Why Don't the News Networks Attack Each Other?

[nuklbone]

Since they are all competitors, I don't understand why the different news organizations don't attack each other and report each other's crappy coverage. Why doesn't CNN jump on it when Fox manipulates their replay of the SC debates? Why doesn't MSNBC rail against CNN for pumping out too much tabloid crap? Why doesn't ABC do a showing of "Out Foxed" during prime time to shame Fox News?

It seems to me like it would be in their best interest to point out each other's failings and it would certainly improve the quality of the news.

[Jeremy]

MSNBC sometimes makes fun of Fox News

[asheville4paul]

Msnbc and Fox have been at war for awhile, mostly O'reilly and Olberman

[MsDoodahs]

Why don't news networks attack each other?

Same reason sharks don't eat lawyers: professional courtesy. ;)

[LionHeart87]

Dan Abrams (who is kind of a little bitch) has a segment called "Beat the Press" where he bashes other networks. Olbermann always goes after O'Reilly and vise versa. The networks certainly do compete.

[werdd]

Olbermann and oreally engage in constant political hackery. It creates the illusion that there are really two sides.

[Jodi]

Because in reality if you go high enough in that chain, they all have the same boss.

[cska80]

It's all about divide and conquer. They say enough to feed the false paradigm of left and right, even in the media, but the hard hitting news and facts will never be shown or exposed so they don't tear eachother down.

[freelance]

FOX News used to have a Saturday afternoon program (5:00 p.m. CT). It was a panel of media people talking about the media and their pathetic reporting. They often ripped FOX for some of their reporting. It hasn't aired since last fall--it just quietly vanished. I WONDER WHY? LOL!

[lucius]

It is a global monolithic media cartel; they are already on top of the food chain, status quo is what they insure.

[smartpeople4ronpaul]

Because in reality if you go high enough in that chain, they all have the same boss.

Exactly.

[Matt Collins]

Yea- "cartel" is a very good word for describing it.

[ecliptic]

Because in reality if you go high enough in that chain, they all have the same boss.

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/7126/mediaownership3iu.gif

[pacelli]

Because in reality if you go high enough in that chain, they all have the same boss.

+1

[humanic]

Since they are all competitors, I don't understand why the different news organizations don't attack each other and report each other's crappy coverage. Why doesn't CNN jump on it when Fox manipulates their replay of the SC debates? Why doesn't MSNBC rail against CNN for pumping out too much tabloid crap? Why doesn't ABC do a showing of "Out Foxed" during prime time to shame Fox News?

The same reason nuclear countries don't bomb each other: MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction)

The content broadcast on the mainstream news networks serves two main purposes: to generate as much revenue as possible through maximum ratings/viewership, and to serve the corporate interests-- economic and political-- of those who own them. Their content is NOT designed with the intention of telling people what they need to know to be educated citizens in a functioning democracy. Their content is NOT objective.

It does not educate us, it programs us. That's why it is called programming.

That's why you don't see much coverage in the mainstream media when the FCC passes pro-consolidation measures. It's not because it doesn't affect you, it's because your interests are not what their broadcasts are intended to serve.

That's why there are countless people in this country who have been watching the networks' "political coverage" every night for a year now and still have no idea where candidates stand on most of the political issues. That's why their coverage is more about the horse-race and strategies and personal dramas than actual politics. That's the Fox Effect, Infotainment: it sells, and in the end that's all that matters.

That's why so many people have never heard of Ron Paul, or don't know what he stands for, or think he would make the best president, yet do not plan on voting for him because "he doesn't have a chance." The media says it and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

So the answer to the question is Mutually Assured Destruction. If MSNBC started showing Outfoxed every day, Fox could just produce a documentary illustrating the manipulative bullshit that MSNBC pulls and start airing that all of the time. None of them serve the interests of the average American, and if they started exposing each other, everyone would wake up to this and turn all of them off.

Suggested Reading: My Beef With Big Media (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407.turner.html) by Ted Turner
Suggested Video: Orwell Rolls In His Grave (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4467655342219448521&q=orwell+rolls+in+his+grave&total=46&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1)

[Dan Klaus]

Because in reality if you go high enough in that chain, they all have the same boss.

BINGO!!!

