雅各布·韦斯伯格诉福克斯新闻

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：

鲁珀特•默多克（Rupert Murdoch）可能出于商业目的而不是出于意识形态原因，更倾向于向新闻界倾斜新闻，这一点不重要。重要的是，福克斯的模式入侵美国媒体的方式。通过证明受意识形态扭曲的新闻可以提高收视率，艾尔斯激起了CNN和MSNBC的竞争对手，以发展各种民粹主义和意识形态新闻报道。这样，福克斯不仅破坏了自己的报道。它的例子使所有有线新闻变得令人不愉快和不可靠。

美国新闻界最与众不同的不是其自由，而是其拥有百年历史的独立传统—它为公共利益服务，而不是为政党，说服或压力团体的利益服务。媒体独立性是20世纪的一项创新，从未在拥有新闻自由的许多其他国家中完全扎根。默多克在福克斯申请的澳大利亚-英国-大陆政治媒体模式是非美国人的，以至于他别无选择，只能继续否认自己的所作所为。对于默多克，艾尔斯和公司而言，“公平和平衡”是必要的谎言。承认他们的报道是受设计倾斜的，将违反美国对媒体在民主中的作用以及我们对构成公平竞争的观念的理解。但这是一个明显的欺骗，不再值得同等的时间。

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.

同样，精英们有 倾向于特权 两党制对立法过程至关重要，但这也是20世纪民主制的不寻常特征。南方多种族的动荡历史在国会创建了一个虚拟的三党制， 大大减少极化:

随着南方在很大程度上成为共和党，并且各派在种族问题上重新达成一致，该制度又回到了我们今天观察到的先前的两极化规范。

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.

Comments

[David]

我同意许多媒体已经向左移。举几个例子：

-CBS新闻'利用粗造的伪造企图影响2004年的选举。

-仅提供最少的报告，而无需调查不断扩大的ACORN丑闻。

-使用明显的假引号涂抹Limbaugh。

-给奥巴马大量的空余时间来推销他的医疗改革，同时给反对他的计划的人更少的时间。

Perhaps the more interesting question is why. Brendan says CNN and MSNBC were responding to 市场力量. If so, they'不是很好的营销人员。正常公司 复制 一个成功的竞争对手。市场对FNC的反应更加正常'成功将是向右移动并获得FNC的份额'保守的观众。

此外，它不是't working. They'就像FAIR报纸落后于《华尔街日报》一样，它也越来越落后于FNC。

我认为大多数媒体都向左移动 尽管 市场力量. They changed because ideology was more important to them than business success.

[MartyB]

有趣的图表和分析Brendan。

我点击了链接，尝试了解正在测量的内容以确定"双方之间的距离" but don'没有时间阅读我发现的所有内容。 Y轴是否有简洁的解释？

另外，我会在上面的句子中添加一个单词（大写）：

"默多克只是第一个认识到意识形态/党派倾向不同的有线新闻频道可以吸引更多观众的人。"

[班尼汉]

马蒂-图表来自这里： http://voteview.com/Polarized_America.htm

它使用Poole和Rosenthal'的DW-NOMINATE算法可用于扩展国会的唱名表决-请参阅 http://voteview.com/dwnomin.htm

[MartyB]

谢谢布伦丹-那是我想要的快速说明。

关于该图的另一个有趣之处在于，在20世纪上半叶，参议院始终在党派方面追踪众议院，但自1960年左右以来，参议院相当密切地追踪了众议院，这与您提到的党派普遍上升是一致的以上。

[daniel rotter]

"市场对FNC的反应更加正常'成功就是向右移动..."

为什么要进行新闻操作"moving"在任何意识形态方向上（向左还是向右）？感谢您确认，保守主义者通常会抱怨"新闻媒体的自由主义偏见", what they'真正困扰的是"新闻媒体的自由偏见。"正如他们对F（R）NC的形象拥抱所表明的那样，新闻媒体中的保守偏见受到了右边许多人的热烈欢迎。

仅仅因为共和党网络的观众最多，'t automatically mean that CNN and MSNBC should emulate them. If the latter two operations have liberal bias problems, then they should try to be 目的, not have a CONSERVATIVE bias.

[David]

极化介质的优点是它们倾向于纠正另一侧产生的错误。媒体事务可能赢了'提克里斯·马修斯'愚蠢的人，但大卫·霍洛维茨（David Horowitz）则以他断言： “具有讽刺意味的是，这个国家最像塔利班的组织是宗教权利。”
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/10/25/newsreal-sunday-chris-matthews-says-the-dumbest-thing-in-television-history/

[Dave M.]

我也是'll just add that 'market forces' shouldn'不可反驳地用作任何行为的理由。毕竟在那里'是可卡因和AK-47的市场，但事实并非如此'并不意味着民主社会应该'不要把那些对自己有害。当然可以'调节党派关系，但可以为这些无情的人提供缓冲'market forces'这将为党派较少的新闻蓬勃发展提供空间。以PBS为例-可能是我们剩下的唯一一件事'objective' journalism.