On the subject of why politicians aren’t worried about corporate media factcheckers, a New York Times article from last week (8/31/12) by Alessandra Stanley is worth a second look.
Rachel Maddow: ruining it for everybody else (JD Lasica)
Under the headline, “How MSNBC Became Fox‘s Liberal Evil Twin,” Stanley wrote: “You can agree with everything that Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz say on MSNBC and still oppose their right to say it.” Stanley’s problem was that “all that attitude” on MSNBC “leaves fewer choices for viewers who like their election coverage with informed commentary without a twist of bias”:
All that arch sarcasm and partisan brio may rev up the cable channel’s fans, but it constrains—and stains—NBC News, its corporate sibling, which is still the country’s No. 1 source in the evening.
As if that weren’t clear enough, Stanley went on to write that although NBC journalists like Tom Brokaw and David Gregory “are badly needed” on MSNBC‘s election coverage, they “don’t stay long or join the fray—like piano players in a brothel, they don’t go upstairs.”
I recall that when MSNBC‘s presumably non-evil twin, Fox News, was still considered an only child, media analysts generally took the opposite position—that it was deeply unfair to suggest that the outspoken partisanship of Fox‘s commentators cast any shadow on the ostensibly straight-shooting news reporters on Fox News. As FAIR’s Seth Ackerman wrote in 2001 (Extra!, 7–8/01):
The fact that Fox‘s “chat consistently tilts to the conservative side,” wrote the Washington Post‘s Howard Kurtz (2/5/01), “may cast an unwarranted cloud on the news reporting, which tends to be straightforward.”
When a New York Times profile of Fox News ran with a headline calling it a “conservative cable channel” (9/18/00), the paper quickly corrected their “error” the following day, explaining that in “attributing a general political viewpoint to the network, the headline exceeded the facts in the article.”
But what’s really interesting is the first example Stanley gives of the kind of beyond-the-pale commentary that so taints the reputation of the good people at NBC News:
Especially when [Maddow and Schultz] and their hyped-up panelists shout that Republican claims are “lies.”…
Yep, that’s the sort of thing that really shouldn’t be allowed to sully the reputation of cable TV news—referring to politicians’ deliberate attempts to deceive the voting public as “lies.” Stanley’s colleague Elisabeth Bumiller famously explained that in the kind of journalism the New York Times recognizes as such, “You can’t say the president is lying.” Apparently that rule applies to vice presidential candidates as well—as long as they’re Republican, at least.
Why don’t you show us how a real journalist does it, Ms. Stanley?
On Thursday, Mr. [Chris] Matthews fulminated against Paul Ryan’s—admittedly misleading—assertion that Mr. Obama did nothing to prevent the closing of a GM plant in 2008. Then Fox News attacked media figures who attacked Mr. Ryan. CNN took the harder course of parsing the entire issue: The correspondent Tom Foreman gave a long, industrious analysis that explained where and how Mr. Ryan finessed the facts.
There you go: To avoid staining your journalistic siblings, never “fulminate” against political deception. Instead, when candidates lie, gently report that they “finessed the facts.”
With journalistic standards like that in place, the Romney/Ryan team will never pay a price for refusing “to let our campaign be dictated by factcheckers.”
In 2000, the New York Times stopped opinion columnist Paul Krugman from stating that George W. Bush was lying about various matters. The concept just seems inadmissable if you are important enough in US politics.
This is all so far beyond the pale, it’s just boggling, so much more so in this age of information, when these distortions and lies are -so easily cross-checked and observable-.
Americans are all insane… we’ve all gone around the bend, and the news media led us here.
It is a good thing that, without the aide of our something watchdog something media, most citizens already know that politicians lie all the time, the good ones just sound sincere.
@funonymous
this isnt about “lying politicans” its about lying journalists, even you would be forced to admit theres a big difference.. andthats where the fake “centrist” “pox on both houses” drivel falls apart..the media are not supposed to be willfull, serial liars..
and BTW everyone in the brothel “goes upstairs” eventually. Thats why Scott Joplin had syphyllus.
Comparing Fox to MSNBC is like comparing the proverbial apples to oranges.
I watch MSNBC to become informed and can’t abide Fox because it misinforms.
Fox is a landing strip for Republican politicians .. how many times a week is Romney ‘opining’ on Fox and how many times has Obama dropped in on MSNBC? Never.
David Gregory is a Republican shill-meister, how many times has he had John McCain on that sorry excuse for a news show and worse, how many times has he had a ratio of about, 5 Republicans to three, often pretty lame Democrats who are often blind sided by insufferable Rightwing hacks like Castellanos and the ubiquitous rightwing mouthpiece Michael Steels, both only on these showsto interrupt and interfere with a Democrat trying to finish a sentence. There is NO Democratic counterpart to these two anywhere on the news channels.
Fully 80% of C-span is devoted to the Republicans … I love its Booknotes featuring Ann Coulter Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham and Monica Crowley who are treated as legitimate authors and regarded with the greatest respect by C-span for their Regnery polemics. C-span even has little programs devoted to these authors along with the usual Republican think tanks that are strewn across the nation. Again, no Democratic Party counterparts.
C-span, Fox, NBC, Meet the Press, CNN, Fox Business and, what’s Rush Limbaugh doing spewing his treasonous hate-speech against the President on the Armed Forces Radio Newtwork around the world, I ask, and Charlie Rose who can’t gush enough over Republicans and conservatives … The odd thing is that although there is only one MSNBC news channel that devotes a number of hours each day to discussions that represent the Democratic side, Morning Joe, for three hours from 6 to 9 Mon-Fri devotes all of its time to rightwing, corporatist, Republican shilling and no one on MSNBC has more tantrums, rants and interrupts more than NBC’s and Jack Welch, pet, Joe Scarborough.
I remember years ago when he had a show on in the evening screeching at Democrats, threatening to to shut off their mike if they didn’t stop talking ..just talking it always was too, not ranting.
It is no wonder Democrats have become so cowed and spineless, they just get shunned and shoved aside.
The New York Times couldn’t have supported more to that blood soaked invasion, they just never seem to pay a price for their duplicity in the Iraq invasion.
Judy Miller didn’t have her book about ‘Germs’ published to much media hype just before the Iraq invasion by accident.
The New York Times cannot be trusted or respected because of its partisan positions regarding the Palestinian/Israeli tragedy.
Fortunately, the internet is passing these censoring, unfair partisans by the wayside. let them live in denial, there are many websites that are bringing truth to their powerful omissions and silence about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
Why does Fair keeping messaging I’ve already “said that”? Not true.
Looking out at the state of the Union, it dawns on me that the last thing the left should be shouting for…..is truth in reporting.They would not last a week.
I have to give Rachel M a shot(cant help myself).She truly is hard to look at …watch..whatever you want to call it.It is not her content, though I do laugh at her assertions.There are plenty of people on the left I enjoy.But oofa she is really hard on the ears , eyes,and mind.Truly I am surprised by her success.Is she your version of Ann coulter but without any humor?
Amanda Obama does not stop there because to be honest he does not want to answer any questions beyond a narrowly defined script.Things are pretty bad out there.The last thing he wants is to answer any questions.
Who’s Amanda Obama? Anybody you know, Amanda? Nice screed, by the way. Try a different browser if you’re getting the strange behavior.
Jim,
There’s an error in the story above: “–as long as their (sic) Republican, at least.”
TimN; michael e meant to say “Amanda, Obama . . . . ” methinks.
Sorry Amanda.Actually i saw your name and was thinking how nice a name it was(truth).I typed it in without even seeing I had done so.
TimN: Belated thanks for pointing that out.