In the media wars, the Democratic party has nothing on the Conservative Republican Alliance of Propaganda (i.e. NAMBLA). The right wing has way too much money, and are way too loud, stupid and arrogant - thus too attention-whorey - for serious solution-oriented political wonks to compete for public attention. This is why a genuinely "fair and balanced" approach will not yield fair and balanced results, and why the party who better represents mainstream values is constantly facing an upstream battle. For far too long, the right wingers have pushed the meme that media bias and partisanship are what is wrong with American political journalism. And in an brain-dead act of spectacular impotence, the more traditional "centrist" outlets bought in to this bullshit in the name of ratings. Fox News couldn't have this level of success of framing the debate without a little help from their alternatives. I know all the 24-hour networks have a hard-on for "balance", but all one has to do is look at the results to see that maybe something else is wrong.
I don't know if any of the blowhards who bitch about "bias" have noticed, but the 24-hour networks are 23 hours of editorializing, and 1 hour of actual news coverage (slight exaggeration... very slight). This doesn't seem to bother the right-wing partisans too much, and I don't blame them. After all, they have the talking point commentaries down to a fine art, and any other content distribution would mean less air-time for them. Self-interest prevents them from complaining about the dominance of "get-a-load-of-what-I-have-to-say" air-time. But if there's one thing you have to say about the Republican party, it's that they sure know how to get everybody whipped up about the wrong things. And I must say, I find it kind of amusing that they're so rabidly against the Fairness Doctrine. You would think that they'd be in favor of a document that forces stations devoted to actual reporting to offset their coverage with pure red-white-and-blue bullshit. But that, of course, would require logic, so that's a non-starter for them. This is why I propose an alternate that tackles the root of the problem: the SYFPH Doctrine. For those who couldn't guess, the SYFPH Doctrine states that instead of aiming for balanced coverage where ALL TWO SIDES get equal coverage, it is more constructive to tell the talking heads to, well, you figure it out...
The thing that pains my prick about this whole discussion is that media bias is a phony concern that bullshit-artists just pulled out of their behinds when they realized their garbage was being refuted by responsible people. You talk about getting whipped up about the wrong thing? How about sacrificing honesty, integrity, and even informing viewers of basic information on important topics, all in the name of "not appearing too partisan". Fox News is different, because they have an ideological intent. But the rest of the news world should know better. The truth is, there's no point in arguing about "bias" any more. People have opinions. Those opinions might not be partisan, but they exist, and yes, they may end up being reflected in their coverage - especially now that the ratings conclude that what the public wants is to see opinion. On that front, the more provocative and/or insane, the better. So by necessity, the coverage is going to be biased towards the views of the person doing the reporting.
So given that the people want commentary, and commentary is inherently slanted by definition, how can SYFPH intervene? By forcing those who work for news networks to SYFPH. The document shall contain provisions limiting the amount of original editorializing in any 24-hour period, as well as limiting the amount of repeat time. No channel may broadcast more than 3 hours per day of comment-based programming, and no more than 3 hours of repeat time (i.e. 6 hours total). And any channel that advertises itself as "news" or as "politics" must include at least 1 hour of actual journalism per hour of opinion - journalism being defined as "a sequence of events and stories told for no purpose other than to inform the viewer of the existence of said stories and events". Interviews with public servants and strategists qualify as "comment" (no shit). Any media outlet that does not adhere to these guidelines will see two things occur:
- They will be assigned a company party affiliation from an independent third party, such as Dennis Kucinich. The independent party will make its designation based on his/her best judgment of which party benefits most from the spin and bullshit on display.
- The company will then forfeit 10% of its advertising revenue, which will thereby be donated to the mainstream party opposing its designation.
I suspect that should make things change pretty damned fast. Once that takes effect, then perhaps we can start searching for people who actually attended and graduated journalism school.