As for the second one, I still maintain that “mainstream” Washington media’s primary bias is in favor not of a particular political side, but of savvy political gamesmanship. We’ve obviously gone over this in the past, but I think your characterization of the media as accepting liberals’ proposals with “unquestioning joy and adulation, cheerleading each step” is something of a caricature. Obviously, the media has done plenty of stories with a critical eye toward the Dems’ health care reform plans. Take, for example, one AP story I had to read particularly closely a few weeks ago, as I used parts of it in my story about a local dentist visiting the White House: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091005/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_doctors

You can’t tell me, honestly, that that story is not critical of or cynical about President Obama. But in this story, as in the vast majority of the stories about health care reform and politics in general, the primary bias is in valuing political maneuvering — who’s trying to portray what image, who’s taking what tack to get whose vote — over the actual substance of the proposals. That’s the overriding systemic bias in political journalism.

As for your examples, I think we still must be misunderstanding each other. ABC’s “health care forum” was a very poorly handled “interview” of the president, but it was nowhere close to a political rally. And NBC’s highlighting global warming is, obviously, reporting that stems from the assumption that global warming is legitimate and human-caused; it is not tantamount to organizing an anti-global warming movement. Again, I’m not saying that the other TV news outlets don’t address issues from a particular cultural and often political mindset — of course they do. But I think there’s still a big difference between that and consciously serving as a rallying point and an organizing force for a political movement.

And no, you don’t need to quit — this is a good discussion

I’m confident that given more time, I could come up with many more examples. I also question whether “it’s primarily the veneration of political savviness” that is there concern above all. Were that the case, we would see the same level of skepticism, criticism, and hype with administrations from both sides. Instead, political savvy is too often defined as agreeing with the ivy league elite perspective. I think they are more motivated to push an agenda of the state taking bold action to solve problems, increasing the size and reach of government. Such proposals are greeted with unquestioning joy and adulation, cheerleading each step as we have seen with the current health care proposals, i.e.”Never have we been so close!” whereas private enterprise proposals are viewed with suspicion and skepticism, “greedy insurance companies.” That is every bit as over the line as Fox’s perspective. Sorry to be so long. If you want me to quit, let me know.

Yes, I agree that Fox went (and often does) cross the line. But so does every other news organization, by choosing which stories to cover, or by giving the story a positive or negative slant. What angers me and so many like me is that there is no admission to slant, no problem with White House operatives becoming news anchors, no recognition that they too are promoting an agenda. It just so happens to be an agenda that is in vogue with each other and the party in power at present, but it IS an agenda none the less. When those like George Steph. are granted instant credibility as objective journalists despite their blatant bias, such a news organization has lost all credibility with me. There is a reason the current administration seeks such people out for interviews.

Until the mainstream media admit to their faults, their ratings will continue to fall and outlets like Fox will continue to grow. When I see the same sort of skepticism toward the latest Obama initiative that follows Palin’s every word, I will soften my disdain for their bias. Demonizing and seeking to marginalize Fox serves only to cement in my mind the blinders and jealousy that hinders such journalists from real journalism. Sorry, but that’s how I see it.

Yes, everyone is biased. Every TV news outlet is pushing a point of view — for the networks and CNN, it’s primarily the veneration of political savviness above all else, and for MSNBC it’s a distinctively liberal perspective, as you wrote.

Delivering news from a consistent, distinct political point of view, as MSNBC does, is what Fox has done for most of this decade. But roughly since Obama became president, Fox News has changed; it has crossed the Rubicon into overt political activism.

If an MSNBC personality actively spearheads a political rally and then the channel covers it as “news,” (as Glenn Beck and Fox did with the 9/12 rally), then we can consider the two channels to be comparable. But no other TV news outlet has parlayed its journalistic power into outright political organization, so until that happens, Fox is in a class by itself.

That may seem like a minor distinction, but in journalistic terms, that’s a chasm.

“it’s just not what the rest of the mainstream political press does.”

Mark, I agree with the first statement, although I see them doing this less often than you do. But I totally disagree with the second statement. While Fox may intentionally be doing so, the other networks are just as active in providing a central gathering point. They just deny it. I challenge you to listen to one evening of MSNBC and objectively state that there is not a concerted effort to present and push a point of view.

What makes Fox stand out is that its point of view is so different from all the rest. This makes it seem as though it is doing something that none of the rest is doing. The rest share one basic point of view and Fox has a different one. This does not make Fox wrong, nor all the others wrong. I just wish everyone would admit to their own bias. Honest reporting admits to its own bias and seeks alternative voices to balance the presentation. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS have just as much to learn in this area as Fox.