雅各布·韦斯伯格的 攻击 Fox News的偏向让我为即将死去的范例辩护：
Is it really fair to say that Fox "made all of cable news unpleasant and unreliable"? All three are responding to 市场力量 -- Murdoch was simply the first to recognize that a cable news channel with an ideological/partisan slant could attract larger audiences.
Also, while I have no love for Fox, which is a frequent conduit for misleading claims, it's not clear to me that non-"目的" journalism is in principle bad for American democracy or "un-American." The sad reality is that the "he said"/"she said" reporting style practiced by the establishment media legitimizes far more misinformation than Fox ever will. As my co-authors and I argue 在里面 conclusion to 所有总统旋转, responsible but non-"目的" journalism is sometimes better at countering spin than the mainstream press. With a few exceptions, Fox tends to fail to produce that sort of journalism, but there's no reason to think it couldn't be produced here 在里面 US.
At a more general level, I see Weisberg's comments as part of a pattern in which elite pundits decry the decline of the "目的" press and/or bipartisanship, which are held up as intrinsic to American democracy. What they often don't realize or appreciate is that both were historical anomalies.
Consider 目的 journalism. Until the late 19th/early 20th century, the press was largely partisan. This pattern didn't change until economies of scale in printing created incentives to attract a larger audience by producing independent newspapers (see Jay Hamilton's 所有适合出售的新闻). Similarly, the only television news available for many years came from the broadcast networks, which faced regulatory pressures and economic incentives to provide "目的" coverage as well. However, the economic incentives facing media outlets have changed and it seems likely that non-"目的" sources will again play a large role.
In short, our system of government is more flexible than people realize. We're 移动 toward a more partisan era in Congress and the press, but that isn't necessarily bad for democracy.