WP: Why don't honest journalists take on Fox News?

[Larry]

No, I actually like hearing opinions that differ from mine. Why do you think I spend so much time bantering in the Tailgate?

There is a severe and important difference between stating an opinion and fabricating news.

Waxing nostalgic about my formative years in DC, when my favorite radio station was WRC radio. Started out as an all-news station, then migrated to news talk while I was listening to them.

Their afternoon drive-time show was "Crossfire", featuring Pat Buchannan, columnist and former White House staffer under Nixon, and Tom Braeden, columnist and former White House staffer under Kennedy and LBJ. (And author of the book Eight is Enough, which was based on his own family.)

I loved listening to those two argue, because I learned so much from them. They were both very well informed.

And they kept each other honest. If one of them would spout some statistic, the other would know where the statistic came from, and how it was manipulated.

Sigh. Old Fart talking about how much better The Good Old Days were.

[TimmySmith]

LOL, how many times in this thread have we seen this same worn out tactic...2 wrongs make a right?

It's not 2 wrongs, it's 10,000 wrongs, and none of them make a right. Quit being a drama queen and realize the Fox news is simply a partisan outlet, no different than all the rest. Partisanship sells commercial time, and it's a business.

[Burgold]

On that level, I remember back in my college days I used to always listen to G. Gordon Liddy's show on the drive up to campus. Sure, he had a stance, but it was a reasoned and fact based stance. He was a good host as I recall.

[Jumbo]

The thing is, as legitimate as the cheered ideal is, I think that much of the time that "angle" in many response is more taking the form of a disingenuous deflection. While there are people sincerely consistent in criticizing "both sides", the behavior usually being indicted is the common one of when you are discussing a specific example ("prosecuting a specific offense"--metaphorically or literally) or are "going after" a specific circumstance in the family, for instance (as in regarding an unacceptable behavior from a specific child) and someone tries using "the other guy does it" defense.

If dad's talking about holding Sally accoutable for her throwing garbage out the car, then for Sally or her friend to respond by saying "but Tommy does that"--which may be true and needs to be considered in the big picture and we all know this without saying it--but in the moment it is usually an attempt at deflection when kids (or adults) do that--it's not an apeal to high ideals. And it shouldn't let Sally "off the hook" or be an effective response allowing any redemption for Sally's choice. "If Tommy jumped off the roof, I suppose you would too."

If it were a case being prosecuted, one does not go "Yes, your honor, Rush did have sex with an underage seal in sight of the children at the zoo, but Rachel is known to service donkey's at the state fair every year" as a defense for Rush. It changes the nature of the conversation by distraction and does nothing to address the original topic of Rush's questionable proclivities. If Rachel needs to be prosecuted, then someone should do so separately. The subject of Rush's happiness is the topic in that specified situation.

Examples of disingenuous motives may be seen in the "usual suspects" (meaning almost anyone) who primarily show up to talk "media bias" in threads where the OP is castigating "their side." Then they bring up "the other side" as a counter as their main response. Or those who start threads about the "other side" while rarely, if ever, are seen starting a thread about "their side."

Such folks will often concede their side is flawed too when "forced" to within any given thread, but the the vast majority of time their initial comments take the appearance of deflection or misdirection more than anything else, the predictable banner of "equal justice" being waved notwithstanding.

This is an age-old human social behavior and a lot of people seem to be pretending it's not real or in play. The behavior is a time-honored tool that obscures and impedes holding specific entities accountable under the guise of seeking excuse via "distribution of guilt." Fairness in application of standards is obviously a matter of genuine concern, and can be raised with integrity and genuineness--most effectively in other contexts.

So understand, the matter of being fair and equitable in criticizing of media/lies/bias/spin/ and plain old manipulating, self-serving polemics etc. is something I certainly endorse.

No one has to point out the obvious in reply to these comments that seeing "x" start a thread about Beck or Maddow when you know they only rail about the "other side" and not their own "makes you" have to reply about "their side" and point that out to them. That's the never-ending game of circle-jerk deflection I think Bang is on about.

The legitimate thing to do (for quality discourse) is to address the specific person and/or example under question and opine on just that with focus, and then either make a further point of "you guys do it to" (still a low-grade exercise IMO) or better yet, save the "but..." stuff for your own or other suitable thread/specific example, or for any generic "media bias" thread.

I actually had a comment from another staff member during a recent discussion that included this stuff and the near-terminal level of pot/kettle hypocrisy in the tailgate :pfft: (and in political discourse in general). Their idea was to put up a bulletin-thread stating we're taking a week and when reading anyone doing the "but what about the other guy" as their main response, they would be banned for a week. We were remembering when the staff used to do things like that every now and then and it always always fun. :evilg:

[deejaydana]

I actually had a comment from another staff member during a recent discussion that included this stuff and the near-terminal level of pot/kettle hypocrisy in the tailgate :pfft: (and in political discourse in general). Their idea was to put up a bulletin-thread stating we're taking a week and when reading anyone doing the "but what about the other guy" as their main response, they would be banned for a week. We were remembering when the staff used to do things like that every now and then and it always always fun. :evilg:

Point taken Jumbo. and next time I'm just going to cut to the chase and use this new icon you guys added :

:effinpolitics:

[Bang]

I agree with you.

How about we just be critical of media in general and not devote the whole thread to fox. Pulling the fire alarm is the issue that needs to be stopped. Not stopping the boy in red pulling the alarm.

I mean really the thread title in itself is biased and flawed. Who are the "honest journalists" being sought, and by who's bias are they "honest". Truth is all media is biased and slanted...including every post on this board. The dishonesty in my mind is calling out one, while refusing to discuss the other.

Very very true, and I'm with you.

This thread was about an article written about Fox, so there's the main root of this particular discussion.

I don't expect journalists to be completely unbiased.. they're only human after all. The thing I really really don't like is the purposeful distortions and untruths.. that is the very dangerous practice that worries me.

~Bang

[Bang]

But if you dont point out how bad the others are then it is kind of hypocritical isnt it

When you refuse to address anything BUT the other guy, what is that?

~Bang