Moral Equivalence Hits an All-Time Low?

On his show tonight, Bill O'Reilly complained, with a straight face, that he's been the recent victim of "journalistic terrorism" carried out by the New York Times. To read the alleged newspaper equivalent of deliberately murdering random civilians to terrorize populations, click here.

Comments

[L.Weal]

Heck, yeah! You better believe it, Jean! Because if you're going to REPORT what you saw (say, a car collision on the corner near your house) wouldn't you want the REPORTER to be telling you the truth?

Gee, no wonder video cams are sprouting up everywhere! No one trusts lying, scheming, biased ideologues who call themselves "reporters" anymore. At least the cameras faithfully reproduce objective reality.

Who in heaven's name needs so-called "news" (from France, Britain, Argentina, the U.S. or from anywhere in the world) if such "news" is merely going to be someone's opinion of what happened? Who needs that!

Yes, Jean, here in America, we insist on objectivity in journalism for those and many more reasons. As Mark Twain once remarked, that's simple horse sense. Nothing "cultish" about it.

You guys may like to be fooled and bamboozled by the press in Europe, and relish seeing the world through rose-colored glasses (with it's obvious results) -- but those of us in America who still have our senses about us would rather not, thank you.

[StMack]

I used to watch B.O. and it was fun. Good political sport if you will. But this episode and the Franken suit pretty much encapsulate why I stopped watching. The "Factor" has become more about Bill than anything else that might actually matter in the world. The beginning of the end for me when he started plugging the "Factor Gear" crap at the end of every show.

[L.Weal]

Oooh! Now I get it! (It just struck me!)

You're down on O'Reily because of him cheerleading the boycott against Jacque Chirac, non?

(Maintenant je vois d'o? votre amertume d?rive.)

[L.Weal]

BTW, Bill merely wanted to deal a blow against Jacques Chirac because of the blow he dealt us in our fight against an Iraqi monster. He wasn't after French citizens like you, Jean.

[Matt Welch]

L. Weal -- If nothing else, you have proven definitively that one man's "terroristic molotov cocktails" are another man's newspaper article.

[L.Weal]

Matt Welch, Jean Bart, et al -- lest we forget: The people who write for the front pages of the New York Times are supposed to be "reporters" (ahem!)

Bill O'Reilly is NOT a reporter who writes newspaper articles. Bill O'Reilly is a commentator.

Big difference.

i.e., Respectable schools of journalism teach that you may be allowed to throw a few firecrackers while expounding commentary, but you DO NOT THROW VERBAL BOMBS in newspaper reports.

[Spartacus]

Personally, I prefer the party press of the nineteenth century, in which truth was promoted, not by any phony idea of "objectivity," but by the adversarial process.

As a capitalist, I prefer this model, too. American cities rarely have more than one daily newspaper, and I think watered-down "objectivity" is one of the big reasons for this. It leads to a bland product. If every city had (at the minimum) a liberal daily and conservative daily, I bet a lot more people would read newspapers. And a lot more newspapers would make money. And public debate would be much more robust.

[Hovig John Heghinian]

Jean:

I think the problem isn't whether Americans believe news outlets are objective or not, but rather that news outlets try to act as if they are objective and authoritative. Worse, there is little ideological competition in the USA to prove otherwise.

People have quickly forgotten that Fox News is a new kid on the block. I personally never saw FoxNews until 9/11, and our cable company didn't even carry it for about 6 months thereafter. Many of us vividly remember 5 or 10 years ago, when the New York Times's word was law, the New York Post was denigrated as a "tabloid," the Wall Street Journal was a "businessman's paper," and the country was going to hell in a handbasket because Rush Limbaugh was spouting evil litany.

It might take another decade or two to completely clarify the USA's media situation, or perhaps it will take a changing of the administration between Republican and Democrat once or twice, but I think we're well on our way to a more competitive, free and robust system of news. (Hey! A man can dream, can't he!)

Also, Jean, you must realize that it is the American news media's habit to always present "both sides" of every story, which leads to another problem. Many times, a newspaper will present a straw man as the "other side," giving readers the impression the other side is indefensible, or often they will present a vastly minor view as the "other side," giving the impression there are more people who are against a certain idea than there really are. Speaking for myself, it is this false objectivity which bother me, more than the knowledge that one media outlet is biased or not. If CNN and Fox decide to battle it out ideologically, each might be able to keep a better eye on such arguments which use the "other side" to pretend to objectivity.

