Friday, June 23, 2006

Monica Crowley on MSNBC

I'm beyond shocked. Monica "Bush Girl" Crowley is on MSNBC right now, masquerading as an honest to goodness "news anchor."

And what did I just say about the information environment becoming more and more bizarre as the November elections approach?


  1. Anonymous1:47 PM

    My favorite line from Fux News last week? In a run-up to a piece on whether we should "stay the course," the voice-over asked, "Would we be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?"

    Honest to god, I had to write it down because I couldn't believe my own ears.


  2. I'm beyond shock. Beyond outrage.

  3. I've heard similar gems (from the opposite political spectrum) on State radio. Would be funny to compile a book full of them, both from the left and right, maybe with unflattering photos of the ones making the utterances.

  4. navywife5:07 PM

    Oh, on state radio. Well, see everyone, they are all acting the same. It doesn't matter that the majority of America doesn't hear that particular radio show/station/whatever. State radio isn't broadcast to hundreds of millions of viewers everynight, is it? State radio doesn't claim to be a reputable news source, does it?

    I am just tired of the "it is equally as bad on both sides" crap. Do we have to pretend anymore? Is it not obvious to everybody that the republicans are allowed to go on television, on a news station, and spout LIES? There isn't equal airtime for the 'other side'. Not to mention, the extent these repubs are going to rivals anything I have ever seen. It is absolutely appalling. And yet, we sit back as 'good citizens' and chime, "both sides are guilty".

    Well, can we please be honest. When a democrat says something, every 'news' station has a panel of conservatives talking about how stupid or tratorous they are. When a republican says something, the 'news' stations have a panel of conservatives talking about how great that person is and how right they are. This is what passes for 'fair and balanced' news reporting in our country. This is disturbing. I am just tired of it.

  5. Just about all I watch on TV or listen to on the radio is news, including CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NPR, various talk radio programs, etc. I think it is generally equally bad on both sides, with a bit of a tilt in the balance to whoever seems to be in power.

    Of course the one thing both sides share is the absolute conviction that its the other side who is doing it vastly more than they.

  6. navywife12:52 AM

    There is no "perception" that this is the case. This is the case. When I watch the news, it is obvious. The only problem we are having in this country right now is that people are fooled into believing that it isn't so. But anyone who stands back and objectively looks at the situation will see what it going on, and that is the media is slanted on the side of the president more often than not. Ever since 911, the media has been on vacation. Yes, they come up for air every once in a while and do some actual reporting, but it is not the norm.

    If they are not biased, why don't they ever bring up the legality of anything the administration ever does? And I do not mean bring talking heads on the show and have them yell at each other about whose "opinion" is the right opinion, but actually investigate something and then "report" it. I know, I know. A novel idea. This has not happened, or at least it happens very infrequently. Just off the top of your heads, how many people know how many international laws were broken when we invaded Iraq? I am guessing not many people know the answer. Actually, most people don't know we even broke international laws. But, more than that, there is a large section of our country who thinks that Saddam was responsible for 911. Does that make you think our media is doing their jobs?

    It is also especially sad when a person is on a news show and has a view that is different from the president, they are immediately asked if they 'support the troops'. Is this your idea of a balanced media? And yes, I witnessed this the other day during an interview on that "liberal" station CNN. By doing this, they are insinuating that if a person thinks differently than the republicans, then they are against the troops. Do you ever hear this question asked to conservative guests? I didn't think so.

  7. Navywife,

    I've been noting for some time that anchors are tending to drill Dems and generally give Republicans a pass.

  8. Navywife:

    This is an argument that never gets resolved, so I won't belabor it. Suffice it to say I think you are incorrect for the same reasons my family and coworkers who are Republicans are incorrect. You wouldn't believe how many times I'm on the other end of arguing this with them, and the responses are invariably the same as the ones you've given. I get to hear about how the media is almost entirely liberally biased, and how if only people could just see it we'd solve a lot of our problems. When I say I think the media, depending on where you go, suffers from bias in both directions, they are incredulous, unable to believe how anyone can not see that the whole thing is biased against conservatives.

    There are entire web site devoted to chronicling left-wing media bias; there are entire site devoted to chronicling right-wing media bias. People run through lists of CNN or NYTimes or Fox headlines to back up their assertions.

