"US media is dying" ?

#1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1700692,00.html

Mr Dickey, the Middle East regional editor and Paris bureau chief at Newsweek magazine, said

"After 25 years as a foreign correspondent I know what the US wants from the rest of the world: to forget about it."

"There's this idea that the US media is controlling the agenda. In fact the US media is dying. Resources, money and staff are being cut back. Twenty years ago Newsweek had 25 staff in Paris, today it has one: me," said Mr Dickey.

He added that the gap between what the US and Arabic media reports was widening. with American reports being "all about victory and the Arabic being all about victims".
 
#2
n fact the US media is dying. Resources, money and staff are being cut back. Twenty years ago Newsweek had 25 staff in Paris, today it has one: me," said Mr Dickey.
Could that be because of something called technology????

ICT has revolutionised the media industry meaning a steady decline in the number of people needed to produce it. Remember when it took a day to get a stroy to press (and it had to go through 4-5 people to get there). Now it takes 30 mins and only needs to go through 2 people, reporter and the ed. Don't let that stop your bitching though Mr Dickey. :D
 
#3
I suspect a lot of it has to do with the huge disconnect between the agenda-driven 'news' traditional media presents compared with what people actually involved in situations are saying in blogs.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#4
It also has to do, I suspect, with the current regrettable froideur between France and the US......could the Newsweek staff budget justify 25 guys and gals living it up in gay Paree....when nobody in Lynchburg, Tenn wants to read about ANYTHING to do with France or the French ?.....apart from smartass jokes by Jay 'The Jaw' Leno of course.


(Funny thing.....Reagan's Ambassador to the UN, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, was imported from Harvard to fill that post....probably the most intellectually gifted person in the Adminstration......her area of study ? ..... French History....)


Le Chevre
 
#5
AndyPipkin said:
I suspect a lot of it has to do with the huge disconnect between the agenda-driven 'news' traditional media presents compared with what people actually involved in situations are saying in blogs.
Exactly right in my view.

The word is getting around that the leading USA newspapers, news magazines, and television networks have little to offer besides depraved "entertainment" and government propaganda.
 
#6
Not_Whistlin_Dixie said:
AndyPipkin said:
I suspect a lot of it has to do with the huge disconnect between the agenda-driven 'news' traditional media presents compared with what people actually involved in situations are saying in blogs.
Exactly right in my view.

The word is getting around that the leading USA newspapers, news magazines, and television networks have little to offer besides depraved "entertainment" and government propaganda.
The US media is over 80% anti-Bush and has an obvious bias. As a result they are losing readers/viewers and with it advertising. Without advertising dollars the news organizations have to cut staff. :p
 
#7
The US media have long since ceased to be news corporations - especially the TV networks

They moved over to 'news you can use' - local stuff and limited national coverage dumbed down for the 'average viewer' with very little international coverage

It is all rather simplistic - I was in the States recently and remember seeing one of the networks waxing over the First Lady's peace mission to the Middle East ignoring some rather important facts

a. She's a woman
b. She is not elected and has no power or diplomatic credibility
c. She's married to the hated George Bush

Go figure!

Add to this the need for entertainment [ratings are everything], the decline in the use of professional journalists in favour of people who look pretty, and the budget cuts mentioned above and you can see why the US public is badly informed

There have been some good books recently by the US anchors that actually were journalists that expose these issues

Its not just a US phenomenon - look at BBC TV news
 
#8
It also has to do, I suspect, with the current regrettable froideur between France and the US......could the Newsweek staff budget justify 25 guys and gals living it up in gay Paree....when nobody in Lynchburg, Tenn wants to read about ANYTHING to do with France or the French ?.....apart from smartass jokes by Jay 'The Jaw' Leno of course.


(Funny thing.....Reagan's Ambassador to the UN, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, was imported from Harvard to fill that post....probably the most intellectually gifted person in the Adminstration......her area of study ? ..... French History
good point . At least with regards to Europe, transportation to and from Europe is easy and cheap ,centralize in New york and its 3,000 miles more or less to California or London why maintain a Bureau? This is just a thought but the US military could in broad terms, be following a similar trend. More basing of the Military in the US on a permanent basis and deployments on a need to basis, to much smaller bases . I think that is what Runsfeld has in mind. I could be wrong
 
#9
tomahawk6 said:
Not_Whistlin_Dixie said:
AndyPipkin said:
I suspect a lot of it has to do with the huge disconnect between the agenda-driven 'news' traditional media presents compared with what people actually involved in situations are saying in blogs.
Exactly right in my view.

