This has to be one of the best lines I’ve read all month. I think they should change their slogan from the delightfully Orwellian “Fair and Balanced” to the poetically ambiguous “Ideologically Diverse.” Awesome.
I don’t think “Orwellian” means what you think it means. You can’t just go applying “Orwellian” to anything that doesn’t suit your pallet. You’re going to dilute the word’s meaning. Orwell was actually quite keen about using words for their specific meanings.