What is the New York Times' "agenda"? How about MSNBC?
October 21, 2009 4:06 pm ET by Jamison Foser
I guess there are two distinct axes on which you can judge press organizations--actually, there are many more than two (see below), but two are important here: 1) Neutrality--Are they attempting to be "objective," trying to serve the "public interest" in some balanced way, or are they ideologically (or otherwise) driven in a way that inevitably colors their coverage--what topics they pick, what 'experts' they rely on, etc. 2) Independence--Whether they are biased or generally neutral, can somebody--a political party, a Mafia family, a government-- tell them what to do?
I think it's pretty clear MSNBC and the NYT and Breiibart.tv are not neutral. They all have an agenda and they pursue it. But they are independent. The Obama White House can't tell Bill Keller what to do. They can't tell Keith Olbermann what to do. (They can suck up to him, and it will probably work, but that's a different issue.) Breitbart is for sure independent--I can't see anyone telling him what to do.
Ok, Mickey. If it's "pretty clear" MSNBC and the New York Times have an "agenda" and "pursue it," it should be pretty easy for you to explain what that agenda is.
And, fair warning: You'll need to reconcile your claims about the Times' "agenda" with the paper's handling of the 2000 election and the Bush administration's Iraq claims, and your claims about MSNBC's "agenda" with ... Well, with lots of things.
So, let's have it, Mickey. What is the New York Times' agenda. What is MSNBC's? How do they "pursue it"?
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
However, that does not erase their unending quest to type up Republican talking points in their political analysis articles, not even to mention their cheerleading in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.
The present day words "Fox News Analyst Judith Miller" spring to mind.
Didn't they sit on the warrantless wiretap story until after the 2004 election?
And his ghoulish fingers are typing for more war, with Iran this time, as fast he can make those bloody little things go.
Finally, let's not forget our history. Funny, you would think that would be an important part of journalism.
On the other hand, forgetting history is the number one tool of journamalism.
When did the corporate media finally cease being lapdogs for Bush?
[url=http://people-press.org/report/478/bush-legacy-public-opinion]After Katrina...more than four years into the debacle.url] After the public finally realized they were getting screwed. Then the corporate media followed along, somewhat.
Now, Obama has been president less than a year. Elected into office by a substantial margin, the right wing has decided that he should not be allowed to do what his voters elected him to do. And the corporate media pretends there is an equivalence.
~
The agenda of Fox is to be a thorn in the side of the administration. Every administration needs to be subject to the questions of a skeptic, don't you agree?
There is no comparison between the way that FoxNews handled George Bush and the way MSNBC handles Obama. There is also no comparison between the way FoxNews handles Obama and the way MSNBC handled Bush.
FoxNews has a clear agenda - to be the opposition party against Obama to satisfy their viewers, and they previously were the rah-rah party for Bush, again, to satisfy their viewers. In order to do those two things successfully, they've had to deceive their listeners with lies, distortions and omissions over and over again. MSNBC just doesn't behave in that same way.
It's not our fault that the truth has a liberal bias.
Every administration should be subject to questions. MSNBC does that to Obama. FoxNews didn't do that like they should have to Bush. No administration should have to fend off politically partisan and baseless attacks by a news organization. FoxNews has done that to the Obama Administration. MSNBC didn't do that to Bush.
Bush overreacted to the accurate depiction, and attempted to defame Olbermann as a result. It's called attacking the messenger.
FoxNews has been falsely attacking Obama and his aides. The Obama Administration has decided to counter with accurate information, a temporary boycott, and an undeniable assertion that FoxNews is a politically partisan organization, not a news source.
Not the same at all.
great point, dolly. people are so fixated on the false claim by conservatives from fox news and talk radio that the media fawns over obama and do what he says when it is absolutely false, and they have all had their criticisms of the obama administration. they just assume that they are pro-obama because they dont do their criticisms in the vitriolic fashion that fox news and conservatives possess. so close minded and simplistic... typical from wingnuts. how you can you take them seriously?
LOL!
Take a look at MMFA's files on Fox News.
They LIE about and SMEAR the WH administration.
They are not presenting news. They are presenting GOP talking points.
http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/fox_news_channel
Oscar, I'm disappointed in you. Not only did you ignore my point entirely, but you've apparently fallen into the neocon fallacy that "ratings = truth" or "ratings = respectability" or something. As if we don't get enough of that from weaselly.
A more relevant question might be: What is the cumulative IQ of the viewership of MSNBC in relation to Fox? My guess is that the former comes out on top, especially in the evenings.
You have loons and liars at Fox who have long ago passed the spittle-spraying stage and moved onto drooling lunacy.
The worst thing you can say about Olbermann is that he makes fun of the Fox loons on a regular basis. And Maddow? Geesh. Have you watched her show? Spittle free from day one. Maddow and her staff actually report those strange things called facts as opposed to wild-eyed Becky and Sean the professional liar.
The agenda of Fox is to hold its breath and cry until the Republicans are back in power (that could be a long wait). Then Fox's agenda will be to call anyone who disagrees with a Republican president a traitor and un-American.
Those ratings equal about 1% of the population. How many of that 3,000,000 are true believers?
oh, why yes... and how about those ratings for jerry spinger and the maury show with their high amount of entertainment? that is EXACTLY what fox news offers to its audience, while pretending that they report actual news. please.
As for ratings, it is no indication of veracity. To confuse the two only highlights your lack of understanding.
Look in the MMFA archives. Look for search terms like "Fox" and "falsely" and "baselessly" to start.
Said the 'newbie' FAUX nooze fan.
lols, tell us another!
~
I think the tingle that was going up Chris Matthews's leg was the agenda.
As for the comments here, only an echo-chamber could produce comments detailing the Republican talking points at the NY Times (hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaah).
Fourth, The rest of your post is childish rants and incomprehensible giberrish.
Thanks for the low-hanging fruit. I needed a nice, easy target today...