The word is getting around that the leading USA newspapers, news magazines, and television networks have little to offer besides depraved "entertainment" and government propaganda.
The US media is over 80% anti-Bush and has an obvious bias. As a result they are losing readers/viewers and with it advertising. Without advertising dollars the news organizations have to cut staff. :p
I don't agree. Most of the news networks--especially CNN--are so friggin' afraid of the administration and especially the right-wing whack-jobs they can't or won't try and go after them with the gust they deserve. If you consider the business sections of newspapers as part of the media they're inherently conservative in outlook; Wall St Journal, Barron's, NY Times business section, Business Week, etc.

Add to that talk-radio, which for a lot of people functions as their news and opinion shaper, the media 'bias' ain't so present.
 
#11
tomahawk6 said:
The US media is over 80% anti-Bush and has an obvious bias. As a result they are losing readers/viewers and with it advertising. Without advertising dollars the news organizations have to cut staff. :p
What's your source for that figure? What evidence do you have to support that hypothesis? Or did you simply pull it out of your arrse like almost everything else you post?

The single biggest problem with US news media, especially TV, are the "journalists/commentators" who consider themselves to be more important than the stories they're supposed to be reporting. Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, Anderson Cooper etc. etc. etc.- even that MSNBC drag queen Rita Cosby and that cnut Tucker Carlson.
 
#12
I don't think Rita Cosby is a drag queeen , but she looks like she can't walk past a Donut Diner.

Tucker Carlson seems to be covering up for something else. "Methinks the lad doth protest too loud"
 
#13
PartTimePongo said:
I don't think Rita Cosby is a drag queeen , but she looks like she can't walk past a Donut Diner.

Tucker Carlson seems to be covering up for something else. "Methinks the lad doth protest too loud"
Have you fecking heard Rita Cosby speak?

I don't think Tucker Carlson is tucked away so deep in the closet that he is stood next to Narnia's passport control- no hom on TV would ever dress that badly. I do think it's obvious that he was given a good shoeing every day in school from kindergarten to college. He probably holds the world record for number of Chinese burns, purple nurples and wedgies received by one boy in a single term, along with the record for largest number of hot crumpets held between two arrse cheeks at any one time.
 
#14
Abstract

In this paper we estimate ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) scores for major media outlets such as the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News’ Special Report, and all three network television news shows. Our estimates allow us to answer such questions as “Is the average article in the New York Times more liberal than the average speech by Tom Daschle?” or “Is the average story on Fox News more conservative than the average speech by Bill Frist?” To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups. We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we construct an ADA score. As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, and suppose that the New York Times cited the first think tank twice as often as the second. Our method asks: What is the typical ADA score of members of Congress who exhibit the same frequency (2:1) in their speeches? This is the score that we would assign to the New York Times. Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center. Outlets such as USA Today, NPR’s Morning Edition, NBC’s Nightly News and ABC’s World News Tonight were moderately left. The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNN’s NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABC’s Good Morning America. Fox News’ Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks’ evening news broadcasts. All of our findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample







http://ideas.repec.org/p/umc/wpaper/0501.html
 
#15
NEO_CON said:
Abstract

In this paper we estimate ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) scores for major media outlets such as the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News’ Special Report, and all three network television news shows. Our estimates allow us to answer such questions as “Is the average article in the New York Times more liberal than the average speech by Tom Daschle?” or “Is the average story on Fox News more conservative than the average speech by Bill Frist?” To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups. We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we construct an ADA score. As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, and suppose that the New York Times cited the first think tank twice as often as the second. Our method asks: What is the typical ADA score of members of Congress who exhibit the same frequency (2:1) in their speeches? This is the score that we would assign to the New York Times. Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center. Outlets such as USA Today, NPR’s Morning Edition, NBC’s Nightly News and ABC’s World News Tonight were moderately left. The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNN’s NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABC’s Good Morning America. Fox News’ Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks’ evening news broadcasts. All of our findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample

http://ideas.repec.org/p/umc/wpaper/0501.html
This methodology is interesting but I feel it may be an attempt to nail jello (Si! I speaka da lingo) to the wall. I've had a quick scan of the paper and although I'm obviously not fully au fait with it I do note that they admit that their definition of bias is arguable. Subjectivity seems to pop its head up in a few other places too. I'll read it more carefully later.

My gut reaction is that a healthy news media might reasonably be expected to show a "bias" away from the stated position of the incumbent party and/or leader. As to the media "dying" I agree that Electronic News Gathering must have had an impact but its more of a metamorphoses than a death to my mind. Whether what comes out will be fit for the role remains to be seen.
 
#16
One contributing cause might possibly be fear and extortion based upon that fear.

I'm referring to fear of having one's secret sins and pecadilloes held up for public scrutiny.

