The problem with dishonesty in the Information Age

I've writtewn quite a bit about the probable changes in politics as a result of the Information Age and the New Media. On one website I frequent a commenter was yearning for the old days when Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkly pretty much controlled all the news and their bent was modern liberalism. The commenter was basically moaning over the different perspectives offered by Fox News and libertarian blogs and think tanks that are easily accessible on the internet, like Cato.

Obama's campaign is a typical Democrat campaign, and only ten years ago the propaganda would go by basically unchallenged. This election season is the first real election in which the Information Age has a solid effect on what information regarding candidates and issues is disseminated to the public. Unfortunately for Obama and the Democrats their old style smear and slander style is antithetical to the public's desire to get good information cleansed of partisan talking points and manipulations of the truth. It remains to be seen how straight Romney's campaign will be, but if Republicans do a tit for tat dishonest campaign right back at the Democrats, then the trend of pox on both houses will continue at a faster pace. The public is fed up with bullshit politicians making stuff up and assuming the public is too stupid to know the difference. It's so easy to Google and fact-check that the old style campaign will fall flat.

It might do worse than fall flat -- there might be a rebellion against dishonesty and the side that shoots straight might win in a landslide. What a concept. I have no way of proving my theory, but I have a hunch that the days of perception is reality are over and the days of reality is reality are here.

Romney doesn't lose in Washington State

One of the funniest pieces of coverage I saw tonight was on Fox. A pundit had to respond and was reluctantly answering a question about Romney's win -- to humorously paraphrase, she said "Well, Romney didn't lose in Washington St so I guess that can be seen as not a negative." It wasn't quite that bad, but it's real close -- seriously. I've never seen media this silly.

The consumers of news will decide

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/26/media-matters-plots-guerrilla-warfare-and-sabotage-against-fox/

Ed Morrisey has it right. The efforts of George Soros funded Media Matters and other leftist news organizations to "sabotage" Fox are self defeating if the tactics are dirty. The "war" on Fox will come across as an attempt to silence. I would never dream of joining an effort to destroy the left wing media because everyone needs to read and hear what they write and say. Only by truly understanding the ideas being debated can a person make an informed judgement. But, comparing Fox to left wing media is not a good comparison, because Fox gives a fair hearing to leftist ideas and opinions. 

Ultimately the consumers of news will decide which news outlets are more objective and useful. In an interview with Bret Baier, Jon Stewart made the claim that Fox is not a news outlet but rather a purveyor of ideology and propaganda. Baier made the point that Fox has high ratings, and Stewart sarcastically said he didn't know ratings equal quality, then said he would have to reassess Three's Company -- this got a big laugh, but Stewart is saying that sitcom entertainment is equal to news coverage and that the audiences are basically the same. The consumer of news is likely more discerning and educated and aware of current events than the average viewer of sitcoms. If Stewart is saying that most people like things of which they have little understanding, but he, a much more intelligent judge of quality, knows better, then I suppose he can take that stance. Now, that's comedy, although unintentional. The truth is the Left can't stand the fact that many people find Fox a much better outlet for news and opinion, and that their ratings are way above the outlets with a leftward bias.

Why liberals hate Fox

Liberal claims that Fox try to hide the truth from viewers by maintaining a pure ideological view is a false claim. Anyone who has watched Fox knows that the news hosts present all sides of an issue and have many guests from the left on their programs - many times the guests are interviewed alone and have the whole segment to discuss their views. Hosts like Shephard Smith even appear to lean toward the liberal views, while Megan Kelly does everything possible to remain objective, and, as for Neil Cavuto, he is more of a money guy and simply upholds sound economic policies as he sees it, but he interviews plenty of people who disagree with his views, and gives them a fair hearing. It's obvious that Fox reports the whole story on more stories than the other news outlets -- at least it's obvious to me. Many stories which are factual but put someone on the left in a negative light are not aired on many liberal-leaning outlets, but Fox presents all the stories, including stories which don't flatter the right. 

What the liberals can't stand, I believe, is that the right has a voice in the opinion shows on Fox, although they also present to opposite views even when giving an opinion. There is no other major news outlet that allows the view from the right such positive exposure. I suppose liberals would be satisfied if Fox simply shut down their opinion shows, but would they demand that Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz be taken of the air, too. Fox is practically the only outlet for the right to express its views without the views being demonized by the host, so it seems ridiculous for liberals to howl so loudly, especially the ones who promote opennesss and debate.

From practically all the other news outlets, the subtle, and not so subtle, bias is toward the left, but liberals have not complained about the bias, and they have denied the bias, even when any thinking person can detect it, so it's highly hypocritical for the left to attack Fox for wanting to give an alternative take on important issues.

NPR's intolerance is showing -- Juan Williams fired for Muslim remarks

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/21/npr-fires-juan-williams-oreilly-appearance/

Not to long ago, Julian Sanchez posted an article about the "episemic closure" on the right. At the time I commented on Sanchez's site that the left is just as guilty, but I was met with resistance as everyone made the point that the right is extremely guilty. I still maintain the left is as closed, or moreso presently. The left has a closed mindset and they are protecting it from penetrating ideas which are contrary to these beliefs. I compared it the other day to political religion.

It's odd that one day after Soros announced a war against Fox, Williams, who is associated with Fox, is fired. Is this the beginning of a campaign to silence dissent?