In a highly publicized $100 million lawsuit against her former employers at NewsCorp, Judith Regan has made various seemingly paranoid claims about a conspiracy against her at the publishing giant. The accusations seem to center on her claim that NewsCorp has a political alliance with Rudy Giuliani and has attempted to discredit her so that she can't harm Giuliani through the use of information obtained through her former relationship with Giuliani associate and former NYPD Chief Bernard Kerik.
Regan's accusations have raised some ire in both the new and the old media, both directed at her and surrounding the issue of media bias, trotting out the good old accusations that Fox News is partisan and that they are actively promoting Giuliani for the presidency to the exclusion of other candidates. At Salon.com they've even gone so far as to analyze how much airtime Giuliani has been given compared to other candidates and concluded that he's their chosen golden boy.
Not surprisingly, when an accusation like this comes up, we can turn to the blogosphere for some pretty sophisticated analysis, including Juxtable.com which has compiled a variety of raw candidate exposure stats online and in the media, and Outside the Beltway which has done a detailed breakdown by network and candidate of whom the various networks seems to be giving the most face time to. By this analysis Giuliani does seem to be the FoxNews favorite, but he's only slightly ahead of Fred Thompson. But other networks have their favorites too. MSNBC loves Biden and Dodd. CNN likes Richardson and Hunter. NBC likes McCain and Edwards. CBS likes Obama. ABC likes Edwards. With all the networks taken together McCain and Biden are actually way out ahead on overall exposure. Interestingly, front runner Hillary Clinton gets relatively little exposure in cable news and the broadcast media.
To be entirely fair, it seems an awful lot like the candidates who get a lot of media time are the ones who make themselves most available, handle themselves well in interviews and know it. And it's debatable how valuable all this exposure is, since the two frontrunners are ranked 9th and 12th in overall media exposure, while the rapidly vanishing Joe Biden is ranked second and McCain's top ranking doesn't seem to be catapulting him ahead of Giuliani or even into second place. So the whole issue of Fox News being extra nice to Giuliani may be fairly meaningless if other candidates are getting more overall exposure and all that extra exposure doesn't really help the candidate all that much.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Zedd
Dave
The only problem is that Fox came into being because they claimed that the rest of the media was skewed in one particular direction so THEY would be balanced. Their viewership consists of those who have come to believe that the rest of the media is bias. This accusation if it turns out to have merit says that Fox is hypocritical. THAT is the crux of the issue not that there is or isn't media bias.
The truth is Giuliani does not get more coverage than the other Republican candidates, he gets better coverage.
What we have come to know is that all of the moaning that Republicans have been doing for the past 25 years or so has turned out to be baseless, immature or disingenuous prattle. Whenever given the chance the "Right" has failed and actually surpassed whatever accusation that they have made against everyone else (Left or center or just different from them).
The problem is that because this party has risen by complaining and playing victim, whining and bemoaning the domination, immorality, fiscal irresponsibility, dangerous and unpatriotic nature of THE LEFT. Now that it has come to light that they top THE LEFT in all of those areas, what oh what will they do?
2 - Dave Nalle
Zedd, you're letting your own rather irrational prejudices shine through. Your comment doesn't read like a response to the article as much as a hate-filled screed against Republicans. I guess you're missing the reassurance you once got from Air America?
The only problem is that Fox came into being because they claimed that the rest of the media was skewed in one particular direction so THEY would be balanced.
From their perspective the rest of the media was skewed the other way. And if you look at Fox, clearly their bias IS different from that of the other networks, so even if you don't like them you have to admit they were right.
Their viewership consists of those who have come to believe that the rest of the media is bias. This accusation if it turns out to have merit says that Fox is hypocritical. THAT is the crux of the issue not that there is or isn't media bias.
Fox is not any more hypocritical than any other network which claims neutrality and offers something else. The only difference is that you don't like the particular bias Fox offers.
The truth is Giuliani does not get more coverage than the other Republican candidates, he gets better coverage.
McCain gets some very positive coverage. But the real point is that Hillary gets a lot of negative coverage even from left-leaning media, and it's not particularly hurting her.
