The media is suffering from a terminal disease called "fair & balanced"

[kentuck]

If they don't find a cure, they will die. It seems that every newspaper and television outlet now has this terminal illness. The effects are that they are no longer capable of telling the truth. No politician is ever held to blame or no celebrity is held responsible for their comments once the illness strikes the patient. They have an uncontrollable instinct to give "two sides" to every story, even when there is only one side. The effect upon the body is paralysis. They say nothing and the people age informed of nothing. Without the information required, not only will the media die, but so may our democracy.

[Mist]

1. "Some say the sun rises in the East, but others disagree. Stay tuned

for both sides of the debate."

[kentuck]

3. That sums it up quite nicely...

Thank you. :)

[JHB]

6. "And the debate is between those who say it rises in the West...

...and those who say it doesn't rise at all. Sure there's some "moonbat radical Michael Moore fringe type" pushing a wild "rises in the east" conspiracy theory, but if we even bother having him on, we'll make sure the others have plenty of opportunity to interrupt him and scoff."

[William769]

2. "If they don't find a cure, they will die."

And this would be a bad thing?

[kentuck]

4. In the sense that a democracy needs a free press...

Yes, that would be very bad. Let us not assume that the Internet is now ready to do the job.

[MallRat]

5. The press should be umpires, not play-by-play announcers.

It's not the media's job to merely regurgitate talking points for both sides. It IS the media's responsibility to officiate.

Not all points of view are equally valid, especially when they're grounded in lies. There used to be a time when the press wasn't afraid to call "BULLSHIT" when it was warranted.

The press should be umpires, and not just play-by-play announcers.

-MR

[cboy4]

20. Very good point.

[Asgaya Dihi]

7. They need freed of the stock market for one

The media is self serving in a lot of ways and I'd be the last one to excuse them, but honestly it isn't all their fault at least not by intent. Some just got themselves into a jam where they don't have a way out and it's either forced sale or keep cutting budgets which leaves no room for real journalism and foreign offices.

Here's an article from the Columbia Journalism Review about the financial problems of print press in particular, broadcast isn't too different in cases. Even if they did want to do a good job, which I'm not so sure they do, many would have a hard time coming up with the budget for it in spite of profits in the neighborhood of 20% or so.

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2006/1/mccollam.asp

[Armstead]

8. I think it's more bi-polar

Yes often this "fair and balanced" approach obscures the truth. The media has lost sight of the distinction between actual objectivity and a phony balance meant to placaste minority viewpoints. If 1,000 scientists come out in support of the reality of globalk warming, and ten crackpots funded by polluting corporations call it bunk, the media will imply that there is a debate of equals going on about it.

But at otehr times, the media has the opposite problem of complete narrow-minded myopia.

A prime example of that was the build up to the Iraq War. The media totally disregarded the substantial segment of the populations who had doubts or were outright critical of the rush to war -- including many experts and specialists on that part of the world. They marginalized that viewpoint, and treated those in favor of war as the only real "credible eperts." The only time they allowed a sleptic or critic on was as a "novelty act" or a character of a "fringe leftist." And often those representatives of anti-war opinion were treated with contenpt and derision.

They do that with many issues. The preponderance of the cotporate viewpoint on the economy is totally skewed, while liberasl and progressive interpretations are either ignored or marginalied as the "fringe left."

[kentuck]

11. Another example is the "bi-partisan" corruption...

Yet, when you have one one or two Democrats involved in scandal and 15 or twenty Republicans, it is not a "bi-partisan" scandal, in the sense the corruption is equally divided. They don't go far enough in telling the people the actual number of people involved...

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

9. Bill Maher: "You don't have to teach both sides of a debate..."

"You don't have to teach both sides of a debate, if one side is a load of crap."

[cboy4]

10. Actually, presenting both sides to a story is journalism 101

I mean it's not a bad thing, theoretically.

Truly and fairly present both sides and let the viewer/reader decide for themselves which position to take. What's wrong with that?

The problem is not enough news reporters/organizations (such as FOX) do present both sides.

If all journalists and mediums were in fact fair and balanced, I don't think we'd have this whole corporate media backlash/distrust situation that we face.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

12. So Edward R. Murrow should have given more balance to the red-scare?

And non-science, like intelligent design, gets equal footing against real science?

Sorry, but I do not think EVERY issue has 2 sides...there is often a factual side vs. crap.

[kentuck]

14. Or the present bunch should have given more balance to the war on terror?

They all signed on to the lies. There was no balance, although there were millions marching in the streets.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

15. They missed an actual 2-sided debate then participate in false debates.

The pre-war debate prior to the Iraq invasion was non-existent, worse still, the MSM "news" acted as a cheerleading squad and propaganda machine for the administration.

I guess they were too busy doing false debates about "intelligent" design and the attacks on Christmas.

FN IDIOTS!!!

[cboy4]

18. I'm not arguing that every story warrants pursuing both sides.

Both sides for Red-scare? No.