    And the reason my relatives and coworkers fall for it are probably the same reasons you do, the two chief reasons being 1) not watching/listening to an accurate sampling of the media (i.e. only taking in sources the perpetuate the already-held viewpoint); and 2) most importantly, the fact that we tend not to perceive bias in our direction as bias, but rather as the right position. If CNN runs a biased headline, left leaning people don't see it as biased because they agree with the bias - to them it is right and rational. This is the same reason conservatives who watch Fox do not think it is biased at all.

    You've all fallen victim to the same misperceptions, and thus both sides invariably rail at the media for being biased against them.

    That's my viewpoint, and I take in enough media sources with a critical eye that you're not going to convince me of your view (nor, I suspect, will I convince you that the media isn't out to get the left).

    Agree to disagree, I suppose.

  9. navywife4:09 PM

    Your having conservative relatives says a lot. My parents were apolitical. I left highschool not knowing the difference between a democrat and a republican. I didn't get political until 2004, after my husband was in the military. So, I am one of the least indoctrinated people you will ever meet, and I see the bull. The fluff stories that can be seen as liberally biased have no comparison to the serious stories that are almost always biased in favor of the president camp. The sad fact is that when it comes to important things like national security, the war, torture, the constitution, election irregularity, and misinformation that is constantly being pumped out by the administration, the media is either absent or tow the presidential line.

    Do you not remember hearing about all the stories that were planted in the media by the government? Do you not find this a problem? There was a study that found that about half of the stories in the lead up to the 2004 election were stories planted in the media by people in the admin. Nearly all of these planted stories were never further investigated by the media to determine their validity, but instead, they were just aired as fact. Do you remember Armstrong Williams? Maybe you should look it up.,0,5638790.story?coll=la-home-headlines

    You can read through these articles to see the real problem that we are having. If you do not think this is a problem, then I am guessing you would be ok with state run media. Other than that, I guess I am finished discussing this with you.

  10. Navywife:

    Arguments that begin and end with ad hominem attacks aren't very persuasive. As you suggested, we're probably best finished with this topic. As for internet links, I can link you to sites that give a run down of how conservatively biased the media is or, alternatively, how liberally biased it is. Would you find the former persuasive? Probably not, and rightly so, but I suspect you'd think the latter were right on target, which sums my point entirely.

  11. navywife4:38 PM

    I fail to see the ad hominem attacks you are talking about. I stated that you have conservative relatives, hardly ad hominem. Saying you are dillusional is ad hominem. Those links are to articles about actual things that the government has actually done. Those are called facts. I did not give you a list of links to opinions that there is a liberal media bias. If you had read any of them, you would know that. Your last comment shows where you are coming from. Sorry, commander for wasting the comment space on this.

  12. navywife4:41 PM

    Calling you smug and condescending is ad hominem too, but it's true. Now I am through.

  13. Musmanno, I’m weighing in here late, but I do have a dog in this fight. Consider the premise: “Media” has three parts: Radio and TV (electronic) and print. Each part is segmented (tiered) both as to size of audience reached and effectiveness of delivering the message within the target (local) audience. This we have large organs (1st tier) with audiences of over 1 million, 2nd tier audience 500,000 to 1 million, 3rd tier 200,000 to 500,000, etc, etc. Each tier in the pyramid responds to similar and dissimilar stimuli. But the ultimate foal is money. Rule #1: Electronic Media chains (ABC,MSNBC, Faux News, Clear Channel Radio, Sinclair Broadcasting Group, etc) must be considered in toto and not as individual delivery organs. Rule #2: Print media may not be considered in the same fashion, other than for stories that exceed the “local consumption” geographic area. Rule #3: To properly analyze the ”leftness” or “rightness” of an organ’s product delivery, a rigidly and exhaustingly complete comparison must be made of each story, news soundbite on a given day.

    You just can’t properly judge the ideological slant of most news organs based upon a small sample. It is possible, however, to judge their ideology based upon a long term continuous study. (This requires you to remember how they wrote about a topic one, two, three, fours years ago.) It’s been done, as you noted with your statement about websites serving the interests of both sides of the political divide.

