Moore's Ax Falls on a Derelict Media Too: Los Angeles Times

[BadGimp]

Moore's Ax Falls on a Derelict Media Too
'Fahrenheit 9/11' exposes 'balance' as a cop-out

By Neal Gabler
No one can accuse documentarian and bedraggled, beer-bellied gadfly Michael Moore of having a hidden agenda. He has raised a firestorm of controversy and generated a torrent of publicity not only by bludgeoning President Bush with his feature-length attack, "Fahrenheit 9/11," but also by declaring that he made the film in hopes of booting Bush from office.

In the end, he isn't likely to affect the presidential race. But "Fahrenheit 9/11" may have an altogether different effect: a change in the practice and the values of journalism. What Moore and the film have done is take dead aim on one of the most sacred of journalistic shibboleths: the idea that journalists are supposed to be fair and balanced. This isn't just a function of Moore having a point of view to push; there have always been provocateurs. Rather it is a function of the film revealing the harm that balance has done to our public discourse and the distortions it has promoted.

The words "fair and balanced" have been largely discredited in recent years because of the Fox News Channel, which uses them to mean not that Fox takes an objective, evenhanded approach to the news but that the cable channel is redressing the purported liberal bias of the mainstream news media, balancing them. But Fox aside, the idea of "fair and balanced" is still a mainstay of most journalistic practice, at least in theory. Reporters are not supposed to take sides. For every pro on one side of the scale there must be a con on the other. If the 9/11 commission declares that there is absolutely no credible evidence of any collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, the press must also prominently post Vice President Dick Cheney's view that there was a relationship, whether he provides evidence or not. If the preponderance of scientific opinion says global warming threatens the environment, the press must still interview the handful of scientists who dismiss it. That's just the way it is.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-gabler7jul07,1,7284057.story
sub required
condt..............................

Definitely worth the read.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. .

[papau]

2. Too True -- :-)

:-)

[hlthe2b]

3. Just free registration, not subscription.... Worth a read & the time to

register. Thanks

[wackywill]

6. easy registration not

I always use www.bugmenot.com
provides username and password for many sites saving time and the spam
the username and password for the LA Times is nopass nopass


works just fine

[recleb]

7. Nice to know

I did the full registration to read the article (ultimately worth it), and they required the full-blown "family income" and everything.

The "Left's Man in Iraq" (link on this LA Times page) is an interesting semi-apologia for so-called leftist war supporters. I'm too cynical to buy it, but it would be nice to read the not-RW-spun "good" stories.

[newyawker99]

12. Hi recleb!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[hlthe2b]

4. "Balance" versus "Fairness" in the media: Yes, to our media drones,

there really IS a difference. I can not believe the trend in recent decades that results in the press allowing overt lies to be put forth, as long as the coverage is "balanced." I've been a news junkie most of my life, and I just don't remember it being like this (or at least this bad) 20 or so years ago. If the press (printed and electronic) want to stay viable and relevant, they'd damned well better take notice. I'm close to abandoning all televised "news" and lieu of online newspaper coverage from selected US papers and especially from those abroad (e.g., the Guardian), trusted websites and blogs, BBC, and some public or independent radio. I can only hope that NPR wakes up and stops promoting RW lies unchallenged. Their only saving grace to me right now, is that they at least do "long form" reporting.

This would be a good article to see linked to the front page, IMO

[kentuck]

5. A self-examination long overdue by the media ....

Reporting is about facts - not balance.

[TiredTexan]

8. I am presently reading David Brock's

"The Republican Noise Machine." He makes a better case that billions (not a typo) of right wing money has gone to create the emphasis on balance as opposed to truth. In the 50's and 60's while I was growing up, journalism's purpose was to determine the truth through impartial methods of investigation. The right wing created many media foundations and think tanks to change this dynamic to one where "balance" was prized over truth.

Now the media does not assist the reader in sorting the wheat from the chaff, or the real from the illusion. It parrots what is given by both sides as though both are equally valid. And not only does it not do fact-checking on the noise produced by either party, it has completely stopped doing independent investigation into matters not thrust into the public forum via some other way.

There is no independent mainstream media of any value anymore. It's sad.

[brainoverload]

10. not true

For the last four years the media has done an excellent job of finding the most trivial contradictions to anything spoken by a prominent Democrat.

[FighttheFuture]

9. This is also at the smirkingchimp with a rather good set of comments...

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?thold=0&mode=nested&order=0&sid=16898

[Skittles]

11. I saw F911 again last night

I felt like I was so excited the first time I may have missed things. If anyone gets anything from this movie, I hope it is the realization that something is seriously amiss with our media. Their job was to ask the hard questions, not cheerlead a war. I hope a lot of the moderates will see the bias now when they watch these "reporters" on TV.