The "solution" proposed by Jenkins will never happen, UNLESS the audience demands it. As Bernie has pointed out many times, the emphasis in the Cable News Business is BUSINESS, not NEWS. Recall not too long ago, a new boss came in at CNN, and he made a sincere attempt to move CNN to the middle, and get out of the far Left propaganda business. The result - CNN's ratings went down, the "newsroom" revolted, and the guy was fired. On the plus side, I do see NewsNation holding its own. I do believe there is a "silent majority" that is just tired of this partisan cheerleading, but that audience doesn't reliably tune in for hours a day to get their fix, unlike the brainwashed hyper partisans that religiously tune in to their team's channel every night.
When Rupert Murdoch started Fox News, it came across as having the viewpoint of the Chicago Tribune, when Robert McCormick was Publisher and Editor. It was slanted to the right, but willing to be critical of Republicans, when criticism was deserved.
Now, it's just cheerleading channel for Donald Trump.
I started watching News Nation, because it far less biased than Fox, as well as CNN and MSNBC.
Dan Abrams kind of enjoyed pointing out when any of the three cable competitors, as well as CBS, ABC, the Post, and the NYT all jumped off the rails of unbiased news coverage.
There's really nothing new here. The problem is, and always will be, WHO makes the determination on what is FACTUALLY newsworthy, and what isn't? OBJECYIVITY is the key issue, and Holman Jenkins fails to take that into account. One man's "facts" are another man's "fictions" in the political arena, and as long as there are two competing political parties in this country there will continue to be two ways of reporting anything newsworthy of a political nature. Plus the mere placement of the story in the reporting of the event in the newscast can also lead the viewer's opinion of its importance. Is it reported at the beginning of the newscast as a headline, or at the end of it as an afterthought? All these factors, some subtle and others not so much, will influence the viewer's or the listener's interpretation of it.
Several interesting tricks I have noticed on CNN and MSM "news" presentations:
*Misuse use of the term "book ban" to make it sound like a book taken out of a school library is somehow banned from public circulation. Books are removed from school libraries for not being age appropriate quite frequently. The book is not banned. Shame on MSM for the misuse of this term.
*Bringing up the Biden cognitive questions as being one of age. I saw a panel on CNN discuss Biden's age, emphasizing age as opposed to the cognitive decline. Technically speaking they covered Biden's age related issue, but I suspect the emphasis on age rather than cognitive capacity was to appeal to the generally Democratic party audience watching CNN and other MSM outlets.
*Relatively Infrequent coverage of matters like the Austin Metcalf killing, probably because it is a black on white crime. Compare the coverage of this tragedy on Fox News website versus the coverage on MSM. Much more prominent on Fox.
*Use of the term "abortion ban" for laws that greatly restrict abortion after a certain gestational period. If there are exceptions beyond X number of weeks, the terms should be "substantial restrictions" or similar, rather than abortion ban. But, the restriction term would not please most Democrats watching MSM outlets.
Many other tricks exist on MSM outlets to cover news, but with a slant pleasing to the political views of the bulk of the viewers of these outlets.
None of the manipulation/ tricks by the MSM justify Fox News falsehoods and inaccuracies, but I think that in substance, the likes of Jim Acosta and Rachel Maddow deceptions are close to the same magnitude/impact as those of Fox News.
Biden came out today and said Trump wants to cut Social Security. I have not heard Trump say that he is cutting benefits. Just waste. And eliminating the SS tax. Can’t find any video, direct quotes, etc. Because I don’t think there is one member of Congress who would get re elected if they voted to cut benefits. It would be political suicide. And financially catastrophic to millions of Democrat and Republican Senior citizens. Your sources on this are better than mine. What am I missing.
What I see in media articles is cutting of Social Security workforce, the people who process new applications, and work at social security offices. That is technically speaking not a benefit cut, but could delay the application process for social security, although the benefits can be paid retroactively to the eligibility date.
Lots of lies get told, and it sure seems that a lot of the MSM views lies by Democrats as "just being a politician, while the same type lies by Republicans get treated as lies by much of the MSM.