Evolution? Yea.

Global warming? Yea.

Diebold's clearly defective voting machines? Yea.

You and I may believe there's only one side to issues like those.

But to not present both sides becomes, in my opinion, a form of censorship.

WE'LL DECIDE WHICH INFORMATION YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT.

Your philosophy, with all due respect, sounds no different than FOX picking and choosing how it covers the news.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

22. IF there are no facts to support a position, it does not deserve coverage

It is not censorship to present facts.

"Intelligent" design has no factual, proven science behind it.

Terri Schiavo had a liquefied cavity where her brain once resided...it was clear from the CT scans alone. The law was on the husband's side. There was no debate and yet, we suffered months of news coverage and legislative intrusion into that matter. And, WHERE WAS THE APOLOGY FROM THE MSM AFTER THE AUTOPSY RESULTS????

Plan B contraception has shown to be safe and effective with no adverse effects and yet, the FDA has yet to approve it for OTC, despite an overwhelming vote of support from it's experts on the advisory board.

If Faux news was around during the McCarthy era, they surely would have given lots and lots of air time to McCarthy in his patriotic pursuit of the "red menace" while demonizing Edward R. Murrow and CBS.

[PATRICK]

13. Journalists and corporate owners alike

seethe under the constraints to deliver a profitable service to people who might get angry at hearing the truth or having the content judger takes sides. Instead of accepting the vitality of that dynamic they look for the easy way out or the way to subvert it(FOX). Their failure in grappling with the dynamic they justify by blaming or manipulating the consumer or lauding the wisdom of their substitute for the "news".

The very easy next step in this slide away from civic news is merely to become a limited thing of ritual entertainment, opinion making and propaganda for the powers people MUST accept and who take the heat(not the press or electronic media). The food chain begins with the powerful, the corporate brotherhood, the loudest bullies who must be placated since ordinary people SEEM softer and easier to handle. The crumbs of news that fall off the table are enough though to make people very angry indeed that this is all they get.

So their escapism and manipulation is NOT working, only become dysfunctional and a revealed deceit. It angers, oddly, all sides thanks to their RW games of scapegoating the "news" while using it as propaganda. Disgustingly, they have settled for a new dynamism to grapple with- preserving their money power and necks against their own consumers and their own nation and often against the future of their own corporations.

[AndyA]

16. Fair and balanced has been dead for a long time. Extreme efforts

would have to be initiated to revive it, beginning with the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. The fact that MSM reports only one side of the story, or distorts/omits information that would make the story more well-rounded is taking a toll on ratings.

Fewer people are watching the news now, and a big part of it is because the news sucks. When you can get the whole story in other formats, why watch the news, especially when it's obvious you're getting the censored version? I predict ratings will continue to drop for the MSM until they provide accurate reporting covering all angles of a story.

[Asgaya Dihi]

19. They need broken up

The Fairness Doctrine would be a start but there is way too much conflict of interest. GE for example owns NBC and MSNBC as well as others and also is one of the larger defense contractors, is also heavily invested in energy and the consumer markets. They propose laws in their own interest, lobby hard for those laws, then their own press who they control the hiring/firing practices of and offer corporate guidance to get to decide what we see on the news about it and who represents both sides. Some others aren't a lot different.

How can it be anything but messed up? Too much built in conflict of interest.

[AndyA]

23. You are correct. They should be broken up, then prohibited from

becoming a conglomerate again. Look at AT&T. Broken up in 1983, and now they're all back together again, under the "New AT&T" name. Disgraceful. Why did we go to all the trouble to break them up, only to allow them to get back together again?

[Tsiyu]

17. We need a Fairness Doctrine

but since we don't have one, we need wealthy Dems to get media savvy and start their own radio, TV, newspaper conglomerates.

Comedy Central isn't complaining....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. I think the problem

is that in America most of the news agencies attempt to present themselves as bipartisan.

Here in the UK, is is universally accepted that each newspaper has its own political viewpoint and will report news from that viewpoint (although the Times attempts to present itself as neutral), and while all the respectable ones try and present all sides to a story, it's perfectly normal that they will not give them all equal weight. The important thing is that there *are* news organs giving all side of an issue weight, not that each one does.

That said, it's worth remembering that the primary function of the media is to report, not to commentate.

[William Seger]

24. Another disease: Short Attention Span Theater

Especially with TV news, both network and cable, the belief seems to be that any in-depth analysis of any issue is too boring for Americans. As a result of getting most of their news from TV, most Americans are too poorly informed to make intelligent decisions.

[newspeak]

25. when you have corporations like GE

owning networks, and the last I heard, was the fifth largest defense corp. in our country--do you really think they're going to be against a bogus war if they can make profits? All TV is today, is a platform for PR groups to deliver their bullshite!!!! News anchors giving bogus research claims that are really commercials for certain corporations--MOST ARE JUST WHORES!!!! The American people should have been protesting the media--for without a fourth estate, Democracy truly is dead!!!!