In today's Paul Krugman column in the New York Times, Krugman - in another effort to pander to his fans - blasts an old, overused target in Fox News, and also insists that American media was biased and flag-waving during the Iraq War, and that partial reporting was coming from the BBC.

This, only days after one of his fellow NYT colleagues (Blair) in his same office building was discovered fabricating news reports and quotes during everything from the D.C. sniper shootings to the Iraq War. Blair even wrote a story about anguished families of those in Iraq, which were later discovered to be figments of his own imagination. :eekblue:

<a href='http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3876164.html' target='_blank'>NYT busted</a>

If there was ever a "pot-kettle-black moment", this is it.

But putting aside that thick irony for a moment, it was well documented during the war that major European newspapers intentionally downplayed (or didn't show altogether) Iraqis cheering, celebrating, or even talking leisurely with the troops. Meanwhile, I was certainly able to find reports of protests, bombed cities, and rampant news-stories about how the battle was 'not going as planned' in various US news media. If not Fox, then certainly on the other dozen or so outlets, be it CSPAN, CNN, etc.

With the Blair humiliation coupled with another one of Krugman's fact-bending (a la Michael Moore) columns, makes me wonder if this newspaper is even worthy of wrapping fish.





<!--EDIT|Motown Bronco|May 13 2003, 06:51 PM-->

I doubt a Canary would s h i t on that rag if it was in the bottom of it's bird cage.

The Sunday Times devoted a front page story and four full inside pages to chronicling the misdeeds of Mr. Blair. It did so precisely because the event was so unusual. In another forum, I've compared it to a cop sticking a plunger up a suspect's ****** during questioning. It was that completely out of this world what Blair did.

Krugman, incidentally, is a Times employee only to the extent that he writes two columns a week. His real job is economist at a New Jersey university -- Rutgers I believe.

I pretty much agree with every Krugman column. No op-ed writer captures where I'm coming from better than he does. And I agreed with him today.

I've listened to the BBC World Service and NPR a lot during this war, primarily because I don't have cable. I think they've done a fantastic job. They've played it straight. In contrast, Fox wrapped itself in the flag, applying a red, white and blue filter to everything it reported. It was an American version of Al Jazeera. Still, this won ratings (much as Al Jazeera does in the Arab world), so other cable news networks were pulled along to an extent.

That fear of being labeled unpatriotic -- and losing ratings -- was the real reason NBC fired the reporter for talking to Iraqi TV.

Of course, the real point -- and don't miss it -- was that the government does exert an influence on media corporations because of the billions of dollars at stake in FCC decisions. I forget off hand if Krugman drew a connection between Clear Channel's decision to organize rallies in support of the war (they said "troops," but it was obvious what these rallies were really about) and the coming decision to further deregulate ownership rules. But if he did, it wouldn't be the first time someone has thought a connection might exist there. I certainly think it's plausible -- for the same reason that media are doing such a terrible job explaining the gravity of the decision the FCC is about to make on ownership rules.

We've seen, heard and read very little about that impending decision. In part, this is because media does a bad job covering itself. (The New York Times spread on Mr. Blair's problems was a notable exception). But I truly believe self interest is also at work here. Media companies are going to go into a wheeling and dealing frenzy when the ownership rules are loosened. More media markets will approach a state of monopoly ownership when all is said and done -- and profits will be huge.

Contrast this with deregulation of the airlines back during the Carter administration. That was a *huge* controversy. But very little is being said about the FCC's ownership rules right now.



<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|May 13 2003, 03:35 PM-->

If anything, I commend the NYT for its full disclosure on Blair's storytelling.

But it still doesn't take away from the thick irony of a New York Times columnist ("part-time" as he may be) throwing stones at other media outlets and lobbing accusations of slant and misdeeds. Awfully strange hearing this from the same paper only days (hours?) after recovering from the humiliating Blair ordeal. It would be similar to a Marshall assistant coach decrying the lack of institutional control at another university.

BTW, there almost seems to be an obsession with Fox News among the Left. Guys like Krugman may someday realize that Fox isn't the only news station this side of the Atlantic. A few months ago, C-SPAN ran afternoon-long coverage of an ANSWER anti-war rally in NYC. Last I checked, C-SPAN was an American cable station. Does this not count?

I'm buzzed, but let me try to offer some thoughts. ..

America has a bunch of news organizations trying to play it straight, and it has the New York Post, Fox and the Washington Times consciously bending news to the right.

That's reality.

The only reason I'm concerned is that I sincerely believe the left doesn't have media trying to bend the news as the aforementioned organizations do.

The Post is good at what it does. I respect it, even as I disagree with it. But the Times is not an equal alternative. The Times persists in trying to play the news straight.

I hope for the day when each major city in America has a conservative and a liberal newspaper. This would be a great place to live. But this isn't reality. Market forces have forced monopolies in most print newspaper markets. I believe market forces are why so many newspapers persist in attempting to play it straight. They try to play to the middle because they want to maintain their monopolies. Think about *your* newspaper, whether it be the Raleigh News & Observer, the Plain Dealer, the Blade, etc. They play to the middle. They attempt to lay it straight. This is what modern journalism expects -- and organizations like Fox and the New York Post and the Washington Times are not so restrained.

