Here is the problem with the media in a nutshell. It is definitely not liberal bias.
Watch the juvenile, slanted, loaded question "interview" by the "journalist" Tucker Carlson, which is typical of what I see whenever I turn on Fox News (Tucker is at MSNBC) here (Hat tip to Crooks & Liars where I first saw this video):
Notice that the "journalist" begins the interview by expressing his personal disapproval of the guest's views. This is akin to beginning the interview with an acknowledgment that the interviewer is such an egotistical idiot that he is certain we care more about his adolescent opinions than the story he is presenting. Then he proceeds to attempt to steer the conversation away from any discussion of Mr. Kucinich's trip or his views and instead attempts to create a "Hanoi Jane" storyline where none exists. Instead of getting information about the middle east, Mr. Kucinich is forced to explain to the "journalist" why creating caricatures is not an appropriate approach to fact finding. Should this not be a topic covered in journalism school? Shouldn't we, as Americans with some modicum of common sense, dismiss and turn off "journalists" who give us caricatures in lieu of real news?
What we are left with is a show purported to be about news, which instead turns out to be about Tucker Carlson's ego and instead of news we are forced to sit and listen while an adult attempts to explain to the journalist how to do his job and how journalism works.
Then, for contrast, watch Jon Stewart interview Lt Col Nagl about the Counter-Insurgency Manual. This is obviously someone whose views on the war differ from Jon's. However, the _*comedian*_ is able to handle that, ask reasonable questions in a respectful manner that are not loaded, and demonstrate that he has some familiarity with the manual and may have actually read it!
Do you feel more informed on the topic of each interview after the liberally biased comedian or the "journalist"? Notice that the comedian doesn't preface his interview with an egotistic comment to begin to frame the interviewee into the caricature that he is about to try to create. Notice how his questions are straightforward and don't attempt to box the Lt Col into a storyline that forces him to abandon the information he has to share in order to defend against the caricature that is being forced upon him. I would also notice that the comedian seems much more aware than many journalists are that he is speaking to a man in uniform and therefore has an ethical/legal line to walk as far as eliciting a political response from his guest.
Some people say it is a sign of the apocalypse that so many people get their news from a comedian but if we can remember when we last had some actual journalism in this country, this is closer to what journalism actually looks like than Carlson's approach, which to me is more like comedy. Carlson's approach leaves us with a sad conversation of a man trying to make some cogent points, talking with a toddler who hasn't had his nap. The data shows that those who watch the Daily Show tend to be more well informed about the facts. Yet Tucker's ego trip is what we pay journalists for in America. So I guess that while the media is only willing to do comedy and the comedians are the only ones willing to do journalism, we take it where we can get it.
Of course, writing this reminds me that it was Jon Stewart who confronted Tucker and Paul Begala about their lack of journalism and started Tucker toward the door at CNN.
Watch the juvenile, slanted, loaded question "interview" by the "journalist" Tucker Carlson, which is typical of what I see whenever I turn on Fox News (Tucker is at MSNBC) here (Hat tip to Crooks & Liars where I first saw this video):
Notice that the "journalist" begins the interview by expressing his personal disapproval of the guest's views. This is akin to beginning the interview with an acknowledgment that the interviewer is such an egotistical idiot that he is certain we care more about his adolescent opinions than the story he is presenting. Then he proceeds to attempt to steer the conversation away from any discussion of Mr. Kucinich's trip or his views and instead attempts to create a "Hanoi Jane" storyline where none exists. Instead of getting information about the middle east, Mr. Kucinich is forced to explain to the "journalist" why creating caricatures is not an appropriate approach to fact finding. Should this not be a topic covered in journalism school? Shouldn't we, as Americans with some modicum of common sense, dismiss and turn off "journalists" who give us caricatures in lieu of real news?
What we are left with is a show purported to be about news, which instead turns out to be about Tucker Carlson's ego and instead of news we are forced to sit and listen while an adult attempts to explain to the journalist how to do his job and how journalism works.
Then, for contrast, watch Jon Stewart interview Lt Col Nagl about the Counter-Insurgency Manual. This is obviously someone whose views on the war differ from Jon's. However, the _*comedian*_ is able to handle that, ask reasonable questions in a respectful manner that are not loaded, and demonstrate that he has some familiarity with the manual and may have actually read it!
Do you feel more informed on the topic of each interview after the liberally biased comedian or the "journalist"? Notice that the comedian doesn't preface his interview with an egotistic comment to begin to frame the interviewee into the caricature that he is about to try to create. Notice how his questions are straightforward and don't attempt to box the Lt Col into a storyline that forces him to abandon the information he has to share in order to defend against the caricature that is being forced upon him. I would also notice that the comedian seems much more aware than many journalists are that he is speaking to a man in uniform and therefore has an ethical/legal line to walk as far as eliciting a political response from his guest.
Some people say it is a sign of the apocalypse that so many people get their news from a comedian but if we can remember when we last had some actual journalism in this country, this is closer to what journalism actually looks like than Carlson's approach, which to me is more like comedy. Carlson's approach leaves us with a sad conversation of a man trying to make some cogent points, talking with a toddler who hasn't had his nap. The data shows that those who watch the Daily Show tend to be more well informed about the facts. Yet Tucker's ego trip is what we pay journalists for in America. So I guess that while the media is only willing to do comedy and the comedians are the only ones willing to do journalism, we take it where we can get it.
Of course, writing this reminds me that it was Jon Stewart who confronted Tucker and Paul Begala about their lack of journalism and started Tucker toward the door at CNN.