What we have come to know is that all of the moaning that Republicans have been doing for the past 25 years or so has turned out to be baseless, immature or disingenuous prattle. Whenever given the chance the "Right" has failed and actually surpassed whatever accusation that they have made against everyone else (Left or center or just different from them).
Actually, what we've learned is that they were absolutely dead-on about everything they complained about. But we also learned that they were incapable of solving the problems they identified so well.
The problem is that because this party has risen by complaining and playing victim, whining and bemoaning the domination, immorality, fiscal irresponsibility, dangerous and unpatriotic nature of THE LEFT. Now that it has come to light that they top THE LEFT in all of those areas, what oh what will they do?
Say 'I told you so' a lot for the next decade or so.
Dave
3 - troll
...more likely 40 years or so through another great depression and a couple more world wars
4 - Dan Miller
The thrust of the article seems to be, or at least should be,
"So long as the pure news portion of their programming gets the basic facts right, their editorial slant and their political allegiances ought not to be an issue for contention."
"Fair and balanced editorial comment" is rather an oxymoron, and anyone who expects that of The New York Times or the Washington Times or any other news medium is going to be disappointed.
It is, however, reasonable to expect that documents not be redacted or otherwise modified to suit the ideological biases of the media, that "news" photos not be changed substantively through the wonders of Photoshop, and that left, right or other bias not be the overriding factor in deciding what news gets published.
If political debates are to cease being the joke they presently are, perhaps moderators having different biases should be used, for the same debate. A debate co-moderated by, for example, Rush Limbaugh and Wolf Blitzer would, at least, be entertaining and might even ferret out the candidates' current positions. Whether candidates would willingly subject themselves to this sort of thing is, of course, another question.
5 - gravel kucinich paul nader
Gravel kucinich paul nader perot carter [conyers?rangel?] united for truth elicit fear smear blacklist.
The people know too much,
democracy rising democracy now.
Rage against the machine.
Honesty compassion intelligence guts.
No more extortion blackmail bribery division.
Divided we fall.
6 - Zedd
Dave,
I'm not sure if you do this intentionally or not but you have a tendency to re-spin the obvious into whatever you want it to be. When something becomes completely obvious to EVERYONE, you tend to restate it so that what is obvious appears to have always been obvious to ALL even if you were the greatest supporter of the idiotic notion before its debunking.
The so called liberal media has been saying what you just wrote an article about, and more (which doesn't seem to have been revealed to you YET, you'll get it a decade later). However when the accusations of FOX's bias come out, you go into repair mode with this flimsy attempt.
Lets all pray that the American public is not SO gullible.
How much are you getting paid?
Also, who were you responding to. I don't hate Republicans. I hate STUPID. What FOX and Rush and all of that lot represent is STUPID. What is said is that the dumb, incurious, big mouths in our society are prevailing and actually having an impact in our culture. Do you realize that the demise in our culture overall has a great deal to do with the STUPID that is permitted in these venues? The elite use the masses to occupy them with WWR style "politics" so that they can pursue their own endeavor, however what happens is that in a generation, no one remembers that it was all a rouse. It becomes the culture. Puffy and JZ become the American icons and Bush becomes President.
7 - REMF
"A debate co-moderated by, for example, Rush Limbaugh and Wolf Blitzer would, at least, be entertaining..."
Rush Limbaugh and James Carville would be more entertaining. You know, a draft dodger and Marine veteran...
8 - Dan Miller
Zedd,
I think you may have pinpointed the problem: "stupid."
However, labeling an opposing point of view as "stupid" does little if anything to advance debate. I may consider your views "stupid," and you may consider mine "stupid;" unfortunately, labels such as "stupid," "racist," "xenophobic," "anti-american," and the like are easy to throw and very difficult to catch. They defy analysis and are therefore essentially meaningless. It is not unlike cussing.
The question to Mr. Nalle in your recent post, "How much are you getting paid?" is in the nature of an ad hominem digression. Presumably, the gentleman writes for a living and gets paid for it. Messrs. O'Reilly, Blitzer, et al as well as the president, all members of the Congress, all Government employees, and just about everyone else in the world works for pay. We haven't yet achieved a world such as that rhapsodized by Kipling in "When the earth's last picture is painted," where
"nobody will work for money and no one will work for fame, but each for the joy of working and each in his separate star, will paint the thing as he sees it, for the God of things as they are."
