Tag Archives: mainstream media

‘Mainstream media’ becomes a four-letter word

mainstream media

My galaxy of friends, acquaintances and professional colleagues runs across an enormous political spectrum.

They range in ideology from avowed Marxists to borderline John Birch Society members.

I cherish them all.

My wife and I caught up this week with one of our longtime friends, someone we met when we moved from Portland, Ore., to the Texas Gulf Coast more than three decades ago.

She reminded me of her right-wing views, which she acknowledges run counter to those with whom she used to work in print journalism. I guess she was referring to me as one of those lefties.

Then she expressed her frustration with what she called the “mainstream media.” She suggested that those who believe as she does no longer have a place where she can get the new without being offended by what she described as “liberal bias.”

I was taken aback a bit by her observation.

My first reaction was to remind her that the “mainstream media” also includes a number of conservative sources. Fox News? It’s as mainstream as, say, CNN or the New York Times — the two media outlets my friend alluded to when she threw out the “mainstream media” label.

But eventually, during our brief visit, we came to agree on one important element about media of all stripes: Broadcast media in particular hardly ever deliver merely the “news” without adding commentary, punditry and opinion representing someone’s point of view.

Political coverage? It is full of analysis about who’s up and who’s down and why.

As we enter the next political season that will result in the election of a new president, I think it’s important to take hold of the idea that “mainstream media” isn’t just a supposedly liberal phenomenon.

My friend is an intelligent and well-educated woman. She worked for many years seeking to inform the public about events of the day. She was a pro and she succeeded famously in keeping her own political bias away from the news she was reporting.

I didn’t say this to her, as time was short and we had a lot of catching up to do, but I’ve long acknowledged by own bias. I lean left. My friend referred to herself as an “extreme conservative.”

Perhaps there’s hope that we can get past the vast chasm that divides Americans these days — if only all of us recognize within ourselves that we all carry bias, which isn’t just a malady that afflicts those on the other side.

As for her inability to get the “news” the way she prefers it, there are plenty of outlets that are suited to her own bias.

 

Conservative talk show host finds friends on the left

hugh hewitt

Hugh Hewitt is feuding with Donald Trump.

Hewitt is a well-known and high-demand conservative radio host. Trump, well, I’m guessing you know who he is.

An interesting back story may be developing here as Hewitt and Trump duke it out rhetorically. It is that Hewitt is finding new friends and allies — in the liberal media.

Trump’s description of Hewitt as a “third-rate radio announcer” came after Trump fluffed a question from Hewitt over his knowledge of an Iranian terror group leader. Hewitt said he wasn’t asking a “gotcha” question, but Trump said he did exactly that.

Hewitt isn’t a fly-by-night right-wing blowhard. He’s a savvy political analyst. He also is one of the go-to guys among conservative mainstream media talkers.

Now, though, he’s finding allies among those in the other conservative media outlets — those that tilt to the left. They’re taking up for Hewitt and defending him, just as many of them have defended Fox News’s Megyn Kelly in her feud with Trump.

Come to think of it, I’ve been defending them, too.

I’m proud to stand with them.

 

Do the media really hate Trump?

alg-donald-trump-jpg

Bill O’Reilly says the media hate Donald Trump because he doesn’t fear them.

Sure. Trump doesn’t fear the media. I get that.

But do the media really hate this guy? I think not.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bill-oreilly-the-media-despise-trump-because-he-124751397551.html

You see, the media get ratings boosts and readership bumps whenever this guy opens his mouth. Now that he’s running for president of the United States of America, the media have to report on the things he says. Most of those things are, well, utter nonsense.

Still, the media have to cover it. The way I see it, the media are doing their job.

It’s fair to ask, perhaps: Do the media have to give so much ink and air time to someone who has zero chance of being nominated by the Republican Party, let alone elected president of the United States? I think so. He’s polling quite well at the moment, grabbing an estimated 20-plus percent approval in a field of what seems like hundreds of GOP presidential candidates.

However, most of us — I think — realize that none of this is about Trump actually becoming president. It’s about Trump liking the sound of his own voice.

Are the media seeking to “punish” Trump because he’s such a blowhard? O’Reilly thinks they are: “(T)he media believe they need to punish Mr. Trump for being disrespectful and not cowering before them. Plus they don’t like his politics, generally speaking.”

It’s not just the media who are being critical, Bill-O. His fellow Republican candidates have fired plenty of ammo at Trump for the purely idiotic things he’s said, notably about many of them — not to mention what he’s said about one-time GOP presidential nominee and, yes, Vietnam War hero John McCain.

I don’t think there’s media “hate” at play.

The longer Trump keeps popping off, the more the media have to cover him. In this strange and wacky world where pop culture intersects with public policy, the media will keep reaping the benefit.

Keep blathering, Donald.

Too early to judge Iran nuke deal

Listen to the mainstream media on both ends — conservative and liberal — and the Iran nuclear deal is either the precursor to World War III or the agreement that will bring a comprehensive peace to a region that’s never known it.