The "solution" proposed by Jenkins will never happen, UNLESS the audience demands it. As Bernie has pointed out many times, the emphasis in the Cable News Business is BUSINESS, not NEWS. Recall not too long ago, a new boss came in at CNN, and he made a sincere attempt to move CNN to the middle, and get out of the far Left propaganda business. The result - CNN's ratings went down, the "newsroom" revolted, and the guy was fired. On the plus side, I do see NewsNation holding its own. I do believe there is a "silent majority" that is just tired of this partisan cheerleading, but that audience doesn't reliably tune in for hours a day to get their fix, unlike the brainwashed hyper partisans that religiously tune in to their team's channel every night.
Excellent point!
When Rupert Murdoch started Fox News, it came across as having the viewpoint of the Chicago Tribune, when Robert McCormick was Publisher and Editor. It was slanted to the right, but willing to be critical of Republicans, when criticism was deserved.
Now, it's just cheerleading channel for Donald Trump.
I started watching News Nation, because it far less biased than Fox, as well as CNN and MSNBC.
Dan Abrams kind of enjoyed pointing out when any of the three cable competitors, as well as CBS, ABC, the Post, and the NYT all jumped off the rails of unbiased news coverage.
BERNIE, good article. Thank you.
There's really nothing new here. The problem is, and always will be, WHO makes the determination on what is FACTUALLY newsworthy, and what isn't? OBJECYIVITY is the key issue, and Holman Jenkins fails to take that into account. One man's "facts" are another man's "fictions" in the political arena, and as long as there are two competing political parties in this country there will continue to be two ways of reporting anything newsworthy of a political nature. Plus the mere placement of the story in the reporting of the event in the newscast can also lead the viewer's opinion of its importance. Is it reported at the beginning of the newscast as a headline, or at the end of it as an afterthought? All these factors, some subtle and others not so much, will influence the viewer's or the listener's interpretation of it.
Another excellent point!
Excellent points by Bernie.
Several interesting tricks I have noticed on CNN and MSM "news" presentations:
*Misuse use of the term "book ban" to make it sound like a book taken out of a school library is somehow banned from public circulation. Books are removed from school libraries for not being age appropriate quite frequently. The book is not banned. Shame on MSM for the misuse of this term.
*Bringing up the Biden cognitive questions as being one of age. I saw a panel on CNN discuss Biden's age, emphasizing age as opposed to the cognitive decline. Technically speaking they covered Biden's age related issue, but I suspect the emphasis on age rather than cognitive capacity was to appeal to the generally Democratic party audience watching CNN and other MSM outlets.
*Relatively Infrequent coverage of matters like the Austin Metcalf killing, probably because it is a black on white crime. Compare the coverage of this tragedy on Fox News website versus the coverage on MSM. Much more prominent on Fox.
*Use of the term "abortion ban" for laws that greatly restrict abortion after a certain gestational period. If there are exceptions beyond X number of weeks, the terms should be "substantial restrictions" or similar, rather than abortion ban. But, the restriction term would not please most Democrats watching MSM outlets.
Many other tricks exist on MSM outlets to cover news, but with a slant pleasing to the political views of the bulk of the viewers of these outlets.
None of the manipulation/ tricks by the MSM justify Fox News falsehoods and inaccuracies, but I think that in substance, the likes of Jim Acosta and Rachel Maddow deceptions are close to the same magnitude/impact as those of Fox News.
Griff Jenkins talking about media bias is rich. Does he watch Fox and Friends or any of his networks shows after Special Report??
John,
Biden came out today and said Trump wants to cut Social Security. I have not heard Trump say that he is cutting benefits. Just waste. And eliminating the SS tax. Can’t find any video, direct quotes, etc. Because I don’t think there is one member of Congress who would get re elected if they voted to cut benefits. It would be political suicide. And financially catastrophic to millions of Democrat and Republican Senior citizens. Your sources on this are better than mine. What am I missing.
What I see in media articles is cutting of Social Security workforce, the people who process new applications, and work at social security offices. That is technically speaking not a benefit cut, but could delay the application process for social security, although the benefits can be paid retroactively to the eligibility date.
Lots of lies get told, and it sure seems that a lot of the MSM views lies by Democrats as "just being a politician, while the same type lies by Republicans get treated as lies by much of the MSM.