Ranting heads…
I understand David Shaw’s issues with the revolving door between politics and TV journalism where pols enter journalism as commentators and hosts yet remain connected to the politicians and campaigns whence they came. Shaw says:
But several other factors shape the perception of media bias, not the least of which is the polarization of our society. If you stand at one end of the political spectrum–it doesn’t matter which end–the center looks like the other end. If you are entrenched firmly and angrily at one end, then the center–where evenhanded, down-the-middle journalism should be and, in my opinion, usually is–looks even further away. In other words–biased.
Many of these folks passing in and out of this revolving door are naked partisans. And that’s the role they happily play on TV. Polarization is dramatic; it turns a discussion into something that can be photographed–a visual battle between famous faces. Does this presentation have the nefarious effects on the culture Shaw supposes? While I understand what Shaw dislikes about this situation, I’m having a difficult time working up much ire over it. We’re talking TV here. Who watches TV for intelligent, critical, and comprehensive journalism? I mean, it’s not like this revolving door involves print.
Oooooops. Never mind.
You forgot Safire.
I’m still editing this. And, yes, good point. I’ll add his mug, too.
“I’m having a difficult time working up much ire over it. We’re talking TV here. Who watches TV for intelligent, critical, and comprehensive journalism?”
Paraphrased:
Because everyone knows that TV news is not a reliable source for forming one’s mental map of reality, the misrepresenting of entertainment as news does no harm.
This is analogous reasoning to “Everyone knows Fox isn’t fair and balanced, so they’re not fooling anyone by using that expression, so it does no harm.”
The sad truth: you can’t look inside yourself, your friends and your colleagues, to know what “everyone knows”. Your contacts are not a random sample of the population of the United States. Just because the people you know aren’t being misled, doesn’t mean that a substantial segment of the population _is_ being misled.
(you were making a tangential point that you probably didn’t intend to have taken seriously, but it’s one that I think a lot of people make, and - well - it could mislead…)
oops - there’s a “not” missing, in my comment above. Funny how a paltry three letters can make such a difference to the meaning of a sentence…
I don’t get your point - Safire and Will are columnists, not reporters. I’ve seen Maureen Dowd, Tom Friedman, Eric Alterman, Frank Rich, etc. on TV spouting opinions. Do you really think only conservative (some doubt about Safire) columnists go on TV? Oh yeah, don’t forget Eleanor Clift. Clarify please! Charlie Rose has a regular stable of reporters on his show offering opinions: Mark Halperin, James Fallows, John Burns, etc. the list is endlesss.
Oops, I forgot — I saw the sainted Adam Nagourney on Charlie Rose, too. Tsk! Tsk!
Print. Print. I said nothing about reporters. And I’m having a little fun here by mentioning the print people that Shaw avoided.
Conservative? Liberal? Did I say ANYTHING about that? Want me to throw up a few more mugs? I’m happy to do so. The criteria: must work in print and have passed through that revolving door at least once.
Let’s get a rogues gallery going here. Who should I add?