MSNBC wants to be like Fox

MSNBC President Phil Griffin told Chicago Tribune that he wants MSNBC to be more like Fox News in their content and shows. Basically, Griffin wants to be more partisan and opinionated in their shows. When asked about Roger Ailes, Fox News chief, and his work at Fox, Griffin says ,"he's changed media. Everybody does news differently because Roger's changed the world. Roger early on figured it out and was brillant." With Fox's increasing popularity, news networks are looking at Fox's news structure and content to see how they can emulate their success. I'm worried about news networks changing their format to fit a more "Fox model" in their news coverage. Should their be standards for balanced news and opinion within cable news networks like Fox and MSNBC?

More on filters and search engines

Like Google, Microsoft has vowed to protect freedom of expression around the world, however as a study from Open Net Initiative revealed Bing, Microsoft’s search engine, has a strict filter on information available in the Middle East. As the study suggests, Bing “filtered Arabic and English words for sexually explicit content along with queries related to gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgender material.” Unlike other censorship cases around the world, Bing’s filters are self-imposed and it has been argued that the search engine is more ‘prudish’ than many governments in the region. While committed to freedom and democracy, Bing might not be ready yet to ‘scandalize’ the Middle Eastern markets.

Google vs China

Governments around the world can control what their citizens have access to, through regional filters that block web sites with ‘sensitive’ information on search engines. As an article in the Asia Times details, in January, Google one of the biggest online companies stood up against the big guy, China, and decided that it was no longer going to censor its result on the Chinese Google.cn site. Last March Google made the threat effective and pulled out of China, rerouting Google.cn to the Hong Kong site, Google.com.hk. However as the New York Times suggests while admirable, Google’s decision of pulling out of the Chinese market might be a huge risk on business terms. The New York Times argues that the only winner in this dispute between the two giants will be Baidu the biggest Chinese search engine and Googles most fervent competitor in the region. The real question now is whether Google, that in the end is a corporation and by consequence is profit driven, will be able to uphold its commitment with freedom of expression in face of threats to the company’s business model?

Party Polarization in New Media

Rush Limbaugh wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal expressing his anger towards the liberals opposition to conservative radio talk shows and expression in general. Limbaugh writes, "the Obama.Clinton/ media left are comfortable with the unrest in our society today. It allows them to blame and demonize their opponents (...talk radio, Fox News) in order to portray their regime as the great healer of all our ills, thus expanding their power and control over our society. A clear majority of the American people want no part of this...They love their country and want to save it from those who do not."

Talk radio, cable news shows, blogs, basically New Media in general have greatly polarized our country in bias news and partisan opinions. While New Media functions as a watchdog to government and the press, I think a very dangerous aspect of New Media is the intensity of opinions and hatred that is spewed from many prominent New Media figures from both parties.

Newspaper circulation down

The Huffington Post wrote an article about the decline in newspaper circulation in the United States. The top 25 US newspapers all saw a decrease in sales and readers, except for the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal, getting a lot of news today, because of their new additional section focusing on New York news. They are trying to rival the NYTimes in sales and circulation through their new section's advertisements and interests.

Reasons for decrease in newspaper circulation can be any number of issues. Internet for one, could lead newspaper readers to just look to online newspapers instead. Also, other online sources, such as blogs, twitter, and facebook may provide newspaper readers with direct specialized information about what interests them.

Think Again: The Internet

Foreign Policy published a comprehensive analysis of the role the Internet had had in promoting democracy around the world. From the disappointing results of democratic movements propelled by participatory media to the double standards of Google as a promoter of democracy around the world, Think Again: The Internet gives us a bleak picture of what the internet has actually done compared to its objectives of bringing the world closer together and ultimately guaranteeing freedom and peace around the world. As the article concludes “the Internet looks like a hypercharged version of the real world, with all of its promise and perils, while the cyber utopia that the early Web enthusiasts predicted seems ever more illusory.”

Fox news...crosses the line. what's new?

Media Matters posted some of the reactions from the various anchors and news sources of the proposed Arizona Immigration law. First, the Arizona immigration law will "require law enforcement to demand immigration papers of those they suspect to be in the country illegally, which many argue will lead to racial profiling." Of course, while newspapers like the NY Times or the Arizona Republic bash the proposed bill for it's embedded racism and discrimination towards Latinos, many Fox news anchors praised it for that very same quality. Fox has crossed the line. While reading the reactions of Fox anchors and newscasters, I cannot believe the ignorance they are spewing out to the public. It is NOT okay to racially profile people that could "fit" the description of an illegal immigrant aka Latinos. Fox news' motto, "Fair and Balanced", has time and again proven how bias and opinionated its programs can be.