Nor is that likely in the immediate future. So what if Mr. Nalle gets paid for writing? Does a rhetorical question of that sort contribute to the discussion, or simply constitute another form of uninformative "cussing?" It may reinforce the beliefs of those who already agree with you, but that's about it.
The notion that opposing views are, almost by definition, "stupid" or deserving of similar pejorative adjectives is one of the main reasons for the polarization of our society, which renders us dysfunctional. You state,
"I don't hate Republicans. I hate STUPID. What FOX and Rush and all of that lot represent is STUPID."
Fox news is not "stupid," and neither is the New York Times. They have their viewpoints, some of which withstand analysis better than others. It is not difficult to discover the biases in their editorials and in their news reports as well. It helps to have multiple sources of information, and to weigh them each against the others.
If the U.S. is to recover from the unfortunate polarization which divides us, it will be necessary to abjure labels and to focus of the facts (as we discern them -- and many of us will doubtless see them differently) and the issues.
9 - Dave Nalle
Dan seems to have grasped the concept in #4, and as he points out, there's a huge difference between bias or preferential treatment and outright fraud. Of course, news sources should be taken to task for presenting fraudulent information, but trying to silence them because you disagree with them or because they represent a particular political perspective is contrary to our basic belief in free speech and a free press.
Of course the problem that raises is that some people are so incredibly partisan that it actually warps their perception of reality so that they can't even agree on what is truth and what is a lie.
Dave
10 - Maurice®
Wow Dan! You are a smart guy.
Maybe I just think that because I happen to agree with you.....
11 - Dave Nalle
I'm not sure if you do this intentionally or not but you have a tendency to re-spin the obvious into whatever you want it to be. When something becomes completely obvious to EVERYONE, you tend to restate it so that what is obvious appears to have always been obvious to ALL even if you were the greatest supporter of the idiotic notion before its debunking.
And you seem to have a knack for taking something simple and restating it so that it's as bewilderingly incomprehensible as possible.
My article was inspired by the article I link to in Salon.com which seems to have rediscovered the fact that Fox News is pro Republican. If they can rediscover that fact and be horribly shocked by it, then I think I can react and point out that they're being hypocritical and overreacting.
However when the accusations of FOX's bias come out, you go into repair mode with this flimsy attempt.
You seem to have missed the point of the article alltogether. The point is no 'repair mode' to go into, because there is nothing to repair. Media neutrality is a bizarre fiction and I thought I'd put it in historical context.
Lets all pray that the American public is not SO gullible.
But you clearly assume that they ARE gullible, that they somehow get sucked in by Fox News and indoctrinated. That's what your entire position is based on, and there's zero evidence to support that assumption.
How much are you getting paid?
For writing this? Not bloody much, and what I do get is based on advertiser payments on my home blog, not on what I write or who I write it about.
Would you ask a question like this of someone whose work appeared in the NY Times or the WaPo? I find it insulting that you assume that someone must be getting paid to hold an opinion contrary to yours, as if no one would write an article taking this position unless they are being paid. It goes hand in hand with the ridiculous arrogance you express in your next paragraph.
Also, who were you responding to.
Like I said, Salon.com.
I don't hate Republicans. I hate STUPID. What FOX and Rush and all of that lot represent is STUPID. What is said is that the dumb, incurious, big mouths in our society are prevailing and actually having an impact in our culture.
You determine that these people are stupid solely because they disagree with you. You are apparently the definition of intelligent and anyone who disagrees with you must therefore be stupid. Do you realize how arrogant and nonsensical you sound?
Intelligent people can, in fact, have different beliefs and even reach different conclusions based on the same set of facts. To not realize that truth makes you at the least bigoted and narrow minded.
Do you realize that the demise in our culture overall has a great deal to do with the STUPID that is permitted in these venues? The elite use the masses to occupy them with WWR style "politics" so that they can pursue their own endeavor, however what happens is that in a generation, no one remembers that it was all a rouse. It becomes the culture. Puffy and JZ become the American icons and Bush becomes President.
