I remember this kind of thing being charged and talked about in conservative circles during the 2008 campaign, but I also remember this kind of thing being denied and dismissed rather flippantly pretty much everywhere it was mentioned. If you can stomach the read, what are your thoughts?

Does this represent a genuine concern or is it being overblown in your mind?

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/docum ... ah-wright/

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

I cannot stomach the read. Can you please summarize the allegation? Is the allegation that there is a conspiracy across the media to suppress stories about Wright? What is the evidence that supports the allegation?

Yes. Media bias is a real problem. A "media source" founded by Tucker Carlson and an ex-aide to Cheney has no chance of being unbiassed. I am very sorry that our main news sources are now so polarized: it was not possible to tell whether Tim Russert was a Republican or a Democrat. He was the last of a breed of journalists who sought to present even political stories in an unbiassed way.

I admire some of the commentators on MSNBC, but some are so biassed even I can't stand to listen to them. FOX "News" is CERTAINLY no better in terms of biassed coverage.

I have no reason to believe that "dailycaller.com" presents anything but the most conservative of conservative views, which is certainly their right, just as left-wing "news" sources have the right to counter these views.

The polarization of "news" is--I certainly agree--a serious problem. I don't know how to solve it in a society with a free press--and laws to protect a free press and free speech (which I obviously support).

Improved education for all would help prevent mindless acceptance of only one point of view, perhaps. Any suggestions on how to solve the problem, Gom?

Do you consider this a reputable, unbiassed, reliable news source, Gom?

The link was picked up by my visiting the Tuesday “Morning Edition” of http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ under the headline Media Plotted to Kill Rev. Wright Stories, which I do consider to be a fairly even or balanced representation of both conservative and liberal views. Though I've not researched the site (i..e The Daily Caller), and as far as I remember, haven't actually been on the site previously, I have no reason to simply assume it’s bias or dismiss its content. In addition, I think it’s fallacious to simply assume that all of the content of any site is somehow inaccurate due to bias because of who founded it or what the story purports. Having said that, at this point, I don’t have any reason to disbelieve the content, though I’m certainly not going to defend it as 100% accurate either. To be truthful, I don’t know this about most of the news stories that I read and neither do you. There is an extent to which we have to be able to trust what we’re reading, which gets at the heart of my concern actually. But this was just a story that I happened across while doing some of my daily reading, and I thought the story was interesting, particularly since these charges were being made 2 years ago but were most often dismissed and never really investigated.

I noticed that rather than addressing any of the content in the article, you moved straight toward attacking the source of the article. Is it your understanding that employing the genetic fallacy is an adequate response to a story like this one? In other words, is there no sense in which these kinds of things should be investigated, considered, or grappled with? Should we simply discard things like this if it comes from sources that we don’t personally sanction & trust? Do you think that operating this way will facilitate communication or solve problems?

What I gather from the article is that various members of the media colluded to help change the subject when it came to the Jeremiah Wright controversy because they didn’t like the direction it was taking the country, the campaign, etc… And my question is, does this kind of thing represent a genuine concern? Is the trustworthiness of our media across social, ethnic, and political divisions really gone forever?

I’m not talking about media polarization, as such, but I’m talking about media bias more generally. In other words, regardless of what side the bias comes down on, do you see this as a genuine concern? Do you think there will ever be a time when a trustworthy media that gives the straight facts on both sides of the ledger can emerge? I suspect not, but I’m interested in your point of view.