[nm156]

L. Weal: Name one objective reporter working for a major news outlet in the U.S. Just one. And as for the camera reproducing objective reality, that's true only until the film reaches the editing suite.

[Alex]

nm156 -- Did you take a trip in the professor's souped-up DeLorean, or something?

Film?

They may have been using celluloid back in 1955, but this is 2003 -- where we use hard disks to record what the camera sees ...

(Hello!?)

[nm156]

Whatever. The point about editing still remains.

[Jean Bart]

L. Weal,

I wasn't aware he was cheerleading any boycott; pathetic as it was. Bill O'Reilly strikes me as a jackass who is willing to lie in order to get ahead. He lied after all about his so-called "blue collar" background, prep schooler that he is, in order to create a mystique about himself.

As to "objective" reporting, my retort would be that there is no such creature. Which is of course why the American press can describe the situation in Iraq with such wide variance using the same "facts." To be frank, I perfer news outlets with an open ideological bent because they are going to have one anyway.

[Plutarck]

Almost no one reads the newspaper for Truth. They read it because they are lonely, need something to read, and/or want to have something to talk about with other people. That they come to think any of it is true is an accidental side-effect.

[Jean Bart]

Well, even what the "camera sees" is up for debate; which is why so many people disagree about what happened to Rodney King for example.

[L.Weal]

nm156, I can name you 3 (thus far)

1) Jacob Sullum
2) Ronald Bailey
3) C.P. Freund

(Reason magazine is a news outlet.)

I could name you many more, but, as Einstein used to say, "I don't keep zees theengs een mine head. I looks them oop." And so I shall, if you really insist.

[Jean Bart]

L. Weal,

Neither of them is unbiased; each has their axe to grind; and what they specialize in is NOT (using your aforementioned dichotomy) news reporting, its commentary.

[nm156]

As long as a reporter is up front about their biases, I can accept that. What is frustrating is the allegedly unbiased reporting that is spoon fed to the masses every day by the mainstream media. And as bad as it is in the States, it is even worse here in Canada. Everyone has a slant. What's wrong with owning up to it?

[nm156]

Thanks JB. LW, I was referring to the majors, both print and T.V. Still waiting . . .

[thoreau]

On the subject of biased publications:

Like many here, I don't mind a publication that lays its ideological bias on the table. I can filter accordingly. I enjoy an eclectic variety of publications, including Reason, Salon, and the Economist. I don't agree with everything I read in those publications but I often find myself enjoying somebody's commentary while disagreeing 100%.

The problem comes when a publication has an agenda but denies it. I realize that no reporter can completely strip away from his writings every trace of subconscious opinion every time he writes, especially if the subject is controversial. But a vigorous and honest effort to be objective, coupled with a conscientious editorial board, will usually produce a good result. The problem is that some of the media may be failing to make its vigorous and honest effort to be objective.

The Economist is probably my favorite publication because it tries to strike a balance between an "ideal" daily newspaper ("Just the facts, ma'am") and a publication like Reason (with a clear point of view that it will seek to advance and defend).

[nm156]

Thoreau, instead of, "some of the media...", you could have substituted the word: most. Otherwise a very succinct and accurate appraisal.

[Tom Nuhaus]

Hey, guys! Wouldn't you consider the team working for Matt Drudge objective in the way they report?

[Alex]

nm156, since you asked about TV, I think the folks at C-SPAN are fairly straight-forward, shooting from the hip the way they do, wouldn't you say?

[2+2=4]

nm156, there's one big distinction between film and digital images.

You said, "The point about editing still remains."

Files on a hard disk happen to have a DATE & TIME stamp. We can know when the videocam recorded the event. After editing a file, it will have to eventually be saved, again ... at a certain TIME. (A dead giveaway.)

Even my 7-year-old amateur Sherlock could figure that equation.

[Jean Bart]

2+2=4,

Well, all of that too can be faked as well.

BTW, has anyone else noticed that the US is about to go hat in hand to the UN for $ and troops? 🙂

[Anonymous]

Really? Source please.

[Brian Carnell]

You know, I've hated Janet Maslin ever since 1981 when she dished on Halloween II.

I mean, come on, she's a REPORTER. The Times is supposed to be OBJECTIVE. And here she was giving her OPINIONS ABOVE THE FOLD instead of just reporting objectively on the film.

No wonder ALMOST EVERYBODY in journalism is afraid of the NYT's assassination practices -- if they let Maslin do that to Halloween II, they'll do anything.

Damn the Times for doing a BOOK REVIEW that actually inluded Maslin's BIASED OPINIONS about Franken and O'Reilly. Bastards.

