[ajross]

The point is more that Fox will routinely elevate issues that aren't really "news" in a traditional sense to major "stories", either to fill time[1] or to make a partisan argument.

The IRS funding is a great example here. The IRA bill indeed increases funding for the Internal Revenue Service by something like 30%. This would be reasonable content to include in a print article, say, of the kind of bureaucratic funding decision that happens thousands of times every year. But Fox went almost wall-to-wall on it, with partisan guest after partisan guest claiming absurd things about "87000 armed agents coming after your money". That's not news. It's just not.

Edit to add: and CNN, really, just doesn't do that. If there's a breaking story that's embarassing to democrats, they run it. They're journalists, it's what they're trained to do. Surely the jouranlists and editors have opinions and perspectives about what's important, but it doesn't rise to the level of "newsworthiness" decisions. They cover what breaks, for the most part.

[1] i.e. "Avoid covering other stuff". That ridiculous Elvis story they were running was, essentially, counterprogramming the revelations about the FBI raid for which there was still no consensus republican response. They couldn't put a talking head on the screen to "explain" it, so they ran some irrelevant nonsense instead of covering breaking news.

[amscanne]

Increasing funding for enforcement for the IRS is something that I personally feel is a good thing, but I think it’s fair to cover it in light of the fact that it seems to be colored by politics, like so much else. Why on earth would the Democrats pronounce that it won’t be used to audit anywhere earning less than $400k? As an extension of the anti-rich rhetoric, it’s no longer a simple “bureaucratic funding decision” and should be covered/discussed. (Not that I fully agree with the tone or manner of coverage, but you can’t claim that it’s not news.)

[ajross]

I keep bouncing around on how to respond to this. But really you have this exactly backwards: you think we should pay more attention to a subject (i.e. dedicate our limited "news" bandwidth to understanding it) because political actors want us to think it's important.

And, no, I think that's exactly backwards. The fact that one side is predicting tax armageddon and the other is explaining that it only soaks the rich is an easy cue that this is not a subject with any real truth to it, because if there were then there would be simple answers and not spin. And there is a simple answer, and it's that "The IRS got a moderate funding bump in this bill". And that simple answer is all I need.

And it's all you should need too. The only people who want more coverage of the subject are the ones trying to change your mind about it (or reinforce your priors). And those are the people you should be listening to the least.

[amscanne]

Nothing in my comment prescribes who or what you should pay attention to.

First you’re bothered by what networks are covering. Then I explain why these topics may be interesting. So then you say I’m backwards because I shouldn’t pay attention to what they are covering. Good grief: why are you bothering to complain about what they’re covering in the first place? Isn’t your first comment backwards for the exact same reason?

[blowski]

Your own bias is showing.

Fox watchers would say something like "it's just a witchhunt, and it found nothing" or "climate change is a big fat nothingburger". (I personally don't believe that!)

[timeon]

Can you be more specific?

[blowski]

More specific about...?