The Daily Show- a watchdog on New Media

The New York Times wrote about the highly criticized, debated Daily Show and anchor Jon Stewart's role as a news source. While The Daily Show is just "comedy", not serious news, it acts as probably the most prominent watchdog of not only of government, but also to New Media. As of this year, 24 segments of the Daily Show have been dedicated to critiquing Fox News. Jon Stewart has used satire to not only poke fun of political issues but bring the public's attention to problems within the press and many news outlets. "Combining the earnestness of a journalism professor and the sarcasm of a satirist, Mr. Stewart routinely charges that Fox's news anchors and commentators distort Mr. Obama's policies and advance a conservative agenda."

Why CNN loses to MSNBC and Fox...

Time magazine's media critic, James Poniewozik, wrote an article critiquing CNN's media role in the ever-changing media environment in cable news. Poniewozik argues CNN hasn't kept up with the Jones': while MSNBC and Fox have an increasingly stable fan base due to their bias, partisan news, CNN has kept with traditional media's role as impartial, non-bias stance on news. Yet, this is not what Poniewozik thinks is the main problem with CNN's shrinking popularity. CNN, if sticking behind non-bias role in news coverage, should play a more watchdog role like its competition, MSNBC and Fox. Although bias news shows/ anchors may stick primarily behind party lines, they still play an active role in critiquing government, politicians, governmental decisions, etc. For example, Shepard Smith, a Fox anchor, who is willing to "step on conservatives' toes", and Jon Stewart, who will poke fun at conservatives as well as liberals in office. The popularity of bias news is not only the partisan stances they may take on issues, but it's the sureness of their opinion and watchdog role.

The Pulitzers 2010

Sheri Fink, a reporter from Propublica won the Pulitzer of Investigative Journalism: the prize of prizes. This is the first time that an online not for profit news organization wins the prestigious award. Fink's story about deadly medical choices made in the immediate aftermath of Katrina was published in The New York Times Magazine in collaboration with Propublica. As Richard Perez Peña (from the New York Times) acknowledges, this comes only after a few years that the Pulitzer relaxed its rules to submit articles that have only been published online. This is a major recognition of the role that new media especially in collaboration with old media can have in advancing investigatory journalism.

More on this and the reaction of the media later.

The battle of cable news

The Larry King Show, CNNs prime time show, lost half of its viewers in the first quarter of 2010. CNN ratings continue to drop while Fox News ratings are better than ever. Did Fox News got the business model formula right? While journalists and academics continuously criticize the channel's polarizing and deceiving content, the public seems to love it.

CNN made a bet to cover hard news and lost. The channel is starting to switch its strategy by hiring Erick Erickson a controversial right wing blogger that will bring the channel a breath of polarizing air...

Jon Stewart gives us a piece of his mind in this respect:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
CNN Hires Erick Erickson
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

Love or at least know thy enemies...

Jeff Bercovici suspects Rupert Murdoch has no idea how the Internet business model works. How do big media corporations expect to compete/take advantages of Internet if they don't understand what it is?

Illegal Immigrants pay taxes..."that's all talk. You know that's crap."

The MediaMatters blog showed a clip of The O'Reilly Factor where Bill O'Reilly had Lou Dobbs as a guest to discuss new ID cards that could potentially hinder undocumented workers from entering the country and working. This would be great, because those illegals will finally stop "dodging taxes" and using up U.S. resources, taking jobs, etc.! Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs are making blanket statements, stating that undocumented workers don't pay taxes, when, in reality, they do. "According to the Congressional Budget Office and the Social Security Administration, undocumented immigrants pay all kinds of taxes, including individual income, sales, property, and social security taxes." Actually, as Van de Water's post in November of 2008 stated, "the presence of unauthorized (undocumented) workers in the United States also has a positive effect on the financial status of Social Security. The earnings of unauthorized workers are less likely to be reported for tax purposes than the earnings of the rest of the population and even less likely to result in future benefits, according to Social Security's chief actuary. Although the magnitudes cannot be precisely determined, the actuary has estimated that unauthorized immigrants paid as much as $13 billion in Social Security payroll taxes in 2007. "

O'Reilly, one of the most popular political talk show hosts, has a responsibility to provide the legitimate facts. Although his opinions may be against illegal immigration, he shouldn't hint or make outright statements that aren't true. People listen to him. He is creating unwarranted hatred towards illegal immigrants, because of their lack to pay taxes, which actually isn't the case. When people take O'Reilly's show as their primary source of news, they will get incorrect information which leads to ignorance. O'Reilly should be responsible for relaying truthful information.