Fox News this morning was having its usual fun blasting the “liberal mainstream media” for gushing all over the deal that seeks to block Iran’s ability to acquire a nuclear weapon. The caption on the screen as the “Fox and Friends” talking heads were blathering on noted “liberal bias” in the media’s coverage of the agreement. That stuff just slays me, given that Fox never recognizes its own conservative bias.

Whatever.

I’m not going to draw any firm conclusions about the deal just yet.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/obama-team-split-over-next-steps-with-iran-120130.html?hp=lc1_4

I remain cautiously hopeful that the deal will produce the desired result. One of the Obama administration talking points is that it “blocks all pathways” for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Israeli officials — led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — say it’s dangerous in the extreme, as it doesn’t prevent Iran from making mischief in the Middle East.

The economic sanctions? They’ll be lifted over time, giving Iran needed money to rebuild its shattered economy — which was made that way by the sanctions.

What if Iran cheats? What if the Iranians don’t do what they say? The sanctions return.

Is the deal perfect? No. Is it the disaster that congressional Republicans predict it will become? No.

The mainstream media — all of it all along the political spectrum — need to take a breath and listen intently to the debate that’s about to unfold.

Assuming, of course, that the debate isn’t overtaken by hysterical politicians.

 

Right-wing media find a 'war on Easter'

The right-wing mainstream media cannot get enough of these trumped-up “wars.”

Fox News annually declares there to be a secular “war on Christmas.” The only people waging war on Christmas are the retailers who keep pushing out the notion that it’s all right to camp out overnight waiting for the stores to open on Black Friday. Get in ahead of the rush … but please don’t punch out the shopper who cuts in ahead of you to get the toy you had targeted.

Now it’s a “war on Easter.”

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/29/foxs-week-long-war-on-easter/193352

Please. Stop.

There is no war on Christians’ holiest holiday. It’s a figment of the right-wing mainstream media marketing geniuses who look for ways to boost their ratings, allowing their on-air personalities to brag about how they’re kicking the stuffing out of the rest of the “mainstream media.”

Churches are still informing congregants about what Scripture says about Easter, about how Jesus rose from the dead after being crucified. Believers all over the world celebrate this holiday with all due reverence. My family and I do.

“War on Easter”? It ain’t happening.

Let’s knock it off, shall we?

 

'No-go zones' myth builds

Fox News got itself into some trouble recently when it reported something about European countries establishing “no-go zones” where Muslims reportedly don’t allow non-Muslims to enter.

The story turned out to be false. The media have piled on, chortling and laughing out loud at Fox for its insistence on these zones, particularly in Paris. The mayor of Paris threatened to sue Fox over its false reporting. Good luck with that, Mme. Mayor.

Fox News anchors apologized repeatedly for the mistake.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/paris-mayor-to-sue-fox-over-no-go-zone-comments/384656/

But some on the right have wondered out loud why Fox is getting hammered. The Amarillo Globe-News questioned in an Opinion page comment today whether other media would have been beaten up as badly as Fox has been. The commentary suggested much of the criticism is unfair, but noted that the criticism the network has received has been justified “to an extent.”

I have a possible answer as to why the piling on has occurred.

Fox News has done a very good job of demonizing other media outlets for transgressions real and sometimes imagined. Its talking heads quite often disparage other media’s coverage of issues on the basis of a perceived bias.

Listen to some of the network’s talk shows and you get the clear and distinct impression that their side is correct and the so-called “mainstream media” is wrong.

I must add that Fox News is as mainstream as other media, given its prominence among the broadcast and cable networks that are on the air these days.

The piling on over its mistaken reporting about the no-go zones and the coverage of its repeated on-air apology for messing up is a consequence of its own making.

Payback can be harsh.

One more time on 'War on Christmas'

I’ve already pontificated on how I think the so-called “War on Christmas” is a trumped-up phenomenon, courtesy of the conservative mainstream media.

Allow me this one more brief note on the issue. Then I’ll move on to something else.

Conservative talking heads lament the “happy holidays” greeting that some retailers insist their employees give to shoppers as evidence of the phony war. I say: So what?

I prefer to wish people a Merry Christmas when I encounter them. Why? Well, I celebrate the holiday right along with the rest of the Christian world. I understand its religious significance and I enjoy most of the trappings that come with the holiday.

But the “happy holidays” greeting isn’t meant to insult me. I take zero offense at hearing it from total strangers.

They don’t know a thing about me. They don’t know whether I’m a Christian, or whether I worship some other faith that doesn’t celebrate Christmas.

What in the name of God Almighty is wrong with someone wishing a total stranger a happy holiday?

The war on Christmas isn’t being waged by those who are trying to please those they meet during a busy shopping season. Last time I checked, I realized that the United States of America is a diverse country filled with 300 million or so individuals of vastly different faiths. I see them regularly during the course of most of my days at my part-time job.

Am I going to wish them a Merry Christmas when I know they don’t celebrate this holy holiday season? No.

