With the increasing ideological segmentation of the viewing market, the chance to reach potential converts that might select Fox as main source of viewing offers opportunities. They may not win masses of converts but in a closely divided country it might not take many to swing the election. And since they are debates, despite whatever commentary and opinion is inserted into programming, the debates themselves, which will give Democrats the chance to speak directly to the media audience, will likely be dominant. At other times, the presidential campaign is filtered through whatever news standards, or lack of, a media outlet might exhibit.
This “media narrative” should be open to challenge. Where I differ from the ideological left is the process of doing that. It is true that the language we use often has assumptions implicit within it. I think that is inevitable. I welcome people who want to challenge those things directly by arguing why they are wrong or at least should be open to question. I don’t support simply replacing one set with another on the basis of exerted power or intimidation. That said I don’t see much of my preferred method either.
As for Greenberg’s failure to come up with a definition of objective, let me share on that was offered by Lee Ross of the Stanford Center on International Conflict and Negotiation in a Newshour discussion of bias in the media relating to the middle east.
“I think the minimal definition of unbiased or objective coverage should be coverage in which each side thinks that its own case has been fairly presented. They may think that the criticisms of that case are unfair, but they should feel that their basic position was articulated in a way that they recognize and are willing to own as, indeed, being their own views.”