And I see no irony in Krugman vis-a-vis Blair. The events are unrelated. Blair's misdeeds are a comet striking the earth. It's not what any mainstream newspaper is about -- hence the intense coverage the Times has given this incident.



<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|May 13 2003, 11:12 PM-->

[QUOTE]The only reason i'm concerned is that i sincerely believe that the left doesn't have media trying to bend the news as the aforementioned organizations do. Now that is :laugh: Roch you should hit the juice a little more often.I love it!That quotes going to help get my day started.Thanks.

RochesterFalcon Wrote:America has a bunch of news organizations trying to play it straight, and it has the New York Post, Fox and the Washington Times consciously bending news to the right.

That's reality.

That's YOUR twisted reality. Mine is the exact opposite. CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, have ALWAYS been left of center. Why in the hell do you think AM Radio become so dominant? Because people couldn't stand to listen to that left-wing garbage.

Quote:

Quote:The only reason i'm concerned is that i sincerely believe that the left doesn't have media trying to bend the news as the aforementioned organizations do.

Now that is Roch you should hit the juice a little more often.I love it!That quotes going to help get my day started.Thanks.

Let me quote from the infamous "weasels" edition of the New York Post:

IT'S SHOWDOWN TIME AT U.N. AS POWELL TAKES ON EURO-WEASELS

By DEBORAH ORIN and BRIAN BLOMQUIST

February 14, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - Weasel so-called allies France and Germany will hear fresh evidence today of Iraqi stonewalling, at an 11th-hour showdown with the United States in the U.N. Security Council.
As chief weapons inspector Hans Blix gives his final report, Secretary of State Colin Powell has vowed to confront the war wimps - who are leading the push against American military action - and ask them if they are simply buying time to get Saddam Hussein "off the hook."

This was not an opinion piece. This was a NEWS story.

I challenge anyone to find an American newspaper that was this biased against the war in its newspages.

You won't.

RochesterFalcon Wrote:

Quote:

Quote:The only reason i'm concerned is that i sincerely believe that the left doesn't have media trying to bend the news as the aforementioned organizations do.

Now that is Roch you should hit the juice a little more often.I love it!That quotes going to help get my day started.Thanks.

Let me quote from the infamous "weasels" edition of the New York Post:

IT'S SHOWDOWN TIME AT U.N. AS POWELL TAKES ON EURO-WEASELS

By DEBORAH ORIN and BRIAN BLOMQUIST

February 14, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - Weasel so-called allies France and Germany will hear fresh evidence today of Iraqi stonewalling, at an 11th-hour showdown with the United States in the U.N. Security Council.
As chief weapons inspector Hans Blix gives his final report, Secretary of State Colin Powell has vowed to confront the war wimps - who are leading the push against American military action - and ask them if they are simply buying time to get Saddam Hussein "off the hook."

This was not an opinion piece. This was a NEWS story.

I challenge anyone to find an American newspaper that was this biased against the war in its newspages.

You won't.

So, let me get this straight,

Left= Anti-War
Right= Pro-War

Is that what you're saying?

Quote:So, let me get this straight,

Left= Anti-War
Right= Pro-War

Is that what you're saying?

I'm saying that most newspapers try to play it straight. They don't use or invent words like "weasels" or "Euro-wimps." This is loaded language intended to influence the debate by marginalizing the concerns these nations had -- and, by extension, the concerns of anyone against the war.

Again, the Post is a fun read, and good at what it tries to do. Fox News has the same qualities. My concern is that the left has no counterpart.

I'm hoping a network like CNN will conciously try to be a left version of Fox. In the meantime, I feel outgunned.

RochesterFalcon Wrote:

Quote:So, let me get this straight,

Left= Anti-War
Right= Pro-War

Is that what you're saying?

I'm saying that most newspapers try to play it straight. They don't use or invent words like "weasels" or "Euro-wimps." This is loaded language intended to influence the debate by marginalizing the concerns these nations had -- and, by extension, the concerns of anyone against the war.

Again, the Post is a fun read, and good at what it tries to do. Fox News has the same qualities. My concern is that the left has no counterpart.

I'm hoping a network like CNN will conciously try to be a left version of Fox. In the meantime, I feel outgunned.

I have seen disparaging terms used about Bush by your "So-Called" playing it straight news agencies.

..and you feel outgunned? Welcome to the conservatives world.

RochesterFalcon Wrote:

Quote:So, let me get this straight,

Left= Anti-War
Right= Pro-War

Is that what you're saying?

I'm saying that most newspapers try to play it straight. They don't use or invent words like "weasels" or "Euro-wimps." This is loaded language intended to influence the debate by marginalizing the concerns these nations had -- and, by extension, the concerns of anyone against the war.

Again, the Post is a fun read, and good at what it tries to do. Fox News has the same qualities. My concern is that the left has no counterpart.