Nor do I take offense when someone makes a good faith effort to wish me happiness during this holiday season.

There. I’ve had my say.

I’ll enjoy the rest of my Christmas season.

 

How dare Obama quote Scripture!

You know, if I had given it a moment’s worth of thought, I might have been able to predict that one conservative mainstream media outlet would criticize the president of the United States for quoting Scripture.

The thought didn’t cross my mind. Then I saw this item from Media Matters, an acknowledged liberal watchdog organization.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/21/now-fox-amp-friends-is-upset-that-obama-is-quot/201665

(Check out the link where Elizabeth Hasselbeck says she “got goosebumps” when President Reagan cited Scripture back in 1981.)

They chided “Fox and Friends” for criticizing President Obama for having the utter gall to quote the Bible when talking about his executive order regarding immigration reform. Why, those “Fox and Friends” talking heads just couldn’t understand how the president — whom they have criticized in the past for his alleged failure to acknowledge his Christian faith — could do such a thing in this context.

I need to stop hyperventilating.

There.

Let’s understand something about the 44th president. He’s declared time and again that he believes Jesus Christ is his savior. He reads the Bible and has been a Church of Christ member for, oh, a long time. Barack Obama also uses Scripture passages frequently when making some point, just as all of his predecessors — from both political parties — have done since the beginning of the Republic.

May we stop applying these ridiculous double standards when analyzing the president’s statements on public policy?

OK. I’ve made the request for fairness in covering these things. I’m quite sure no one at Fox News will give it any consideration.

 

 

Obama poll numbers aren't 'sinking'

Listen to the talking heads on some cable news channels, or read reports in mainstream newspapers and you get a dire picture of President Obama’s political standing.

Why, those troublesome polls show his popularity “plummeting,” “sinking,” “spiraling downward.”

Media Matters — an acknowledged left-wing media watchdog group — disagrees.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/31/obamas-approval-rating-remains-unchanged-this-y/201396

The organization points out correctly that Barack Obama’s standing among Americans has remained unchanged for the past year.

Unchanged!

His numbers are stable. They aren’t sinking or plummeting. They aren’t spiraling anywhere, let alone downward.

Why do the media keep harping on something that’s, well, untrue?

Media Matters examines some poll number averages: “According to the cumulative ratings posted daily at Real Clear Politics, which averages together an array of national polls to come up with Obama’s composite job approval rating, the president’s approval on January 1, 2014 stood at 42.6 percent. The president’s approval rating on October 30, was 42 percent. So over the course of 10 months, and based on more than one hundred poll results in 2014, Obama’s approval rating declined less than one point.”

Holy smokes! Does that constitute a president whose standing is headed straight for the dumper? I think not.

It’s interesting, too, that Media Matters isn’t targeting just the right-wing media — a favorite target — in critiquing the bogus reports of Obama’s standing. It cites mainstream media across the spectrum, even those dreaded “liberal media” outlets that supposedly can say nothing critical of the president or his friends in Congress.

The link attached is most interesting and it puts the president’s standing in a context that bears little resemblance to what the media are reporting.

 

Wondering about endorsements' value

Joni Ernst is stiff-arming Iowa newspaper editorial boards in her bid to become that state’s next U.S. senator.

She is following the trail blazed four years ago right here in Texas by Gov. Rick Perry, who did the very same thing, watched most of the papers around the state endorse his opponent, and then won re-election by a healthy margin.

I’ve taken note of this already in a blog post.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/10/23/ernst-follows-perry-model-who-needs-editorial-boards/

Now comes the corollary question: Do these endorsements matter any longer?

I wrestled with the question for many years before my daily journalism career came to a screeching halt in August 2012.

It’s no secret to anyone that newspapers are changing before our eyes. Their role as community leaders is changing as well. Sadly, many companies that run newspapers are giving in to this trend and are devaluing their opinion pages and retreating from their traditional role as community leaders.

So, Republicans Ernst and Perry have decided to forgo the ritual that politicians used to say they enjoyed, which was to seek newspaper endorsements in their election and/or re-election campaigns. They seem to understand that newspapers no longer carry the clout they once did. Politicians used to call on editorial boards, proclaiming that they relished the give-and-take these meetings produced.

Newspaper editors — and you can count me as one of them — also used to get much from these encounters. I worked at the Amarillo Globe-News for 17 years, and 8 months and participated in many more of these meetings that I can remember. And I always, without question, learned something new about my community or my state during every election cycle.

We would reach consensus on who to recommend for public office, craft our statement, publish it and then let the chips fall.

That process now seems to be slipping away as politicians decide they don’t need these endorsements.

Rick Perry didn’t need them in 2010. I’m betting Joni Ernst — win or lose — won’t need them now.

People are forming their opinions using other media. They scour the Internet in search of their version of the truth, which isn’t hard to find, no matter your political orientation.

It’s interesting to me that politicians most likely to blow off these endorsement interviews lean heavily to the right, such as Perry and Ernst.

We’ll know for certain that editorial board endorsements really no longer matter when progressives stop seeking them.