I think putting the Hannitys and Carlsons on the same level as the Maddows and the Lemons implies a false equivalency. Everyone has an agenda, yeah, but one of those groups is deliberately misleading its viewers.
Um. They're all pretty deliberate. They're all gainfully employed based on one key KPI: ad revenue. They have a target market. They have a narrative. And they work that to the tune of ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching.
Death by cancer is still death whether it's Red State death or Blue State death. That's about as equal as it gets.
None of the four you listed quality as news or journalism. One another day we can discuss what they really are, but news and journalists they are not.
From what I've seen, and I could be wrong, David Muir seems to deliver in a way that doesn't seem heavy in bias. Admittedly, I don't watch ABC a lot so I don't see a ton of him, but his content seems pretty impartial.
Perfect example. He's nothing more than a talking head. He's reading a script off a teleprompter. He's there - and Katie Couric isn't - because he tests well and the rating are strong.
That doesn't make him a journalist. Nor does it make what falls from his lips news.
Will have to agree to disagree on that one. And I think he's there and Couric isn't is due to Couric at a certain point trying the Barbara Walters track pivoting into the talk show side of things.
But I think him being fairly interchangeable with another journalist is an indicator that his role isn't personality driven like the previously mentioned: he's there to deliver the news and that's essentially it. I think his Gaza Strip/Haiti/etc. work qualifies him as a journalist and from what I've seen of him, has delivered factual news (with varying levels of importance, but realistically, it is unlikely to have hard hitting items daily).
Funny enough, my term papers in grade school come to mind. We were required to take a subject, investigate it, present both / all arguments, and then draw a conclusion as based on the investigation.
Journalists ask questions. Tough question. The hard questions. Taking the narrative of a rumour and/or a "press release" is not journalism. When there's an over-use of "power words" and heavy handed adjectives that manipulate the interpretation, that's not journalism either.
That's the tip of the iceberg.
Maybe it's kinda like porn? I'll know it when I see it?
While I agree they're not all the same or approaching the median at the same rate, my statement was in their propensity towards editorializing. Whereas people view them (well, typically if they agree with them) as newspeople. I was going mostly by personalities that seem to have the largest viewerships, purely anecdotal though, admittedly.
Maddow definitely creates a narrative out of the current events. Hannity is on another level, though, making dishonest use of every logical fallacy in order to push the state directed agenda.
Death by cancer is still death whether it's Red State death or Blue State death. That's about as equal as it gets.
None of the four you listed quality as news or journalism. One another day we can discuss what they really are, but news and journalists they are not.