I'm hoping a network like CNN will conciously try to be a left version of Fox. In the meantime, I feel outgunned.

I have admit conservative papers do a terrible job of covering up their bias but thats what i like about conservatism.Liberal news rags have allways had a sneakey way of exposing their bias.Conservatives can't do this and i respect them for it.Please don't try and tell me liberal papers play it straight though.

There is no liberal equivalent to the New York Post.

RochesterFalcon Wrote:There is no liberal equivalent to the New York Post.

Jealous?If so then why not start you're own rag.

It takes untold millions to start a newspaper. It's almost as difficult to start up a metro newspaper as it is an auto company.

I can only point to a few examples of daily newspaper startups since World War II that have been able to stay in business more than a year or two:

1. USA Today. Founded in the early 1980s, it only began making money in the late 1990s. Until then, Gannett sustained these losses (which likely totalled hundreds of millions) through profits the corporation made on all its other newspapers, (e.g., Rochester, Detroit, Cincinnati, Louisville, Des Moines). Gannett used some accounting tricks to get by, too. For instance, employees at other Gannett newspapers long served six-month internships at USA Today. The other newspapers used to foot the bills for these internships, making USA Today's bottom line look more attractive than it really was. That era has passed. After 20 years, USA Today is finally making a bit of money.

2. The Washington Times. I'm not sure anyone necessarily knows if this privately-held operation makes money. But it is safe to assume it lost many millions for many years. The Moonies underwrote those losses, apparently out of ideological prinicple.

3. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. When one of Pittsburgh's two major dailies went belly up after a strike at both papers, Richard Mellon Scaife bootstrapped his suburban weekly holdings into a second daily newspaper. My guess is that he still isn't making any money at all. But, much like the Moonies, he's willing to underwrite them to have a conservative voice in Pittsburgh.

That's about it since World War II. And only one of them -- USA Today -- is making money, primarily because it found a new niche as a "national newspaper," sold in airports, hotel rooms and the like.

Starting up a new metropolitan newspaper is a terrible investment. It amounts to taking on a monopoly. One must be willing to lose many millions in order to get to the point where advertisers will take you seriously.

RF, you seem to be articulate in presenting your political/economic opinions. Since it's difficult to start a newspaper without acquiring start up costs and quitting your job, maybe someday - if time allows - you can start a web log (or "blog" for short). You and a few others who share the same ideology can contribute spins on everyday happenings on a website you create. Generally it can only be one contribution per day, then you can invite others to log in and comment on your comments. But the site would generally be run by you and maybe 2-4 others. It certainly won't have the readership of a newspaper, but at least you'll have a small forum to express your opinions on a medium.

In terms of media bias, granted, most aren't glaringly blatant in their slant (ie "Euro-weenies", etc.). Although when a media outlet wears their political leanings on their sleeve, at least they aren't hiding their 'agenda'. But most newsroom biases and double standards are subtle in their terminology and spin. The book 'Bias' is a jewel written by Bernard Goldberg who spent decades in the business.





<!--EDIT|Motown Bronco|May 14 2003, 02:34 PM-->

RochesterFalcon Wrote:I'm buzzed, but let me try to offer some thoughts. ..

After this week of work, I'll be ready to join in for some "ice-cold refreshments" as well.

Quote:Since it's difficult to start a newspaper without acquiring start up costs and quitting your job, maybe someday - if time allows - you can start a web log (or "blog" for short).

My employer would likely not allow it. The issue is still being tested in the courts, but it appears that my employer might legally be able to stop me from such an enterprise. You'll understand why in a moment.

I'm not saying your point isn't valid. It is valid. And, were I in another line of work, I'd consider such an enterprise.

Still, it must be said that, at this point at least, a Web site doesn't have the same clout -- or revene potential -- as a daily newspaper. The initial proposal was: "Start your own rag." It takes millions.

Quote:In terms of media bias, granted, most aren't glaringly blatant in their slant (ie "Euro-weenies", etc.). Although when a media outlet wears their political leanings on their sleeve, at least they aren't hiding their 'agenda'.

Objectivity is a relatively new idea for newspapers. Up until World War I, newspapers were proudly partisan. This legacy is apparent in names such as the "Democrat and Chronicle" (in Rochester) and the Plattsburgh (N.Y.) "Press Republican."

Objectivity is now the standard. It's taught in journalism schools and it's what the vast majority of news organizations in this country strive for. And thank goodness they do. Most newspapers are local monopolies. It would be horrible for all of us if objectivity wasn't the standard.

Frankly, in some ways, I would prefer a news environment in which organizations wore their biases on their sleeve. But that's not today's environment, except for a few notable exceptions, and these exceptions are on the right.

Quote:But most newsroom biases and double standards are subtle in their terminology and spin. The book 'Bias' is a jewel written by Bernard Goldberg who spent decades in the business.

I'm finishing my 11th year in the business. I haven't read Bias. From the reviews I've read, I see major major problems with the book.

But a discussion of media bias is terribly complex and probably best saved for another day.