[Brian Carnell]

BTW, am I the only one who would gladly pay to watch a Al Franken, Tanya Harding, Bill O'Reilly, Mike Tyson cage match? That would really be a much better way of utilizing their collective intellectual talents.

[nm156]

Alex, I'll have to take you at your word. C-span is not on my cable package up here in the GWN. As has been previously stated, 2+2=4, time stamps can be faked up fairly easily. But I think we're going astray, somewhat. It is not rational to expect a reporter to put aside their personality, and therefore their biases, when bringing you and I a story. I just wish they were more up front about about it all.

[Matt D.]

SOURCE:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16444-2003Sep2?language=printer

[Rick Mave]

Re: Help with Iraq.

Powell has always been sort of a "hat-in-hand" guy. Let's not equate his demeanor with that of Americans at large, OK?

[Andrew Lynch]

Jean Bart,

BTW, has anyone else noticed that the US is about to go hat in hand to the UN for $ and troops?

Yes, we've all noticed. I'm amazed however at what appears to be a complete absence of shouting and screaming about the administration's hypocrisy in this. Not to mention its arrogance. And very short memory. My mother, not one to chime in on matters political, put it this way:

I'm the big shot in a group of friends and friendly rivals who want to build a summer cottage together. I want it to be painted red with white trim, and have fifteen rooms. I've lined up a contractor, all building materiel, and have a plot of land picked out. My so-called friends LOVE the location, but they don't want the cottage to be red and have asked me to consider green. White trim is out of the question. A couple of these friends believe they have better alternatives to my contractor. But since I know what I'm doing (I AM the big-shot, after all), I tell them to fuck themselves and build the damned cottage on my own. Six months into the project, I am told that I've built my house on a tectonic fault line. In order for the cottage to be livable and insurable, I'm going to have to spend a hell of a lot more money on materials and contractors to shore up the foundation. So I go back to my friends and remind them that it was a group decision to build on that spot. Shouldn't they chip in to make sure the cottage works for everybody? As long as I get to come and go as I please, and make all final decisions regarding interior design, and bidet selection, and cupboard dimensions, and...

I remember the administration crowing that the UN has become irrelevant. I, and a lot of Americans, REMEMBER that. I didn't believe it then, but if the UN caves in to this cunning application of international guilt, then not only are they irrelevant, they are an assembly of weaklings and fools.

[living soldier]

If the UN caves in, and France, Belgium, Germany, etc., start sending in troops, do you suppose Al Queda will be shooting them dead in oncy-twosie fashion as well?

[derailed]

What the fudge has all this got to do with the Moral Equivalence meeting Matt Welch invited us to here?

[Depressed]

Derailed, it hit an all-time low when we heard about "hat-in-hand" Powell.

[Jean Bart]

Well, the Bush administration has waffled back and forth on this issue several times (remember a month or so go they said they would go it alone after approaching the UN); France is not going to cave (hell, it didn't cave in March, why would it now) and it will get more than its pound of flesh out of the Bushies. To me it simply demonstrates how brilliant Chirac, et. al. are. 🙂

[Jean Bart]

This almost as good as the diplomatic coup France pulled off at the expense of the Germans in 1905. 🙂

[Monty Burns]

Oooooh the Germans! I'm so afraid of the Germans.

[Andrew Lynch]

Derailed and Depressed (are you a rock duo?),

We got off track because it's something worth talking about, but Matt and co. haven't given us a juicy thread in which to talk about it. Wait until they do, though, wait until they do.

[nm156]

I'm with Lynch. These threads may start out as Matt, etc. want, but they're ours as soon as the first post hits the screen. So strap in and enjoy the ride.

[Alex]

Can we please get back to the topic of how Bill O'Reilly is an unconscionable buffoon and scapegrace???

[Plutarck]

"Files on a hard disk happen to have a DATE & TIME stamp. We can know when the videocam recorded the event. After editing a file, it will have to eventually be saved, again ... at a certain TIME. (A dead giveaway.)"

Now that's just ignorant. With the proper software anyone can easily manipulate a time stamp to make it say anything they want it to. As a simple example, just set the system clock to the time you want the time stamp to appear as, then modify the file accordingly. And that doesn't even require special software, and it takes advantage of an OS that is not present on many forms of video recording. Video tapes are still in widespread use, and as far as I'm aware they are vastly more common than any computerized hard-disk recording.

