The media and "smear" campaigns

[BL611]

You guys throw out a lot of stuff about every time the media says something about a politician as it being a "smear", however there is a difference between smearing somebody and just being sensationalist. Now obviously there are real smears ("Is Obama a terrorist"), but often many conflate the media's hunger for the sensationalism that will sell papers, with having a bias against a specific politician. If a media outlet is smearing everyone, then its not on the basis of a bias against a specific person. Now thats not at all to say its right, but the differentiation should be stated.

[EFerrari]

1. Unless you see these two categories as 1) an aim and 2) a consequence

The media can have the aim to attract viewers via sensationalism. But, the consequence can be a smear.

I've just personally undergone a smear campaign. The person who mounted it had the aim of making himself look good, not smearing me. But, the consequence was a smear. :shrug:

What I mean is, the aim and the consequence aren't always identical but they are related.

[BL611]

4. There is a difference

between publishing a negative story of questionable substance on the basis of a bias against the subject, and the basis of being provocative and selling papers (or increasing ratings, or web site hits, etc.). The consequences can be the same, but if there is equal opportunity in publishing these stories, and all are susceptible to it the consequences are not the as if it was being focused on discrediting a specific person.

[EFerrari]

6. Does the aim matter if the effect is the same?

That's the point I was trying to make.

[BL611]

8. No.

But what I'm saying is that the effect will not be the same if the media is just chasing after the most provocative stories, as it would be if it was targeting a specific candidate for political reasons. Too often that differentiation (which again does not make it right) is lost on people who are quick to blame everything on media bias against the person they are defending. Their is certainly an argument (I think a very strong one) that it contributes to our cynicism toward politics, but again not the same thing.

[EFerrari]

9. I think I have to respectfully disagree for now but also, think this through

more carefully.

Intention does matter. My friend was just busted for selling a beer to a minor -- two days after he had a cornea replacement and the kid was tall and some other customer was filling his ear. It was an honest mistake. He had no intention of breaking the law at all. But, he did sell beer to a minor. I'm going to help him with the pending case against him.

On the other hand, chasing after provocative stories has the aim of profit, not informing. So, that slope is already slippery because it's inherently not journalism but marketing. At that point, the public trust has already been thrown over for the bottom line. :shrug:

I'm not trying to be contentious, just trying to think it through

[Lerkfish]

2. um....okeydoke. what brought this on?

[BL611]

5. Just the general

"oh the media has it in for person X"

[bryant69]

3. Go read the Daily Howler

http://dailyhowler.com particularly on the war on Gore in 2000. In 2000 and before the Press, not just the right wing media, laid into Gore and put Bush into the White House. Our Millionaire Press Corps layed into Gore and gave us such statements as "Gore invented the Internet" and "Gore claimed to he and his wife were the inspiration for Love Story."

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[EFerrari]

7. Good advice. n/t