On our main topic, my post makes clear that I don’t accept the equivalency you offer at the end of this comment. There is nothing new about point-of-view or even advocacy journalism. It is merely that television, and FOX in its ascendancy, garner so much attention. There are so many other examples in print, Mother Jones, for instance, on the left, against which one simply cannot make the case for manipulation, deceit, and violation of ethical norms that can be made against FOX.

I am far from defending Fox, please believe me, but when you are saying in the last paragraph “truth about the world as it sees it, which is left” about one and “distorts and deceives in reporting about the world” about the other, the nuance almost (but not quite, I will grant that) escapes me.

When Rush Limbaugh calls Iraq war veterans opposed to the war “the phony soldiers” or when Bill Maher, demonstrating his ignorance, questions the whole issue of vaccination (the act that by itself could contribute to killing hundreds of people in the future – the children of the people who would be persuaded by this ignorance) – why should I take any statement from any representative of mass media as a given?

Unfortunately, media takes sides not only in conveying opinions – there is nothing to prevent this and no need to – but also in reporting, which is quite a problem. Selective reporting of facts, each source selecting according to its political stance, is where I really do have a problem. Unsolvable, to be sure, especially when so many people will disregard one source totally in favor of the other, just because “the other” is on the other side of political map.

And re Al Sharpton – I have my own kind of bias, which is against people caught once either lying or hate-speechifying. Sharpton did it more than once. To mention Crown Heights riots, the latest Zimmerman story – isn’t his demagoguery and incendiary behavior enough to close the books on him?

Maddow – yes, she was wrong about this something, but isn’t she a current guru for so many? Shouldn’t she display some care about her publicly expressed (and very strong) opinions?

Re Mr Maher: I did appreciate him as a comedian once, but jumping into politics he really became a hateful troll, whose behavior (again, public behavior as opposite, for instance, my personal “home theater” biases and stupid sayings) is hardly much different from Rush L. While confronting some ultra-religious truckers near a church (or was it a diner, I don’t remember) was good entertainment, his current role is that of a hateful foul-mouthed troll.

As for general biases impacting the truth in reporting: I will wait for the outcome of the trial, but it will be interesting to see the result of that Zimmerman vs MSNBC suit…

Oh well. Consider something that could be regarded as silver lining: existence of two polarized media outfits is somewhat essential in that that each one highlights the failures of the other. Not so bad a deal, I would say.

I don’t want to get sidetracked by Sharpton. I don’t agree with your sweeping assessment of him; regardless, what is the record of his “distortion and deceit” on MSNBC, which would thus reflect on the channel as a news organization, which is my subject, rather than on him alone, independent of it?

In the case of Maddow, if I grant your point about a judgments she shared with millions of people, all that would mean is that she personally was wrong about something. Happens to all of us. Traditional neutral news organizations are wrong about reportage, claims, and in editorial opinion all the time. Being mistaken about things is not the the nature of the argument I am making.

Maher is yet another subject I don’t wish to distract: he is not part of the MSNBC news organization, and even if he were the moron I don’t believe him to be (and not a comedian), this post is not about who’s a moron and who’s not.

My point is that MSNBC, as an organization, generally speaking, reports the truth about the world as it sees it, which is left. FOX, to choose an excellent set of terms, distorts and deceives in reporting about the world in order to direct its viewers to see the world as FOX wants them to see it.

Not the same thing.

http://tv.msnbc.com/bios/Rev-Al-Sharpton/

When you are saying “It has, however, no record like FOX of intentional distortion and deceit…”, here is a man whose life is one uninterrupted record of all that… and this is one example only.

I think that your defense was too sweeping in MSNBC case. And, since Ms Maddow was mentioned so positively, here is an example of her making a laughingstock of herself:

http://simplyjews.blogspot.co.il/2011/01/rachel-maddow-explains-why-sdi-will.html

With that utter moron Maher being so supportive. Here is Maher:

http://simplyjews.blogspot.co.il/2009/10/bill-maher-on-vaccination-we-have-to.html

In general, sweeping approval of a media outfit is a dangerous business better left to the members of that outfit.