You make it clear that you are primarily a Clinton supporter, and that you mostly agree with the news media's bias. Then, you go on to criticize those who express a differing view, calling it "vitriol."
Let me suggest to you that you just don't like hearing opinions that differ from yours; similarly, many of us who post here don't appreciate the constant stream of left-leaning spin that is called "news" by the major media, CNBC included. Criticizing that leftist bias is not "vitriol," it is criticism.
Jim -
I'll suggest to you that you don't know me very well <g>. I love hearing opinions that are different from mine, although I do prefer that they be articulately expressed (hence my complaints about Bush the Elder). I also have, believe it or not, a fairly low opinion of the news media in general. I consider CNBC to be well above average, but I agree that that ain't saying much. As one example, I concur with the opinion that the "all Kennedy, all of the time" coverage was ridiculous on the regular news outlets, never mind on CNBC. Criticism of this coverage was completely justified. But I found some of the vitriol posted here disgusting, particularly in the face of the human tragedy that was being discussed. (And I'm sorry, it was vitriol.)
However, returning to the issue that started this discussion, I don't think that the carrying of the President's speeches on CNBC is strong evidence of bias on the part of the network. The President holds the bully pulpit, and he's going to get on the air whether he's a Republican or Democrat. All the brokerage houses and trading desks don't have CNBC on to hear Joe Blow of Chernham and Burnham tell us to sell General Motors and buy Ford. They want to hear breaking news, and hear it as it's happening. When the President makes a policy statement it is news, and it is often news which can move markets. The only person in government with more power to move markets than the President is Alan Greenspan and, not coincidentally, he gets even more air time. This is not to say that Clinton is going to say something important every time he's on. But from a job security standpoint, the news producers would much rather have the President on saying nothing than to not be carrying him when he says something important. And there's no question that the White House sometimes uses this to their advantage. There have been at least a couple of occasions where CNBC cut to the President based on rumours that he was going to comment on some important financial matter, only to have him speak about something else which happened to be important to his agenda but not to CNBC's. IMO, CNBC was used by the White House, but once again I don't believe this is evidence of any bias. It's just a fact of life that the President is going to be on TV a lot, no matter who he is.
Anyway, as I said earlier, we could fill up a whole thread just discussing journalistic bias. There's no question it exists, just as bias must exist in any enterprise run by human beings. I believe it is an oversimplification to refer to these biases as leftist, although you could certainly make a case that the national news services have a geographic bias focused around the major media centers. I also believe it is extremely simplistic (and wrong) to claim that this bias takes the form of some sort of conspiracy to provide slanted news coverage to the masses. The people in the news business strive to be objective, and any biases which creep in are, I believe, unconscious rather than conscious choices. They are the result of group think, which you're going to find in any profession. It's the same type of phenomenon that had Wall Street analysts calling AOL overvalued at $1 (split adjusted) and a buy at $175.
Bottom line, Mark, is that this thread is open to comments from lots of different people. There's no rule that says posts must fit your view of the world.
I agree completely, although I'll add that they don't have to fit yours either. Within the bounds of the SI terms of use, any post is permissible. If I feel that a group of posts detract from the value of the thread, I'm allowed to say so. And if others disagree with my opinion, they are also allowed to say so. And if I become dissatisfied enough with what's being posted on the thread because I feel that too much of it has moved beyond the bounds of constructive criticism (not to mention common courtesy and good taste), I'm allowed to leave. And I'm also allowed to be a little saddened if it comes to that. |
