Nice analysis and examples, Ellie.
But my biggest problem with the media is the sin of omission. The great unmentionables of the press - black-on-white crime, Muslim hate speech, successful self-defence by citizens - loom larger in the closet than if they received a proportionate share of sunlight.
Nice analysis and examples, Ellie.
But my biggest problem with the media is the sin of omission. The great unmentionables of the press - black-on-white crime, Muslim hate speech, successful self-defence by citizens - loom larger in the closet than if they received a proportionate share of sunlight.
It’s certainly possible to make non-ideological criticisms of media bias. Recent press conferences have been loaded with biases flying every which way. Issues of ideology aside, there are clues, at least in press conferences, that should set off the old bias alarm:
1. Multiple choice questions, which seemingly imply that a ‘correct’ answer exists; The ‘either/or’ format is the most popular:
"Another hot spot is North Korea. If North Korea restarts their plutonium plant, will that change your thinking about how to handle this crisis, or are you resigned to North Korea becoming a nuclear power?"
2. Historical references. Good examples here include Dresden, McArthur, Vietnam. Also, loaded vocabulary such as ‘quagmire,’
"Mr. President, millions of Americans can recall a time when leaders from both parties set this country on a mission of regime change in Vietnam."
3. The answer is in the question. Two for the price of one from the BBC:
"Surely we are seeing pockets of resistance that are going to make things very difficult for you in terms of how you rebuild the country?"
4. Rhetorical questions which are designed to present a message, NOT to elicit information:
"I'm wondering, are you concerned at all that we will be seen as a bully?"
The media has become so full of itself that it’s loosing sight of its function: too much ‘evangelizing’ and not enough information. My rating of the press: Needs Improvement.
It’s certainly possible to make non-ideological criticisms of media bias. Recent press conferences have been loaded with biases flying every which way. Issues of ideology aside, there are clues, at least in press conferences, that should set off the old bias alarm:
1. Multiple choice questions, which seemingly imply that a ‘correct’ answer exists; The ‘either/or’ format is the most popular:
"Another hot spot is North Korea. If North Korea restarts their plutonium plant, will that change your thinking about how to handle this crisis, or are you resigned to North Korea becoming a nuclear power?"
2. Historical references. Good examples here include Dresden, McArthur, Vietnam. Also, loaded vocabulary such as ‘quagmire,’
"Mr. President, millions of Americans can recall a time when leaders from both parties set this country on a mission of regime change in Vietnam."
3. The answer is in the question. Two for the price of one from the BBC:
"Surely we are seeing pockets of resistance that are going to make things very difficult for you in terms of how you rebuild the country?"
4. Rhetorical questions which are designed to present a message, NOT to elicit information:
"I'm wondering, are you concerned at all that we will be seen as a bully?"
The media has become so full of itself that it’s loosing sight of its function: too much ‘evangelizing’ and not enough information. My rating of the press: Needs Improvement.
"lumbering pseudoprole Michael Moore" -
Lileks rules here because his language hits us Mid-Westerners in the sweet spot and his columns mix acrimony and love of life perfectly.
"lumbering pseudoprole Michael Moore" -
Lileks rules here because his language hits us Mid-Westerners in the sweet spot and his columns mix acrimony and love of life perfectly.
Thing about bias is: in any given conflict or difference of opinion where there is no shortage of passion on both sides, all media outlets will be labelled 'biased' by both sides. We saw this during Jenin, where US media was accused of being at once too pro-Israeli and too pro-Palestinian at the same time. Doubtless the Pilgers of the world find the BBC too PRO-WAR, or too pro-American. Sullivan, naturally, finds them too anti-war/American. All you ever learn about from accusations of bias is the people who make the accusations.
I mean, have you ever heard an anti-war person complain that the media was biased toward an anti-war perspective? Or vice-versa?
