Steeler

Thank goodness CBS is finally seeing the error of their ways and giving a "free speech" platform to conservative voices left out in the cold so long. Voices without a microphone, like Rush Limbaugh and Tony Perkins. Good to see the underdogs get their 15 minutes.

I'm not interested in rehashing Rather. Suffice it to say that I never had a lot of respect for him before, and I still don't now. His career was characterized by scoops, muckraking and showmanship, sort of like a genteel Matt Drudge, except Rather at least did his own footwork. Got tired of him standing out in the rain every time a hurricane blew by, but now they all do it. Oh, where is a piece of flying aluminum siding when you need it? The so-called "Rathergate" fiasco just happen to hit a particular political stripe in the gonads during the rise of the blog mafia. Back in the day, nobody was complaining when Rather was pondering the distinguishing characteristics of the President's genitalia.

But then, as we have demonstrated on this forum time and again, one's perception of other people's biases is entirely dependent on one's own.

__________________

Kerostasis

So your suggestion is that because there are other news sources available, no one should care if CBS wants to blatantly lie about the President to influence a national election? I like your style of thinking, Steeler. Its quite entertaining.

Very true.

__________________

Steeler

I have no idea how these two paragraphs are related. Whatever style of thinking is giving you such chuckles, it isn't mine.

__________________

Kerostasis

Lets start by putting it in context.


We start with a fairly clear claim that Rathergate should not be considered representative of mainstream news coverage in general, or even of CBS news coverage.

I returned a claim that it SHOULD be considered representative, of at least CBS news coverage, if not most left-wing news coverage. Your next comment?

Clearly, you can't intend a comment like "Rush Limbaugh is a voice without a microphone" to be taken at face value. That suggests a satirical paragraph, where most of what you say is the opposite of what you mean. For example, when you say "conservative voices left out in the cold so long", you mean, "you conservatives have your own news outlets, you have no reason to come begging at ours." Or at least, thats the meaning that comes across.

That leaves open to interpretation the correct opposite meaning of "CBS is seeing the error of their ways and giving a 'free speech' platform to..." I came to the conclusion you were implying there WAS no error in CBS's ways. If you meant something different, I would be glad to hear it. Perhaps you were referring to CBS's recent attempts to provide more balance after Rather's scandal?

__________________

Steeler

You are doing some serious acrobatics in your analysis of my comments. So let me clarify my end.

1. Rather made an error in an effort to scoop a hot story. Whether you are left or right, incriminating dirt on an incumbent just before an election is a juicy morsel. Rather bit without checking his source, and blew it.

2. You may see this as indicative of bias on Rather's part. I see it as indicative of his poor quality as a newsman. Since I already thought poorly of him to begin with (as I described above), the incident doesn't change my opinion much.

3. As to the overall bias of CBS (and here we have 3 entities in play - CBS news, CBS television, and CBS the multinational company), I don't think the incident in question is a definitive indictment of the organization as a politically biased entity. I listen to CBS quite a bit and based on their pro-business focus, their frequent pro-Iraq op-eds and older demographic base, I find them to be fairly right-leaning.

4. The addition of several notable extreme right wing voices to their "free speech segment" under Couric's watch strikes me as overcompensation for a percieved bias resulting from the Rather fallout. In other words, pandering to their most vitriolic critics.

5. Regarding the implication that I think it's ok that Rather lied about the President to influence an election: I don't think that's right, but I also don't know for sure that that's what happened. Rather could have been duped, I have only his word against the ephemeral blogosphere. What I DO know is that multiple influential public figures lied about Kerry in order to influence the election. And the President himself won't stop lying about just about everything he gives a press conference about. So you'll pardon me if the Rather affair strikes me as little more than shrieking partisanship masquerading as disproportionately intense attention to the nuances of modern journalistic values.

__________________

Bisclaveret

There are a lot of.. well... interesting, I could say, clips of Savage on mediamatters because of the constant Cubs-fan-esque rants he spews on air..
mediamatters.org

on Madeline Albright, october 9th

on senators and a lot of things. senators, torture, chavez.. the torture speech really made me angry...

They cut out a bunch of the torture speech, where we was describing it as tying the guy's hands and arms to a steering wheel in a car and then cutting off thier fingers one by one with hedge shears until they talked, applying styptic to keep them from bleeding.

__________________

Kerostasis

@ Steeler:

Fair enough. I see the facts in this case a bit differently than you, but there's no need to go into that here. I also see the facts a bit differently on most of the other lies you mention...for example, most of the accusations that President Bush was lying to us never rang true with me. But I'm not going to try to convince you of that here. Suffice it to say that my different interpretation of those facts gives me a very different view on the importance of the whole scandal.

End result? Neither of us like Dan Rather, and neither of us have changed our opinion on media bias in general. What a suprise.

__________________

Hambergler

By your definition I think your comments about NPR are biased.
Fox news may be driving a Ferrari going 100 mph, but NPR is no VW bus chuggin along, going the speed limit. They are more like a 74 stingray going 80.

Beatnik

Of course I'm biased in favor if NPR, and I'll (obviously) get uppity about it too. I listen to NPR at least 15 hours a week, and hearing people talk smack about my beloved trusted news source raises my hackles something fierce.

The yin to Fox New's yang is not NPR dude - it's (bringing the thread back on topic) Air America. Take everything you've said in this thread and apply it to Air America, and I agree. Both FN and AA cherry pick and slant their news stories to fit the party line, NPR simply does not. That's a fact, not just an opinion. I've already cited a study (who's validity I still question) showing that by at least one measure, NPR is about as middle of the pack as it gets.

Feel free to cite evidence to the otherwise.

__________________

Hambergler

Air America was a phenomena. It was the largest gathering of the most annoying people ever. It was a comedy show at best. I wouldn't even say it had a 1000th the influance Fox news has. I wouldn't put it into the same catagory.

I pick my own stories using RSS on the internet and I watch HDnet world reports. Fox news is on all day at work so I get a healthy helping of that. I read the paper everyday and read the stories from CNN on my cell phone. I would listen to NPR more, but I don't drive that much anymore. I don't trust any of these news sources and use all of them to draw my own conclusions (read between the lies). Why not watch them all. I'm not really sure why anyone would defend one for another. Unless there is a personal bias, which was probably created by the news source itself.

I guess it's like religion, where everyone is wrong but your team.