This is from the News Hounds ("We watch Fox [News] so you don't have to.") website:

In a move that indicates the level of desperation that must be roiling through the White House, FOX News pundit Bill O'Reilly crossed a line tonight and threatened to reveal personal information about New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller and opinion columnist Frank Rich. Here's the exchange that occurred on the O'Reilly Factor tonight at 8:14 PM EST during an interview with Juan Williams and Mary Anne Marsh, two Democrats who were there simply to be rubber stamps for what looks to be an escalation in the smear campaign tactics so characteristic of Rupert Murdoch's tabloid media outlets.

JUAN WILLIAMS: I was listening to your Talking Points and there you are, threatening Bill Keller and Frank Rich and I thought: What are you gonna do to them if they engage in the politics of personal attack against the President?

O'REILLY: It's a good question, Juan, and I don't see it as a threat. I mean, I think you have to say to people, as we do with all our guests here, this is what's likely to happen and, if they continue - those people continue - to attack people personally as Frank Rich does almost every week and Keller allows it, then we'll just have to get into their lives.

WILLIAMS: There's a new sheriff in town.

O'REILLY: You know, I'm not - I don't wanna do it. (Mary Anne Marsh laughs.) I don't wanna do it.

WILLIAMS: Alright.

O'REILLY: But I can't allow this stuff to go unchecked. I'm the only person on television that's gonna hold these people accountable. The only one. Because everybody fears them but both of those men have led lives and if they want to attack people personally - Rich in print and Keller allowing it - then we're gonna have to just show everybody about their lives. Fair enough. Correct, Mary Anne?

MARY ANNE MARSH (after a long pause): It's a free country.


http://www.newshounds.us/2006/01/02..._to_just_show_everybody_about_their_lives.php
 
#18
NEO_CON said:
Abstract

In this paper we estimate ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) scores for major media outlets such as the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News’ Special Report, and all three network television news shows. Our estimates allow us to answer such questions as “Is the average article in the New York Times more liberal than the average speech by Tom Daschle?” or “Is the average story on Fox News more conservative than the average speech by Bill Frist?” To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups. We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we construct an ADA score. As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, and suppose that the New York Times cited the first think tank twice as often as the second. Our method asks: What is the typical ADA score of members of Congress who exhibit the same frequency (2:1) in their speeches? This is the score that we would assign to the New York Times. Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center. Outlets such as USA Today, NPR’s Morning Edition, NBC’s Nightly News and ABC’s World News Tonight were moderately left. The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNN’s NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABC’s Good Morning America. Fox News’ Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks’ evening news broadcasts. All of our findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample







http://ideas.repec.org/p/umc/wpaper/0501.html
Ooh. Neo_Con decides he wants to come and play in my back yard- citing an academic paper. It's a shame he seized on the soundbite and didn't read the paper (or understand it if he did).

As Cutlunchcommando has already pointed out, the methodology is ultimately flawed. As I see it there are two main problems:

The first concerns differences in the nature of communication between a politician's speech and news reportage. It is the politician's purpose general purpose to express his/her own thoughts on the matter. It is a journalist's job to report what OTHER people think, not necessarily what they think (cnuts like Bill O'Reilly notwithstanding). Hence, the incidence of citation of think tanks of either persuasion is going to be higher among journalists.

The second main point regards how the think-tanks are scored and there are two components to this. They use a method whereby they tally the number of times that an organization is cited by a politician and then extrapolate the degree of liberalism/conservatism of the think tank from the lib/con scores of the politicians that cite them. First of all, if they argue that politicians do not cite think tanks as much as journalists, what are the implications for reliability in view of, by their own admission, a relatively small sample. The second, and larger problem is the question of multicollinearity of variables (or in more simple terms, circular logic or a Catch 22). What is essentially happening here is that they are attempting to measure the "liberal bias" of the media by making connections to think tanks which are then linked to the policy positions of politicians, whilst simultaneously trying to compare the relative lib/con bias of the media vs politicians directly. What ends up happening is that you have to express the political leanings of the politicians in terms of itself. For the maths geeks amongst you, its a bit like saying x=2x. It just doesn't make any sense as a general rule.

There is also a third problem that is linked to data sampling and coding that gives me a headache. There are around 10 pages of a 62 page paper (from page 10) that discuss the problems they had with coding. It's common practice to highlight the problems you have experienced in your research design, but to be honest, I see scant evidence that they overcame them.

I remember last year, when this paper came out, that I didn't pay much attention to it, but I do remember that it was widely panned as being plain-old sloppy social science. I'm not a rationalist by training or trade, but even I know enough about quantitative research design to see that this study has major problems associated with it.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top