During the 2008 presidential elections, political satire was all the rage. In fact Tina Fey's impression of then GOP VP candidate was so popular, that most people actually believed it was Sarah Palin who said, "I can see Russia from my house." The Saturday Night Live skits about the elections were so talked about, Sarah Palin and John McCain visited the show themselves.
After the elections, SNL featured a video, calling out President Obama and suggesting that his two accomplishments so far were "jack" and "squat." Oh, also that he killed a fly on television.
I was curious to see what political satire was like in other countries. I found an Israeli television show called Eretz Nehederet, which is a mix between The Daily Show and SNL.
Check out this video pointing out bias in the BBC's reporting of Israel.
When the iPad came out, I struggled to see why everyone was calling it "revolutionary."
When I asked a few of the 15 million iPad owners, the best answer I heard was, "It revolutionizes it."
(Check out Jake and Amir's video about the iPad):
While I am still not completely sold that one day the iPad will replace laptops, apps like The Daily, Pulse and Flipboard have allowed me to see the tremendous power the iPad has to revolutionize the way people consume their news.
Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of News Corporation, recently revealed his newest business venture - The Daily - the first iPad only daily news publication.
Here's a quote from a press release on The Daily'swebsite:
"The Daily is a first-of-its-kind daily national news publication built exclusively as an application for tablet computing. It provides readers the engaging experience of a magazine combined with the immediacy of the web and the need-to-know content of a newspaper, all while elevating user experience beyond the printed word."
Having only checked out The Daily once or twice, I cannot say that I was personally impressed with the actual product, however, I do believe that it has the potential to change both print and online news publications. The Daily offers everything a regular paper does (news, sports, celebrity gossip, opinion, arts and life, and so on). However, unlike most newspapers, which tend to sport a specific political preference, The Daily offers opinion pieces from all sides of the political spectrum. Offering multiple viewpoints in a single publication is perhaps the best way to solve the issue of bias in the media.
I do not believe that "objective journalism" is possible. It is simply impossible and unreasonable for us to expect journalists to be able to remain completely objective. After all, they are just human. That is why I believe that it is extremely important to read multiple viewpoints and not just read one newspaper, or watch one news channel.
However, most people do not have the time to pick up 5 different papers and read each of them and then form their own opinion. A simple solution to this problem, is not to expect journalists to be objective, but rather we need to introduce diversity of opinions into the newsroom. By supplying people with differing beliefs on a single issue, the unrealistic struggle of remaining impartial is neutralized. Coupled with the iPad, which allows people to both share and receive news faster than we've ever seen before, apps like The Daily which offer a variety of political viewpoints, will hopefully lead journalism in a new and more realistic direction.
After reading, "Governing in the Age of Fox News," I was itching to blog about the following quote:
"Not since the 19th century have presidents had to deal with partisan media of this kind, and even that comparison is imperfect. Today the media saturate everyday life far more fully than they did in early American history. Fox News, in particular, is in a league by itself. In the absence of clear national leadership in the Republican Party, Fox’s commentators (together with Rush Limbaugh) have effectively taken over that role themselves. Although they have their liberal counterparts on MSNBC, the situation is not exactly symmetrical, because MSNBC’s commentators do not have as strong a following and the network’s reporting is not as ideologically driven as Fox’s."
Fox News Channel is without a doubt a conservative leaning network. Although they actually have a strong Democratic and Independent following as seen in a Pew Research Center survey. And as for Fox being more ideologically driven than MSNBC, that same survey seems to suggest otherwise. The following statistics from the survey, show the break down of the two networks viewership according to political party:
While I do believe Fox is true to their slogan of providing viewers with "fair and balanced" news, their political commentary shows are absolutely without a doubt, conservative. The difference between Fox's political commentators, such as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, and the political commentators on MSNBC, such as Chris Matthews, is that Chris Matthews presents himself as a journalist, while Hannity and Beck do not.
According to Chris Matthews, his job as a journalist was to ensure the success of the Obama presidency. His understanding of journalism is to promote the candidate he supports, as opposed to presenting both sides so that people can make educated decisions regarding the presidential elections.
It is not possible for people to make unsolicited, well-informed decisions regarding the presidential election (or any other topic for that matter), if the people telling the news are practically gushing over a candidate.
Matthews, a well respected "journalist"portrayed Obama as not merely a presidential candidate, but rather the essential societal-transformative figure of his generation. Matthews, among others, saw electing the first Black president of the United States as too historically important to fail, and they believed it was their responsibility as journalists to effect change in society.
When all sense of objectivity is lost and journalists decide that they are responsible for effecting social change, what they don’t realize is that “no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press.” According to Michael Malone, “The traditional media is playing a very, very dangerous game. With its readers, with the Constitution, and with its own fate.” When the media can no longer report impartial stories, and fight for transparent government by asking hard questions of presidential candidates in order to keep the American people well-informed of who it is they are voting for, our democracy is jeopardized."
The main difference between Fox and MSNBC, is that Fox's political commentators do not believe that they are journalists. They understand their roles as political commentators and are upfront and open about their political viewpoints. On the other hand, MSNBC's political commentators believe that they are journalists who are merely reporting facts. This kind of misrepresentation in the media is extremely dangerous and is what Michael Malone is speaking out against.
