In Defense Of Alternative Media (AKA, There *Are* Unique Problems With The MSM)

[ihavenobias]

I was inspired to write this because I saw a thread where it was argued that the MSM is unfairly maligned and is no worse (and may actually be better because it might be less biased) than alternative forms of media. While I think there is *some* merit to that argument I have to respectfully disagree overall.

Of course each news source has varying degrees of bias and different types of bias. Obviously getting news from a wide variety of sources including *some* amount of MSM and some amount of alternative media is preferable to an either/or proposition (although I'd still argue the latter is more valuable).

But don't ignore the fact that the MSM generally provides a fake sort of neutrality that is mistaken for a lack of bias, whereby they try to give equal time and merit to opposing views *even when* the opposing view is held by 10 people huddled in a corner with little or no evidence to support them (hyperbole of course but you get the picture). Sort of like evolution vs creationism to take one recent example.

Or global warming skeptics funded by Exxon Mobil. The MSM likes to paint everything as "some people say this while others say that", giving one side what is often unwarranted credibility in the eyes of most viewers (and this applies to a wide variety of issues regardless of politics). That's NOT journalism! Letting *me* decide for myself misses the point of news IMO. It's supposed to inform. Just telling me that the Republican talking points are X and the Democratic talking points are Y is NOT news. We shouldn't just be looking for the talking points of EITHER party (which I why I get so pissed at Dem apologists who give this Congress a free pass but that's another issue).

Also, I think the MSM is terrified of being labeled liberal due to the concerted effort to make everyone believe that it is in fact overwhelmingly liberal that began in the 70's-80's. So they tend to lean right, even if only by avoiding much potential (and objectively valid) criticism over the Bush Administration over the years for example, or by making sure to go after democrats. It's like they're yelling out "see, look, look, I'm NOT liberally biased" and in the process, they sometimes become the opposite.

In other words, it's not just what they say, it's often times what they *don't* say. How many incredibly important stories have been buried? Granted, there is a compelling argument that the MSM isn't politically biased, but rather, it's ratings driven. And there again is some merit to that argument. But doesn't that make alternative media (which IMO is *less* driven by the bottom line generally speaking) much more likely to report on relevant topics unrelated to missing blond teens, murdered moms and Paris Hilton?

So in addition to the fake neutrality and avoidance of stories that *might* be labeled liberally biased, the MSM also spends in insane amount of time covering pure and utter bullshit. So *I* for one am going to continue to look for alternative media that isn't bogged down by these issues. Does it present it's own issues? Sure, there is no doubt that some, for example, progressive talk show hosts are more or less biased which is why like with anything, you should try to find the right combination and fact check and supplement their information/opinion with as many forms of media as possible.

[bryant69]

1. I think that last sentance is the key

But also you have to be rigorous with information presented, even if it is telling you something you agree with or you like hearing.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ihavenobias]

2. I agree, that is the bottom line

that's one thing I love about Thom Hartmann. He regularly has guests that completely disagree with him on his show, generally at least one per day.

I prefer that to cheerleader guests, although in fairness as we know very well here at DU, even within the progressive community there is a WIDE variety of different views on every issue imaginable. So progressive guests can also provide a unique, fresh perspective in addition to good information.

[monmouth]

3. I would love, PBS to interview Walter Cronkite and others from that era

(whoever is still alive) about todays "journalists." In our house as a kid it was Huntley-Brinkley, Edward R. Murrow and John Edwards. No hyperbole, just the news. They interviwed, asked the hard questions with no personal editing of their own. This is why they were held in such high esteem. Bill Moyers comes pretty close to that in this day. Bet Cronkite would have some good stuff to say...

[ihavenobias]

4. The Problem Is

nowadays many people equate hard questions with partisan bias. And again, since IMO the various people involved in the MSM are terrified of being labeled "liberal", they tend to avoid hard questions for the Bush Administration and or Iraq (this was especially clear when public opinion was more in favor of Bush and the war). Aside from just not asking tough questions in interviews or stories, they avoid them altogether by covering fluff BS.

And I'm not just talking about the missing moms/Paris Hilton stuff, I'm talking about the horserace aspect of elections and or stories about how a candidate laughs or how much their haircut is, etc. Finally, while I agree that *some* amount of the horserace is interesting, it shouldn't the ONLY story that's being covered.

[CherylK]

5. Great post!

I try to get my info from various sources like you suggest and I agree that's what you have to do. By the way, I really like your point about fake neutrality! It can be very aggravating.

[ihavenobias]

6. Thanks And BTW, Here's a Great Example Of The Problem With The MSM

as highlighted in this clip (and one reason I hope these clips inspire people to look into other sources of info): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x88814

[navarth]

7. Frankly I think you're being too easy on them k/r

I mean, what more evidence do we need? Every day we get lies and bullshit. The fascists wised up after Nixon got impeached. They started buying up the media.

Asking Dennis Kucinich if he saw a fucking UFO?? Unbelievable. Perhapas they could have asked him if he thinks we're too hard on Paris Hilton. Or who's going to win the super bowl.

Years of experience have given me the gift of an excellent bullshit detector. There may be an occasional particle of b.s. in the independent media, but in the MSM, it's OVERWHELMING. Either they're bought and paid for, or they're cowards.

Case closed.

:thumbsdown:

[ihavenobias]

8. Probably, especially when you consider

that according to Media Matters, there is a 13 to 1 ratio of conservative to progressive hosts on tv and a 10 to 1 ratio on the radio (although IME, radio is the worst...then again several progressive shows have sprung up in the last few years).

[CherylK]

9. You gotta love Media Matters!

Interesting numbers but I can't even think of any real liberals on TV.

[ihavenobias]

10. Keith Olbermann

But after that I draw a blank too. :)

[raccoon]

11. You may have something there,

"I think the MSM is terrified of being labeled liberal due to the concerted effort to make everyone believe that it is in fact overwhelmingly liberal that began in the 70's-80's. So they tend to lean right,"

That may be PART of their problems.

K&R.

[blondeatlast]

12. The MSM is also LAZY, They get more profit from getting their "expertise" from think tanks

like the Heritage Foundation, etc.

They can't be bothered at all to get an alternative view or even to bother to back-up a statement.

I know the thread to which you are referring and would dearly love it if the OP of that one would read David Brock's "The republican Noise Machine" but that would threaten her self-righteous position so it won't happen.

[navarth]

13. Heritage foundation?? how about Matt f**king Drudge?

many of them consider Sludge to be the authority on what's up.

again,

case closed
:thumbsdown: