Couple of things
- With regard to the Canine Angels fiasco, Tommy Irvin slaps back at the Athens Banner-Herald editorial board with a healthy dose of logic and how basic state law functions.
- Had an excellent turnout for the first Figgie's@Five at the ole musee with music provided by Mark Maxwell and Christopher Henderson. I'd like to encourage folks to check out Chris's My Space page since he really came through big time for us.
- Since when did reporting the news become the equivalent of a children's playground? Gee, since when Fox News got involved! Seriously folks, not that I've ever not questioned the professionalism of those guys, but now I have legitimate doubts about their maturity.
- More non-answers regarding the Georgia quarterback scenario. I ain't buying it. Joe T starts out, and Matt Stafford finishes. It's lunacy if it's anything else.
- Beverely Kelley's rationale seems a bit off to me. So you think there were voting irregularities, but you're not going to contest the election? Instead, you're going to check it on your own so you can 'win the war' ... huh?
- Had an excellent turnout for the first Figgie's@Five at the ole musee with music provided by Mark Maxwell and Christopher Henderson. I'd like to encourage folks to check out Chris's My Space page since he really came through big time for us.
- Since when did reporting the news become the equivalent of a children's playground? Gee, since when Fox News got involved! Seriously folks, not that I've ever not questioned the professionalism of those guys, but now I have legitimate doubts about their maturity.
- More non-answers regarding the Georgia quarterback scenario. I ain't buying it. Joe T starts out, and Matt Stafford finishes. It's lunacy if it's anything else.
- Beverely Kelley's rationale seems a bit off to me. So you think there were voting irregularities, but you're not going to contest the election? Instead, you're going to check it on your own so you can 'win the war' ... huh?
posted by Jmac at 7:06 AM
13 Comments:
Regarding the Fox thing: It's kind of funny. The quotes are hilarious. I agree that it's a little strange and inappropriate for a news network to do those things, but it is funny. All those type shows on the news networks are full of this crap.
It's like a verbal version of the scene in Anchorman where the they battle.
It's definitely funny, but it's so weird. Can you think of a profession outside of, say professional wrestling where this kind of dialogue goes on between competitors? I mean, you don't see BP and Exxon throwing down like this.
Of course, I think this speaks volumes about the mindset of the Fox News personnel ... that it enjoys using petty barbs and 'witty' one-liners to defend its credibility rather than actually, you know, defend its credibility.
Why say 'Keith Olbermann you're wrong because of X and Y' when you can say 'Oh yeah, Keith Olbermann you're jealous ... and you smell funny too!'
The latter is sure to score a few cheap laughs, but the crux of the criticism is never answered, or, for that matter, even addressed. It's like the Shaun McCollum approach to journalistic integrity - employ slightly humorous, but primarily juvenille tactics to make up for your own inadequacies.
"Can you think of a profession outside of, say professional wrestling where this kind of dialogue goes on between competitors?"
Fulmer and Spurrier? Although, admittedly, that's a rather one-sided contest.
Darren
What's not to buy about Richt's take on the qb situation? Stafford is 18 freaking years old. It's conceivable that he might need more than a year to get used to the system, etc. If so, and if JTIII doesn't quite work out, then we may very well end up going to Barnes or Cox (my guess would be Cox) by the end of the year. I'm not sure why everyone is so sure that it is either JT or Stafford--this year. If Stafford is half the qb people say he is, then I'll be shocked if he's not the #1 guy next year. But for this year, we're gonna go with whichever qb is the most ready to lead the team right now. That might very well be Barnes or Cox, who have had more time in the system than Stafford.
Keith Olbermann pillories O'Reilly almost every night on his own show, Ted Turner calls Fox a propganda machine, etc., and Fox responds by barbing these guys for the fact that they aren't as successful (lately) as Fox has been. Why are you criticizing Fox for its response, but not Olbermann for regularly going after O'Reilly? Why must Fox argue in a "mature" way, but these other networks and figures get to "start" the hostilities with their own immature ravings?
Personally, I think public discourse needs a little bit of whitty rhetoric. To use the college football metaphor, the ideal lies somewhere in between Spurrier and Richt. Right now, though, far too many people speak of Richt as the ideal, when really it's bland, boring, and a little disingenuous (The Right Reverent Richt, of course, is not being disingenuous with his choir-boy style. He is a generally wonderful person who will be both knighted, sainted, and Mormonly divinized before it's all over. But everyone else is being falsely humble and insincere when they talk that way.)
If Olbermann and Turner, et. al, want to constantly try whine to the American public that the ratings leader in cable news is stupid/biased/bad, then the Murdoch Machine is going to respond with some flavor of their own. And why shouldn't they?
Because there's a difference between an individual and an entire news network, the latter of which is expected to show slightly more maturity?
Right, Hillary briefly articulated what I wanted to express. Typically individuals criticize Fox News one at a time, or particular personalities on Fox News, but you don't get a corporate memo or an official press release from CNN or MSNBC which is childish in its criticism of Fox.
Also, much of the criticism Fox News gets from these individuals, particularly Tim Russert, is 'witty comment' followed by 'actual criticism.' Not simply 'witty comment' as Fox News puts out.