[lucius]

The same reason nuclear countries don't bomb each other: MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction)

The content broadcast of the mainstream news networks serves two main purposes: to generate as much revenue as possible through maximum ratings/viewership, and to serve the corporate interests-- economic and political-- of those who own them. Their content is NOT designed with the intention of telling people what they need to know to be educated citizens in a functioning democracy. Their content is NOT objective.

It does not educate us, it programs us. That's why it is called programming.

That's why you don't see much coverage in the mainstream media when the FCC passes pro-consolidation measures. It's not because it doesn't affect you, it's because your interests are not what their broadcasts are intended to serve.

That's why there are countless people in this country who have been watching the networks' "political coverage" every night for a year now and still have no idea where candidates stand on most of the political issues. That's why their coverage is more about the horse-race and strategies and personal dramas than actual politics. That's the Fox Effect, Infotainment: it sells, and in the end that's all that matters.

That's why so many people have never heard of Ron Paul, or don't know what he stands for, or think he would make the best president, yet do not plan on voting for him because "he doesn't have a chance." The media says it and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

So the answer to the question is Mutually Assured Destruction. If MSNBC started showing Outfoxed every day, Fox could just produce a documentary illustrating the manipulative bullshit that MSNBC pulls and start airing that all of the time. None of them serve the interests of the average American, and if they started exposing each other, everyone would wake up to this and turn all of them off.

Suggested Reading: My Beef With Big Media (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407.turner.html) by Ted Turner
Suggested Video: Orwell Rolls In His Grave (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4467655342219448521&q=orwell+rolls+in+his+grave&total=46&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1)

Spot on!

[Kingfisher]

Because in reality if you go high enough in that chain, they all have the same boss.

Zactly, Just like presidential candidates. (Mostly)

[nuklbone]

I guess the thing that bugs me is that we all do a LOT of cussin' and fussin' about Fox News and how crappy all the networks are but there doesn't really seem to be any obvious way to fix the situation. I have a hard time just accepting the notion that good people like Ron Paul will only have a snowball's chance in hell unless the networks decide to let them into the game.

I believe in that free market principles apply to more than just the economy. The free market can fix most problems. When there is an excess of something, it will eventually create it's own doom, or at least something will bring it back into balance. If there is a lack of something, it will eventually create a strong pull towards it. It can happen gently and gradually, or with a sudden, dramatic change.

The crappy state of today's media drives me nuts because I see how bad it all is but I don't really see what can fix it.

[humanic]

The crappy state of today's media drives me nuts because I see how bad it all is but I don't really see what can fix it.

Step 1: Stop watching it
Step 2: Expose their bullshit to others and get them to stop watching it

[Electric Church]

Msnbc and Fox have been at war for awhile, mostly O'reilly and Olberman


that's just a sideshow

[lx43]

Never attack someone who has as much ammunition as you ie air time.

[N13]

They all serve the same masters.

When you look behind the curtain, you will see a monopoly.

[mad212]

what outfoxed and you'll see why, they all want a piece of that

[Naraku]

Technically journalism isn't supposed to be about tearing down your competition, but giving good stories. However, they did report on Paul being left out of last debate. I think the stuff you're talking about is just not considered significant.

[jesse27]

the networks cater to certain paradigms, left, right,liberal, conservative, republican, democrat and really they are two wings on the same bird,for them to be too critical of one another, would expose the charade, why do you think NPR cancelled their debate? DR. Pauls message would have reached a demographic that wouldn't vote republican because of the current paradigm, and thats the real reason the dems wont debate on fox, the audience would have seen that the top tier democrats, were no different than the top tier republicans, DR. Paul message shatters this myth.

[jesse27]

the networks cater to certain paradigms, left, right,liberal, conservative, republican, democrat and really they are two wings on the same bird,for them to be too critical of one another, would expose the charade, why do you think NPR cancelled their debate? DR. Pauls message would have reached a demographic that wouldn't vote republican because of the current paradigm, and thats the real reason the dems wont debate on fox, the audience would have seen that the top tier democrats, were no different than the top tier republicans, DR. Paul message shatters this myth.

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

Yea- "cartel" is a very good word for describing it.

Exactly. They are not really competitors.