An Escapee from the "Rain is Wet Media Discovery" files
The Washington Post on "Red Media, Blue Media:"
"Thirty years ago, you had to visit the public library to read something other than your local newspaper. Today, thanks to information technology, newspapers, radio and television networks the world over are no more that a keystroke away. Does this dramatic expansion of available news outlets mean that Americans -- and others worldwide -- will be exposed to a more diverse 'marketplace of ideas,' gain familiarity with new points of view and become more tolerant? Or will consumers stick with their preferred (politically compatible) news sources while screening out those sites offering unfamiliar or disagreeable information and perspectives?This is a surprise why?
As yet, there is little evidence to indicate that consumers apply a political litmus test in deciding which news sources to use. We designed this study to find out whether people do in fact prefer news reports from sources that they believe to be sympathetic or compatible with their views. We observed whether attention to the identical news story was increased or decreased when the story was attributed to Fox News, NPR, CNN or the BBC. The results demonstrate considerable polarization in exposure to news. Republicans have distinct preferences for particular news sources (they go to Fox and avoid NPR and CNN). Democrats avoid Fox but divide their attention between CNN and NPR. When the news focuses on controversial issues, partisans are especially likely to screen out sources they consider opposed to their political views. The study design was as follows: Using the MSNBC daily news feed (which includes news reports from a variety of sources), we randomly assigned news stories (for purposes of the study) to one of four sources -- Fox, NPR, CNN, or BBC. Participants were provided a brief headline accompanied by the logo of the news organization and asked to indicate which of the four reports displayed on the screen they would like to read. (They could also click a 'can't say' box.) They repeated this task across six different news categories -- American politics, the war in Iraq, 'race in America,' crime, travel, and sports. "
Oh yeah, that's right. Our Reasonable MSM masters believe that they present objective news stories. They have honestly confused their promotion of the Absolute Individualist Agenda with reality.
Since FNC news generally parts company with such myopia, and many republicans happen to enjoy FNC, the MSM Powers-That-Be have decided that FNC is a ship of Fools.
If only that were the case. There's more than enough evidence that too many hard news stories wind up shaped by the Reasonable and Foolable kool-aiders of the political right. Nonetheless, and compared the utterly inane R&F leftist bias of pratically all the other players, FNC remains a breath of fresh air.
But they don't carry water for the Agenda promoters. Therefore, they must be marginalized.
Must keep bubble-talking. Must keep bubble-talking.