Some would argue that mindless, self-righteous elitism is at much at fault for the decline of society and that some of the things you decry are just parts of our culture which reasonable people can accept and take in stride rather than lashing out irrationally.
Dave
12 - Dan Miller
Maurice,
Thanks for your comments in #9.
Please be generous when the hat is passed. Unfortunately, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy doesn't pay much.
Dan
13 - REMF
"I don't hate Republicans. I hate STUPID. What FOX and Rush and all of that lot represent is STUPID."
- Zedd
"Fox news is not "stupid," and neither is the New York Times."
- Dan Miller
And neither is Limbaugh. I mean, how many guys dodged the draft during Vietnam (medical deferment for a pimple on their ass), and then were able to later on become multi-millionaires pretending to be a patriot...?
14 - brian
Is this the same Dave who complains of (non-existent)media suppression in Venezuela, yet is not worried about media bias ....It exists because people choose to ignore it.
15 - Zedd
Dave,
I don't see an ideology where Fox is concerned.
You see you keep assuming that I am a Democrat. I am not.
What Fox does is propel ignorance in this country by watering down the debate.
Because many of you came off age when stupid meant Republican, you cant even see that what is presented as Republican is more so baseness, crass, simpleminded, short cut, sound bited nothingness to keep you thinking you are consumed with substance.
What is even worse is that the same people have required the rest of the media to dummy down in order to accommodate them. What was done to PBS was criminal.
However you wont understand what I mean when i say that it is stupid because you are fine with it.
16 - Zedd
Dan,
I'm sorry to disappoint but I don't have left leanings in particular.
Also the notion of having apposing views presented by individuals from both perspectives has been examined, done and has been challenged by many scholars. It is not considered to be an affective way to inform the public.
You see the point of news is not to fit into the camp of the viewers/readers. The purpose is to inform the public on what is new in our world. In the past the format was to introduce experts from whatever field, studies if you will that give information about our society by the specialists in those field. When many of those studies came out and were not liked (or simple and folksy enough) many ESPECIALLY those on the right claimed that there was a bent to the left. They wanted their guesses about our world to be substantiated. When they were not, they pouted and continue to do so. THAT is what I mean by STUPID.
You thought I was being partisan but again that is how stupid our discourse has become. What I mean that contextually based dialog has been replaced with a relativism that is out of context. When decades of non biased studies substantiate a notion, you cant believe your way out of it. You can't slant or bias your way out of it. However this thing that Fox or Rush does suggests that ones political views can erase or supersede intellectually acquired knowledge, that learning information that does not fit your views is irrelevant. New knowledge that is not part of what you think the world is like, should be ignored and worse, suppressed.
That is what I mean by STUPID. I would hope that you agree.
17 - Lumpy
And if anyone knows STUPID it's certainly Zedd.
But then Zedd doesn't even understand the basic fact that the purpose of news is to sell advertising.
18 - STM
Wrong Lumpy, that's a recent idea.
The purpose of newspapers is to present news (and to entertain). It's the sales figures/ratings, usually decided by how widely read or viewed a publication/show might be, that dictate how much advertising there is going to be, and whether the medium is right for the advertiser.
So in essence, the better the quality of news, the more advertising.
So news is the driver of the business, rather than the advertising. It's not a salient point.
Journalists are not, and should never be, as one media proprietor (not Murdoch) recently described them, "cotent providers for advertising platforms". That might be how business graduates look at the whole thing, but journalists see it differently.
Which is why the most successful media companies are run by people who understand the business: journalists.
19 - STM
BTW, it's worth noting among all those convinced that the media can't be bipartisan, Sydney's Murdoch-published The Sunday Telegraph, Australia's largest selling newspaper, has just backed a change of government here - in next week's federal election - that would see Bush's mate John Howard ousted and replaced by the Labor government of Kevin Rudd. Previously, Murdoch has supported Howard.
Since Rudd's Labor Party is very left-leaning compared to the "Liberal" Party (a misnomer if ever there was) of John Howard, it would be a mistake to think that Murdoch seemingly sees it all as good business.
One expectation in Australia is that if Rudd wins, lower- and middle-level wage-earners will have their wages increased as Howard's employer-driven Orwellian-sounding WorkChoices (= no choice), introduced without telling anyone that it was going to be done, is dumped in the garbage bin of history, where it belongs.