Furthermore, videotapes do not provide objective reality any more than humans do, for just as humans they have a definite perspective (in the proper sense of the word), are limited by physical constraints (lighting, angle, limited area of view, sound, context, etc), and record only what they are told to record. And of course, there is no shortage of room for manipulation and abuse (from outright changing of what is recorded to selective image capturing, filters, etc).

I must protest the use of the word "bias", however. The word "bias" is being used to describe differing viewpoints, philosophies, knowledge, focus, and goals. The fact is that people are different, and as such see things differently, and this is not in any meaningful sense neccessarily "bias".

[Anonymous]

I used to think O'Reily's schtick was amusing, then I realized it wasn't schtick. He really believes that crap. Then I saw he was just a sad little man who happened to be in the right place at the right time.

[joe]

"At least the cameras faithfully reproduce objective reality."

Sucker.

[Joe Public]

I get my unbiased, factual news from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, as does millions of other Americans including many politicians with security clearance!

I also get my well thought out commentary from South Park!

[Anonymous]

FYI, Janet Maslin is a critic, not a reporter. So "objectivity" is not an issue here & never was.

[Kevin Carson]

L. Weal,

Re your notions of "objectivity," first a couple of quotes and then my comments:

The norms of "objective reporting thus involve presenting "both side" of an issue with very little in the way of independent forms of verification... [A] journalist who systematically attempts to verify facts--to say which set of facts is more accurate--runs the risk of being acused of abandoning their objectivity by favoring one side over another....
....[J]ournalists who try to be faithful to an objective model of reporting are simultaneously distancing themselves from the notion of independently verifiable truth....
The "two sides" model of journalistic objectivity makes news reporting a great deal easier since it requires no recourse to a factual realm. There are no facts to check, no archives of unspoken information to sort through.... If Tweedledum fails to challenge a point made by Tweedledee, the point remains unchallenged.

Justin Lewis "Objectivity and the Limits of Press Freedom" Project Censored Yearbook 2000. pp. 173-74

...I find myself increasingly covering Washington's most ignored beat: the written word. The culture of deceit is primarily an oral one. The soundbite, the spin, and the political product placement depend on no one spending too much time on the matter under consideration.
Over and over again, however, I find that the real story still ies barely hidden and may be reached by nothing more complicated than turning the page, checking the small type in the appendix, charging into the typographical jungle beyond the executive summary, doing a Web search, and, for the bravest, actually looking at the figures on the charts.

Sam Smith. Project Censored Yearbook 2000. p. 60

The point of both of these quotes, as I see it, is that the mainstream press' standard of "professional" objectivity means reporting all statements of spokesmen or PR departments as "straight news," and avoiding any serious digging for fear of being charged with "advocacy journalism." So the vast majority of news is "he said" stories, made up entirely of material helpfully provided by corporate and government publicity departments; and the only challenge to the factual accuracy of official statements is in the quoted counter-statements of opposition talking heads. So "objectivity" is really a calculated pose of naivete and credulity toward official statements.

Personally, I prefer the party press of the nineteenth century, in which truth was promoted, not by any phony idea of "objectivity," but by the adversarial process. It's the same process used when attorneys cross-examine each other's witnesses. A newspaper should openly avow its ideological orientation, make the best possible case it can for its interpretation of the facts, and go over its adversaries' factual claims with a fine-tooth comb. Truth comes not from pretended "objectivity," but from vigorously competing truth-claims in the marketplace of ideas.

[Kevin Carson]

And I'd also like to add that even when attempts at objectivity are genuine, they conceal a lot of ideological assumptions so basic that the journalist never even thinks to question them. Objectivity tends to reflect the elites' conventional wisdom, which in turn is the institutional mindset of the corporate and state oligarchies. Check out Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , on his theory of "paradigm shift."

The problem with the "both sides" model of objectivty, as Justin Lewis went on to write, is that it assumes the truth must lie somewhere "in between" the two sides prevented, and ignores the 80% of assumptions shared by "both sides" because they are just two wings of the same elite. On NAFTA, the Uruguay Round of GATT, and the whole mercantilist agenda falsely called "free trade," mainstream Demos and Repugs are in total agreement. The "liberal" and "conservative" wings of the foreign policy elite are entirely agreed on operating within the framework of the national security state created by Cold War liberals in the late '40s. Their only real disagreement is between the internationalism of Truman and the unilateral interventionism of Henry Cabot Lodge. The non-intervention of the Old Right (or of the nearly-defunct McGovern wing of the Democratic Party) is not even on the radar.