But I think Hillary hits the nail on the head here - if Olbermann pokes at O'Reilly, than O'Reilly is free to poke right on back (which he does). However, shouldn't the parent company either stay out of it or be above the fray?
Upon thinking about it some more, part of my problem with the whole thing is my belief that we have traded genuine debate and criticism and discussion for the concept of 'who can get the most oohs and ahhs' ... and that isn't too healthy.
Granted, it's good to have a little wit in your dialogue - reading any of the debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglass reveal this, as does a glance at much of the Revolution-era debates. But when we simply go for the cheap laugh, we're doing a disservice to everyone.
For instance, think back to the Ronald Reagan-Jimmy Carter debate (OK, we were, like, two ... but you've heard about it) ... Reagan 'wins' the debate because he's funny and charming and delivers the line 'there you go again.' No one remembers much of what Reagan said to follow that up, nor does anyone remember Carter's rather eloquent explanation of the challenges America faced which elicited the patronizing comment.
I suppose my point is that it's one thing to have our talking heads, people who are paid to be over-the-top and sarcastic and cynical, lobby juvenille insults back and forth (though I've got issues with that too), but it's entirely another thing when it's deemed 'OK' for an entire business organization to engage in the same kind of tactics ... particularly one we trust to relay the news of the day to us.
Or maybe it's just that FoxCorporate has their employees' backs, rather than letting them take it on the chin all alone. Also, negative sentiments about Fox are often directed against the entire network; they aren't just limited to comments about O'Reilly or Hannity or whoever.
And, dude, seriously, using Carter as your example of an "eloquent" response that was unfortunately covered over by an empty witticism? What's up with that? :-)
Seriously, I'm not particularly impressed by juvenile insults lobbied back and forth, but at the same time, I recognize that a. Fox usually does not "start" it (how's that for a juvenile analysis?), and b. the silly responses Fox gives to their critics clearly communicate that Fox simply does not take their critics seriously. Which might be the best approach to this whole debacle. "Oh, you guys (other members of the media) don't think that we are being true to the Golden Ideal of Objective Never Biased Just the Facts Ma'am Journalism, eh? Please do tell..."
But I suppose it depends on how you interpret 'starts it' ... for instance, think of all of the shams in pyschology that Russ dislikes (that John Edwards talking to the dead guy comes to mind) ... what this person does, his very being, is insulting to the profession Russ wishes to pursue.
It's the same way with Fox News. Their claim to be unbiased and their mantra 'we report, you decide' and 'fair and balanced' is an absolute lie, and you even acknowledge that. It's news with a definite right-wing slant.
And, to be more specific, Fox News did come into the game swinging. One of the primary reasons Ted Turner has spoken so strongly against them, aside from the basic 'no journalistic ethic' theory, is that Fox News has repeatedly purchased a billboard disparaging CNN directly across from the CNN Center.
So, I'd argue that Fox did start it (as we continue to be all schoolyard :) ) by ...
1. Practicing a sham of journalism that insulted the entire profession;
2. Saying this sham was actually 'fair and balanced' and not the liberal news you get from CNN or ABC or MSNBC
They fired the first salvo a long time ago. Let's not put them on this pedestal here.
To be clear, I believe that all media outlets are "biased." Yes, Fox is biased, but so are CNN, MSNBC, NBC, etc. This is the key to my position on Fox, because Fox isn't a "sham" so much as a more in-your-face example of what all news outlets already do. Even in this discussion, you continue to cling to some ideal of "objective journalism" which you think Fox has somehow corrupted with its own "sham" version, but the reality as far as I'm concerned is that CNN was corrupting your ideal long before Rupert Murdoch decided to go into the cable news business.
Fox has its own biases, and the other mainstream media folks scream bloody murder. But they're just as bad. And this makes them hypocrites, and their righteous indignation is more of a sham than anything Fox does.
Aside from that, Fox isn't that biased to the right anyway. Fox has a lot of shows that are about giving political opinions. Obviously these shows present partiuclar political opinions, but that's the whole point of such shows. It's not "biased" to have a show where Hannity and Colmes debate politics, even if Hannity tends to come off better than Colmes. When Fox does "here's what's happening" news stories I fail to see much of a difference between what they do and what the other networks.
Perhaps the real problem is that Fox simply isn't a "news" network at all, in the same way that MTV isn't really "music" television.
To be clear again, I find statements like "Fox started it because their very existence is an insult to what news is supposed to be about" to be just the kind of eye-roll inducing indignation that makes Fox almost refreshing. The "mainstream" media and its defenders all take themselves sooo seriously. Get a grip, guys.
And, finally (popcorn thoughts today, sorry), I realize that I'm infringing on your own ideological turf here, JMac. So forgive me for taking a crap on your coffee table when family's over. You are in many ways a "media man," what with your major in journalism and your former jobs with newspapers and what not. I don't mean to so brazenly contradict your sympathy for such things, but there it is. We are just on different sides of this question, I guess. Not the first time that's happened, eh?
Post a Comment
<< Home