I don’t think there are any real solutions to this problem because of where our culture is at present. We are too fractured, as a people, both in terms of culture and in terms of ideas. My own belief is that this is, at least in part, purposeful, as it sets us against one another in competing interest groups. In other words, it lets our politicians and to some extent, our media, play us off of one another so that they can make money and line their pockets at the expense of our knowledge and ability to make good decisions. I wish there were a way around it, but I don’t think that there is. Quite frankly, I’m not sure everyone is even interested in a solution to this problem. Eventually, as we continue to slip into or run toward our emerging Orwellian nightmare, one interest group’s story will be told or become the dominant narrative. My concern is not with whose narrative will end up in the dominant position, but will this dominant narrative be connected with the objective truth of reality? Or instead, will it be a story told to the people in order to facilitate the peaceful operation of society, the disenfranchisement of disfavored groups, and the easy socialization of the young into a particular pattern of thought & expectation? I do wonder…

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

I don't think it was ever there in the first place. For as long as there has been journalism there has been yellow journalism, and--for better or for worse--muckrakers inspired by a sense of what they believe is right. This is what you get with a free press.

Only to the extent that the public lacks the ability or the inclination to use critical thinking skills to separate opinion from fact. Our collective baloney detectors need tuning up. (And I wonder, despite the number of times folks have linked to my post about the baloney detection kit, you have yet to weigh in on the validity of the techniques proposed for separating truth from fiction.)

No, which is fine. We don't need a monolithic, trustworthy-down-the-middle media: such a thing is as impossible as a monolithic, left-wing media neatly aligned against your interests and values, whether or not you think this is the case today.

Freedom wins. Somewhere between entertainers like Glenn Beck and Mike Malloy there are journalists interested in informing the public. It's a multidimensional spectrum: you have left vs. right, serious vs. sensational, sincere vs. cynical. Our opinions will differ on who is "unbiased" in a world of such diversity, and this is not a problem for me.

There is some truth in this.

I disagree. My solution is to advocate for a reliable way to separate baloney from truth, and to advocate for the responsibility of individuals to use their heads, recognize baloney when they see it and understand that not every source of "information" can be fully trusted. If that means we must argue about the best way to tell truth from fiction, that's okay too.

I appreciate this glimpse into your world view. It's difficult for me to respond to it directly, because past experience has led me to believe that what you call "objective truth of reality" has little to do with objectivity, truth or reality. I don't mean this as a dig or an insult, just to point out that there are grave differences between us regarding what is "true," and it is sometimes difficult for us to communicate effectively without thoroughly airing or examining these differences first.

Speaking of media bias, what do you make of the Shirley Sherrod affair?

Then she was fired.

Gibbs today:


What went wrong here?

I've not read any of the additional comments, but I wanted to post this while I had time. RealClearPolitics posted a follow-up article from the liberal perspective on Wednesday that I thought some might be interested in reading. http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/ ... -continues

The other thing I'll say is that my intent in this thread was not to focus on the content of the article or the particular bias involved, but just to use it as a springboard to talk about media bias more generally. Thanks!

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

It's really fascinating isn't it.

I was recently listening to a radio program where the professor being interviewed was saying that the concept of objective news is a relatively new concept that emerged from a much wider market being available. At first, media consumption was driven by local demand and thus partisan according to whatever would support local consumption. Once the radio in particular started drawing wider audiences, news had to try and cater to a much more varied range of opinions and thus the concept of objectivity was introduced into news. He was then asserting that there is a move backed to partisan news production because the wider reach now allows for the encapsulation of enough market share for people motivated by a particular point of view.

I'll try and track down a transcript or podcast.

An interesting timeline of the affair that has a little bit for everybody to learn from. This also reminds me of the Climategate emails:

I was under the impression that she was actually fired before FoxNews aired the video of her comments. At least, that's what Chris Wallace said while interviewing Howard Dean. I haven't followed the discussion of this incident closely. The constant racial politics and race-baiting that is becoming so popular today just turns my stomach, and it seems to rarely lead to any real expansion of knowledge or understanding.

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

I'm not certain of the timeline myself. As to the rest of your comment I agree unreservedly. Will you join me in characterizing Breitbart's contributions to public discourse as "unhelpful"?

Imagine if the full video wasn't available and the farmers weren't willing to go on the record in her defense. I think what just as likely could have happened says more about the state of things than what actually did happen.

No, not on the basis of one event.

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com