That Murdoch in this case is not backing the government that would be better for his profits in the long run (or has not exercised influene over an editor) is telling.
Murdoch is a journalist. Yes, he's rough around the edges and Fox News appears to the right of Genghis Khan, but not all of what he does is thus inclined. News is news, and no matter what spin is put on it, ultimately it's up to us to decide whether we take any notice of it.
20 - Dr Dreadful
Murdoch is a chameleon. His recent action in Australia is a repeat of his volte face during the 1997 British general election campaign. His main national newspapers, the Times and the Sun, which had always been unshakeably Conservative. When it became blindingly obvious even to a deaf-blind lemming that John Major was going to be hung out to dry by the electorate, Murdoch promptly realigned his papers behind Tony Blair's Labour Party. The rest is history.
Bottom line, the guy sells newspapers. And he knows that means his newspapers need to be visibly supporting the party that is going to get the most votes.
Howard may as well hand over the Lodge keys to Rudd right now.
21 - STM
Nah, sadly I reckon Howard will sneak back in by a whisker - his party, anyway. He's facing an uphill battle in his own seat, and may lose it.
Stranger things have happened. Truth is though Doc, Aussies hate change. If Rudd does win, it'll be a whisker as well.
22 - Dave Nalle
I don't see an ideology where Fox is concerned.
Then you must not be watching.
You see you keep assuming that I am a Democrat. I am not.
Actually, all I've gathered from your comments are an irrational hatret of Republicans, which doesn't necessarily mean you're a Democrat.
What Fox does is propel ignorance in this country by watering down the debate.
I'd be curious what you mean by watering down the debate, or more specifically what you think the 'debate' actually is. From your comments my impression is that you think the debate is whether Bush should be shot or hanged. For some of the rest of us it's a bit more complex.
Because many of you came off age when stupid meant Republican, you cant even see that what is presented as Republican is more so baseness, crass, simpleminded, short cut, sound bited nothingness to keep you thinking you are consumed with substance.
This is where you lose me utterly. It seems so divorced from reality that I can't relate. You seem to think that Fox News essentially IS the GOP and that because it is 'stupid' in your estimation then the party or its leaders or its members are equally 'stupid'. You paint with the kind of broad brush which a lot of people would call 'stupid' if that word weren't already being used too much.
What is even worse is that the same people have required the rest of the media to dummy down in order to accommodate them. What was done to PBS was criminal.
Sorry, I seem to have missed the criminality of what was done to PBS. Did it get sold to Fox with no one telling me?
However you wont understand what I mean when i say that it is stupid because you are fine with it.
Watch MSNBC sometime and tell me that you honestly think Fox News is one iota stupider. The stupidity didn't come from the Republicans and it didn't come from Fox News, it came from pandering to the AUDIENCE. You've mistaken the cause for the result.
Dave
23 - Dr Dreadful
Come on now, Stan, I reckon you're just being pessimistic to shield yourself against the possibility of bitter disappointment. Rudd's pretty much got it in the bag, if this BBC report is anything to go by.
What are the prospects for Labor forming a coalition government if they fall short of the 16-seat gain they need for an overall majority?
And, for that matter, for WorkChoices to be dropped like a hot potato by a Howard-less Liberal Party if the scenario you refer to does indeed happen?
24 - Zedd
Dave,
Are you saying that Fox upholds the essence of Republican values?
25 - Zedd
Dave,
I just read the rest of your response.
Gosh, its clear that you have no clue where my response is coming from. It's clear that you haven't exposed yourself to that which would cause you to see the fallacy in what Fox is. It's clear that you don't know what is missing in what they do and how it has affected our society. Your insistence in pushing the idea that I would hate complete strangers is just odd to me. I suppose if you have been inundated by ideas of red vs blue, them against us, with us or against us, you would come to that conclusion and I hate THAT. Sorry I have no reason to hate Republicans or love them for that matter. Republicans are not a single entity. I vote Republican many times, I suppose I'd hate to hate myself too.
Like I said, I'll catch you in a decade. Perhaps another moment of illumination will hit.