    But it’s possible to get a feel for how each organ works by looking at them with a jaundiced eye. Carefully examine the tenor of each story, article, soundbite, etc. In the MSM, Dems are invariably presented as dispirited, disunited, disputatious and clueless. Think about it carefully. Be honest. Then read Mr Brooks, in tomorrow’s NYTimes. LOL

    Now, I think I have an experiential edge over you here, having actually worked for newspapers, in both blue collar and white collar capacities. Couple of times, in fact. Way back then and more recently. In fact, I just started my third go-round in the newspaper business. You don’t know me from Adam – I’m just a guy you correspond with on a blog, but I’ll tell you. With the ownership concentration increasing, and fewer independent newspapers, radio and TV stations each month, there is TREMENDOUS pressure emanating from the Corporate Mahogany Row, on sometimes a daily basis in fact, to toe the line and print the news the way the Bush malAdministration wants it printed. The sole reason is not ideology, other than maybe Faux News and Sinclair, as two egregious examples of what is called in the news business “lying sacks of shit.”

    The motivating factor is money. There’s a lot more slicing and dicing to be done in America if the R’s maintain the stranglehold on the country. Lots more mergers, amalgamations, buy-outs, and consolidations. And Mahogany Row is planning on BIG stock options for themselves. This translates to a lot of pressure downwards. And of course, everyone below the boardroom would like to continue feeding their families and maybe move up a notch or two, and that requires obedience.

    Believe me. I’ve been there, seen it, bought the t-shirt, stole the cap when they weren’t looking. If the Dems somehow organized their Chinese firedrill, started delivering punches on a unified, consolidated basis, and ended up gaining control of both houses of Congress, our concentrated media would turn on a dime. All they want are the Benjamins.

  14. Navywife:

    If more of that is all you have to offer, then I'm glad you apologized to Jeff.


    You make some good points there. I think that CNN, MSNBC and others have moved right from where they were, say, in the 1990s, and you're no doubt correct in that it all has to do with money. I've always figured part of it (probably the major part) was trying to cash in on the tremendous financial success Fox News has had, but it is interesting that you note the media tends to be pulled in the direction of whoever is in power. You're right about the merger and consolidation, but based on what you've said I'm taking you to also mean that the media sees the public sentiment as being aligned, in a majority, with whoever is in power at the time (that party having won elections) and so its message invariably moves in that direction in an attempt to pick up more market share. Would that be an accurate assessment?

    As for your credentials, I don't doubt them in the least. I realize I only know you over the net, but I generally take people at their word, and the content of your posts tends to back up what you say.

    I've never been involved in the newspaper business (or the media for that matter). Closest I came was to an opinion column I had for a while in a newspaper directed chiefly at lawyers.

    The problem with evaluating this sort of thing, from my perspective, is that each side attempts to paint a picture of the media in a certain way, and even if studies are actually done by, say, University professors, the side who doesn't think the study is favorable immediately pronounces it flawed and biased. Claims of bias seem like the fall back position in politics these day.

    The fact that everyone on either side is always asserting bias makes it difficult to root out the truth of the matter. I try a good deal of the time to just ignore the source and see what the substance of the report is. That is, I won't discount a story offhand just because it comes from Fox, or NPR, or, or even the National Review. I try to look at what is said and go on that. But I know plenty of people who, if you send them a link from one of those sources, would immediately discount it based on nothing other than from where it came. That doesn't seem right to me.

  15. One thing about your comment, Musmanno, that I find fault with is your comment about the media wavering in favor of whoever is in power. This theory ignores the reality on the Clinton hunt, which began in the second to third quarter of 1993, IIRC.

    Secondly, re: NPR - the national headquarters, as well as the individual stations of that network, and its competitors PRI and APR, have always been quite progressive. It's only since the R's 1994 "Contract on America" coup, and the resultant attack on Public networks via funding cuts that we've seen the slow rightward drift (and subsequent corruption) of the news and opinion articles there.

    I miss NPR's "driveway moments." Damn them. They even destroyed those.

  16. Lurch:

    Regarding NPR, I don't think the drift there has been very pronounced. I also think there is some merit to the idea that any publicly funded outlet should strive to be more objective and provide for views all over the political spectrum, but I suppose that's hard to achieve without the government mandating it, and I don't support that idea either.

    Have the gotten rid of Driveway Moments? Did you know, by the way, that NPR considers "Driveway Moment" to be a trademark owned by them? I don't know if they've registered it, but they ought to.