[besson3c]

All of this Oibermann stuff has got me thinking, the old institutions of journalism and the stuff that journalists have learned in University pertaining to ethics, bias, and good reporting practices are truly dead. This is not an outcry or my bemoaning the fact, just a simple statement of reality. I'm certain that far more people get their news from point of view (PoV) news sources such as Fox, MSNBC, Real Time, the Daily Show, or any number of websites than they do traditional news outlets like the New York Times. PoV news has won.

The problem with this change is that there are no real rules and no real institution to shape how these news outlets and reporting is conducted. When somebody makes the assertion that somebody in this business has crossed a line these journalists can just claim that they are editorial type commentators, or entertainers, and therefore simply do not have the same responsibilities as a traditional news outlet. Where the lines are is really gray or non-existant, there aren't really any rules aside from libel, I suppose.

When Oibermann was suspended many of the arguments seemed to relate to what goes on at Fox News, or the silliness of this since Oibermann's political positions were already clear to the public. The problem with the "well, they're doing it" argument is that this can potentially result in an endless loop of monkey-see-monkey-do.

The problem with forming new institutions is that the free market has already spoken and has made it clear that people don't seem to mind PoV news and either don't care about the bias or aren't aware that it exists. Still, it is bothersome to me that the most entertaining is going to be the most listened to, and that the most entertaining may also be the person who can successfully up the ante of crazy and/or radical. Being moderate and reasonable just doesn't generate ratings.

But what about the law? Should there be new FCC regulations as to what these PoV news agencies can and cannot do, or should we just accept the fact that with the internet in particular that this would be a losing battle, and just let the media be a free-for-all, anything goes sort of thing? I understand the arguments pertaining to free speech here as well, and I would have to read up to how they have applied to traditional news outlets and whether something similar can be applied to PoV outlets...

This is not a leading question, I can see it both ways.

[mduell]

Wait, how is the NYT not "PoV news"?

[besson3c]

Are you referring to their editorials or general news reporting?

[Big Mac]

Both. besson, if you truly think the New York Times is unbiased you're even more naive than I thought.

[besson3c]

Well, whatever, I don't read it a great deal to really have a strong opinion about it one way or another. Substitute whatever you want for the NYT, I don't care.

[OldManMac]

He'll be back Tuesday. NBC: Olbermann suspension ending Tuesday - Politics - Decision 2010 - msnbc.com

Personally, I like him. He tells it like it is.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Both. besson, if you truly think the New York Times is unbiased you're even more naive than I thought.

Sigh. Come on now. We're getting into silly territory. Even if you think the New York Times is biased, there is a significant difference in tone and content between the New York Times' reporting and Keith Olbermann.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

All of this Oibermann stuff has got me thinking, the old institutions of journalism and the stuff that journalists have learned in University pertaining to ethics, bias, and good reporting practices are truly dead.

The fact that he got suspended says otherwise.

[BadKosh]

That was just done to save the butt of MSNBC's president from being fired by their new owners. Olbermann doesn't matter.

[The Final Dakar]

Who the hell is "Oibermann"?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

That was just done to save the butt of MSNBC's president from being fired by their new owners. Olbermann doesn't matter.

Except the policy has been in place for a while, AFAIK.