Thing about bias is: in any given conflict or difference of opinion where there is no shortage of passion on both sides, all media outlets will be labelled 'biased' by both sides. We saw this during Jenin, where US media was accused of being at once too pro-Israeli and too pro-Palestinian at the same time. Doubtless the Pilgers of the world find the BBC too PRO-WAR, or too pro-American. Sullivan, naturally, finds them too anti-war/American. All you ever learn about from accusations of bias is the people who make the accusations.
I mean, have you ever heard an anti-war person complain that the media was biased toward an anti-war perspective? Or vice-versa?
"Presumably they are from the Midwest as well." - I mean, the guys/gals at the podium, not the non-US reporters. Duh!
"Presumably they are from the Midwest as well." - I mean, the guys/gals at the podium, not the non-US reporters. Duh!
Andrew Sullivan, who grew up with the BBC, has been posting examples of egregious BBC bias for about a month now. Lileks makes fun of them, but Sullivan really hates them.
Andrew Sullivan, who grew up with the BBC, has been posting examples of egregious BBC bias for about a month now. Lileks makes fun of them, but Sullivan really hates them.
I think Lileks is somewhat overrated.
I think Lileks is somewhat overrated.
Andrea - that would explain a great deal. Incidentally, it's been noted over here that in press conferences the 'challenging' questions are mostly asked by non-US reporters. I'm not quite sure what was meant by 'challenging' but I've seen zillions of press conferences from the Pentagon, State Dept, White House, in Afghanistan and now in Iraq and I'd have to agree that the US reporters' questions are noticeably softer than the rest. I've even on occasion noticed the person at the podium get somewhat snippy with the non-US questioners. Presumably they are from the Midwest as well.
Andrea - that would explain a great deal. Incidentally, it's been noted over here that in press conferences the 'challenging' questions are mostly asked by non-US reporters. I'm not quite sure what was meant by 'challenging' but I've seen zillions of press conferences from the Pentagon, State Dept, White House, in Afghanistan and now in Iraq and I'd have to agree that the US reporters' questions are noticeably softer than the rest. I've even on occasion noticed the person at the podium get somewhat snippy with the non-US questioners. Presumably they are from the Midwest as well.
Well, he might not have access to the complete BBC coverage, just whatever he gets on cable or satellite or whatever he has. I've noticed that British news media on the whole are much harsher and opinionated than mainstream American news media, who tend to stick to the middle-of-the-road as much as possible in order to not "offend" anyone. Lileks works for American news, and he's from the Midwest, where society is generally governed by the rule "If you can't say something nice don't say anything at all." I never met very many people from the Midwest until I moved up to Central Florida from Miami. There are a lot of New Yorkers in Miami. They are... different than the Midwesterners who seem to flock to Orlando. I've noticed that the sort of remarks that wouldn't even get noticed by someone in my hometown are seen as grievous insults by someone from Michigan.
Well, he might not have access to the complete BBC coverage, just whatever he gets on cable or satellite or whatever he has. I've noticed that British news media on the whole are much harsher and opinionated than mainstream American news media, who tend to stick to the middle-of-the-road as much as possible in order to not "offend" anyone. Lileks works for American news, and he's from the Midwest, where society is generally governed by the rule "If you can't say something nice don't say anything at all." I never met very many people from the Midwest until I moved up to Central Florida from Miami. There are a lot of New Yorkers in Miami. They are... different than the Midwesterners who seem to flock to Orlando. I've noticed that the sort of remarks that wouldn't even get noticed by someone in my hometown are seen as grievous insults by someone from Michigan.
Well, let me split the difference, then. I read about five blogs religiously and you and Lileks are on the list. You *both* rule. Uh, dude.
Well, let me split the difference, then. I read about five blogs religiously and you and Lileks are on the list. You *both* rule. Uh, dude.
Thank you for sharing.
Thank you for sharing.
You can be such a snot, but then, that's probably why I check your site occasionally.
I read Lileks daily, religiously, and with reverence. He rules.
You can be such a snot, but then, that's probably why I check your site occasionally.
I read Lileks daily, religiously, and with reverence. He rules.
Commenting by HaloScan