The New Media Watchdogs

"Journalists in the mainstream media have forgotten to do: question authority."

In today's world of Twitter, blogs, The Daily Show, people are getting the news from various new outlets; outlets that have a great effect on the public. Blogging for the Huffington Post, Kimberly Butler shared a video, The New Media Watchdogs, where she interviewed an array of journalists and people in the media to talk about the credibility of the new media. While some agreed that new media is the new source of information, some disagreed, believing that "you can't the news from watching The Daily Show" or following a Twitter.

Yet, the lure of the new media are new anchors and commentators' abilities to "question authority" and speak their opinions. Why is Bill O' Reilly or Jon Stewart so popular? It's the ability to connect to their audiences, voice their opinions, and believe with conviction in what they are presenting.

"How much they(journalists) can inject themselves to the extent that their audience allows. There is no such thing as objectivity. The most you can hope for from your anchor is factual accuracy, emotional and intellectual honesty and transparency," said Geraldo Rivera. No matter if the anchor is right wing or left wing, they can give you a story with truth, conviction, and facts.

The boundaries of freedom of speech

The debate on the role that media should play to promote social justice is raised, once again, as the criticism towards the new “Keep America Safe” campaign grow. This week Liz Cheney appeared in the O’Reilly factor talking about the group’s new promotional video. In the video (that was aired in O’Reilly’s show) nine lawyers in Attorney General Eric Holder's Justice Department are called the "al-Qaida Seven," and accused of working in the "Department of Jihad." In the interview Liz Cheney, accused Guantanamo prisoner Omar Khadr, a man that is still pending trial, of “killing Americans.” This is a violation of Omar Khadr human right to a fair trial by an impartial court, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Dahlia Lithwick writes an article for Slate explaining the implications of Cheney’s words and the threat they represent for the core of fundamental rights upheld by the American Bill of Rights.

This is a classic example of a dilemma between protecting Cheney’s freedom of expression or protecting Omar Khadr right for an impartial trial, or the lawyers' from defamation. Can accusations that could impact a man's trial be aired in television? Should the media publicly condemn these rights' violations?

Who are bloggers?

In the Huffington Post today, Hisham Wyne writes about the confusion of bloggers' roles in the media. Wyne asks, "Are we mere individuals, exercising our right to free speech? Or serving in a larger reserve corps of citizen journalist, doing the menial chores mainstream fleet streeters black at, breaking community stories and spotlighting abuses that may otherwise be ignored?" As individuals or journalists, bloggers can sometimes fail to give accurate information. Without editors and other journalists proofing the stories, bloggers can run too far with opinions. Because bloggers exercise their freedom of expression, "salaciousness, fabrication, and mendacity" are inevitable from time to time. Although bloggers give extensive information and investigate into political issues, are they valid sources to follow? On one hand, their transparency is a breath of fresh air in journalism, yet their individualism may inaccurately provide a clear story because of their subjective voices.

Some old (but still relevant) news…

Searching through the Huffington Post’s news on media it is not hard to realize that even though when it comes to content MSNBC and Fox News talk shows represent completely opposite poles in the American ideological spectrum, they are pretty similar in form. True, Fox News have crossed the line between being ideologically biased and telling lies (let’s not forget the Bachmann rally affair), but when it comes to ideologically charged talk shows MSNBC and Fox News are not that different after all.
Well it turns out MSNBC and Fox News share a little more than the loud, opinionated profile of their news show's anchors, they also share producers! Yep, as the Huff Post reported on January of this year, one of the producers of Glenn Beck’s show left Fox News to join MSNBC. As the Huff Post acknowledges “Streigel's move is yet another sign of the fluidity of TV producers despite the polarity of TV hosts”…
I guess it is all part of the news/show bizz…

The (LA) Times they are a-changin…

The purpose of this blog is to record the news that appears ON the media (new and old) ABOUT the media. Today, the day after the LA Times sold its front page to Disney, seems like the perfect day to begin.

When it comes to media you know something is news when scholars mourn, blogers buzz, and even the traditional newspapers (which are often trapped in that stage of loss called denial) pick up one particular event and call it “breaking news.”

This is the case of the bold (there are many other adjectives that have been used to describe it) move that the LA Times made on Friday by selling its front page to Disney. Everyone is talking about what many have described as a major loss for journalism on its constant battle with the business challenge that traditional newspapers are facing today.