[sphynx]

"Truth comes not from pretended "objectivity," but from vigorously competing truth-claims in the marketplace of ideas." -- Kevin Carson

Most things (such as mountains, clouds, trees, oceans, cars, etc.) you see them exactly the way they are; the way they exist. But some things (such as truth, human liberty, marketplace of ideas, relationships, etc.) you don't see them as they are, you see them as YOU are.

[SteveInClearwater]

Yawn....Here in the Tampa Bay radio market I get limited AM choices during the daytime, when I listen via Walkman at my jobsites.

Two sports stations, Limbaugh and OReilly...oh, and the hot stock trader dude who sez don't pay a broker, but buy my software to do it yourself...heh

So I will catch Billy O about once or twice a day for five minute segment when the sports stations are breaking at same time. He was crying about this today and also complaining about Al Franken's book.

I think that OReilly was obviously smart enough and talented enough to work his way thru the TV/Fox food chain to where he is now, but is ill prepared for the exposed position of being on radio and TV in a new world where everything someone in his seat sez is instantly recorded, analyzed and saved for future readback. He's way too sensitive...Not to say I would do much better which is likely why I stick to Reason blog, drug policy work and haggling over this weekend's football games.

[Anonymous]

Preachers and politicians see people as sinners and cash cows. What does that view make them?

[Matt Welch]

Steve -- I didn't go seeking this out, honest: He was on the teevee briefly when I was eating dinner, and blurted out the terrorism line before I could put on the Dodger game. It was appalling enough, especially with the anniversary coming up, that I thought it merited a mention.

[L. Weal]

Yeah! Sure, Matt! When you abandon all journalistic decorum and start shamelessly editorializing, spouting ad hominems, and do your general bitching ON THE FRONT PAGE, ABOVE THE FOLD (instead of on the editorial pages) in a major newspaper -- I would call that throwing terroristic molotov cocktails, too. Especially, when such bombs are unsupported, unsubstantiated verbal bile, not backed up by any facts.

With such ridiculous, childish behavior, the New York Times is slowly but surely digging its own grave.

[Jean Bart]

Didn't Richard Perle also call Seymour Hersh something similar earlier in the year (prior to GWII)?

[Jean Bart]

L. Weal,

They just following the example of Faux News. 🙂

[Jean Bart]

L. Weal,

BTW, there is no equivalence between being critical (fairly or not) in a newspaper column and blowing someone up with a bomb. If you think such an equivalence exists, then you are out of the fucking mind.

And Bill O'Reilly complaining about "personal attacks" and other such things is like the proverbial pot calling the proverbial kettle black.

[L.Wael]

Jean, I don't know if you can receive O'Reily's broadcast over there in France, but when Bill does any "attacking," he does so with a pile of documentation and diligently researched facts in his hands. Would that the the New York Mimes could do as much.

In this metaphor, it's rather like Bill being the chef preparing the truth in a relative new (hence, not so blackened) pot -- Truth no one at NYT wants to dine on.

Besides, dinner's for us, not them anyway.

[L.Weal]

And BTW, that was no unfair critique in a mere "newspaper column." Rather, that was the NYT hanging out its dirty wash on the front page -- showing its true colors for THE WHOLE WORLD to see, as the NYT happens to be riding the coat tails of its more honorable predecessors who managed to turn a once genuine news outlet into a global medium, but which now is being dragged through the gutters.

[Jean Bart]

L. Weal,

Didn't O'reilly threaten to hit someone who was an anti-war protestor? How is that a part of a "pile of facts?"

BTW, I can receive any broadcast made on the planet in France; via the internet, cable, shortwave, and dish.

[Jean Bart]

I think Americans as a rule have to get over the notion that news outlets are "objective," or are supposed to be. This cult leads to all sorts of lunacy in my opinion. In France and Britain and Germany you have papers with clear ideological leanings; in the US this seems to be some sort of journalistic sin.

[L.Weal]

The "Factor" has become more about Bill than anything else that might actually matter in the world."

StMack, that is but a TEMPORARY phenomenon. Wouldn't it be disingenuous (to say nothing of wimpy) of him to critique or defend everyone else in the world, but then not to stand up for himself when he is under attack?

Also, notice that no one talks about Alan Colmes (yawn.) Nowhere do you read or hear about Larry King (boring.) But everyone is attracted to where the fire is.

So, in the end, none of this vegetable tossing matters to O'Reily anyway. Right now, he's probably sipping a glass of wine somewhere on a lawn with his close friends, making sure the squeaky wheel continues to make its milllions, in true capitalistic fashion.