What can be done to encourage more objective, honest, and ethical mainstream journalism in the United States?
I was in the broadcast business for 30+ years. I also taught news reporting. These people do not learn this in school. Call your favorite local J-School and ask. U of Missouri has a very good one. Also, look at the resume's of the reporters who you find lacking in credibility. Sometimes there are huge clues there. It also has become more about suppporting a cause and backing your favorites. It comes from the top, but current anchors will do whatever it takes to keep the big money (money, there is a key word). Dan Rather is one glaring example, and now seemingly good guy Brian Williams had trouble with the truth. Newsroom directors are ruthless for ratings and their jobs depend on it. Money and power along with book deals are corrupting a lot of news people. Many have forgotten what they learned that got them to the top, and since sensationalism is desired, they run with it. Some are just poorly trained and boosted to the top by the "Peter Principle." Ann Curry is a good example of someone who has very good news skills, writing and announcing, but I think her tearful interviews in too many heartwarming stories that were more fluff than news hurt her chances. When she did the hard news story, she did well. If she had stayed as a news anchor and not one of the "power couple" who led the show, she may have lasted and not had her career tainted by the failed hosting job. Another aspect for news organizations is the relentless battle to have it first and most. I think we have too many news outlets which brings us stories like Geraldo and Capone's safe. They are struggling at times to find truly news worthy stories. Then the cable channels, unencumbered by many FCC rules and regulations get ridiculously off base, much like CNN and the plane crash in the Indian Ocean. Or the left/right lean of MSNBC and FOX. Finally, when you turn on a news show and 90% of the women are blonde hair with long legs sexily posed as if they are aiming them at you, do really have to wonder anymore what they are trying to do? How dumb do they think we are. As long as we watch they'll keep thinking they've got us. Until we stop watching, and falling for headlines with no substance, we will get less journalism (aren't we there yet?) and more blondes.
Does Fox News hire their female news anchors purely based on looks/attractiveness?
Based on what we now know about the “good old boy” attitudes at Fox News and the prevailing sexism at the network, it would not be surprising to learn that Roger Ailes always preferred to hire female reporters who were beautiful or sexy. Given the fact that the typical Fox viewer is a male over 60 years old, who holds traditional beliefs about women, this actually makes some sense. Male Fox News viewers expect to see attractive women, and Fox News provides them. (The network’s male anchors and reporters are rarely held to that standard, as I will discuss.)But in fairness to Fox News, they are not the only ones to do this. Historically, male program directors and executives from ALL the networks only wanted women who were young and beautiful (or, at least, attractive). This even meant restricting appearances by women of color, since the original standard of beauty for TV was established in the age of segregation by white executives. Things have changed for the better in that regard, and both reporters and pundits of color are now seen often on TV, but the idea that women on television should be attractive remains in place.However, let’s be honest: being attractive has also applied to men. Historically, men who were balding or overweight might appear as pundits, but it’s only recently that such men got a chance to be full-time anchors or correspondents; male anchors were expected to be both authoritative and able to look good on camera. As a visual medium, attractiveness has long been a prized quality for those who present the news, but this standard has been especially true when women were hired. In fact, TV news was hesitant to hire older women until recently, and even the most respected young reporters were supposed to be attractive as well as intelligent.Many feminist critics have noted that older men on TV have always been considered “wise” or “elder statesmen,” but older women were mocked for their looks and expected to find ways (such as plastic surgery) to appear youthful. There is evidence this double-standard still goes on today, although on cable news, which casts a wide net for pundits (including professors, print journalists, and even celebrities), you may see people who are not necessarily gorgeous but who have a certain telegenic quality on camera. Now that Roger Ailes is gone, it remains to be seen whether Fox News too will begin changing their hiring practices with regard to the women who are seen on their network.
Which is the most unbiased news channel in U.S?
Check this link:This chart is from 2016 (pre-Trump) but it gives you a fairly accurate view of the left-right landscape of media bias. For my money, I’d say NPR is the most unbiased. CNN is fairly neutral, but Trump’s continual bashing forces them into a defensive posture which (with good reason) pushes them a little further left of neutral. For an outlet outside of the US, I’d say BBC is very-much unbiased.As I said, this chart is from 2016 and some of this has changed. Although I think the left-right analysis is fairly accurate, I can't say the same for the rating for Journalistic Quality. In that regard, this chart is very unfair to CNN, and unrealistically generous to Fox “News”. CNN does have some sensationalistic tendencies, especially with Wolf Blitzer and some of their 3D graphics, but that doesn't detract from their journalism. On the other hand, it’s virtually impossible to get anything objective from Fox. They even interject right-wing talking points in their reporting of natural disasters. I’d move CNN up near Reuters, and move Fox down and further down and to the right; maybe half-way toward Daily Caller.EDIT:I found this updated chart from the same source as the old one I linked above:This chart seems very accurate with respect to the current political climate. They have moved CNN up regarding their journalism, and have moved Fox down and further right.
Why are women on Fox News dressed for a cocktail party?
I never watch Fox News to have noticed and I STILL can't bring myself to such a level of irritation to watch that nonsense to see what you're talking about. Apparently it attracts a lot of attention. I went to Google and typed in Fox News anchors and Google was trying to complete possible choices and the third one that appeared was "fox news anchors short skirts" so I clicked on it and pages of websites/videos and blogs are talking about how immodest those women dress. Oh well. that must be it..ratings.. damn the Chrisitan values of modesty ..full ratings ahead I'm stll not going to to watch Fox News to see them for myself. :P "We got the bubble headed bleach blonde who comes on at five She can tell you ' bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye" Don Henley
Was Fox News this critical of Democrats before Obama?
I personally think a lot of the anti-Obama vitriol is a result of the very real, in my opinion justified, anti-Bush vitriol from the left during his presidency. From about 2003 on hatred of Bush grew and festered throughout the country. He led us foolishly into Iraq, then even more foolishly executed that war. He betrayed fiscal conservatives in his own party by not paying for our wars and passing a completely unfunded, hundred-billion dollar entitlement in Medicare Part D (he actually cut taxes as well!). His Patriot Act further eroded American civil liberties to unprecedented levels. He botched the handling of Katrina and it's aftermath, an unfortunate event beyond his control to be sure, but it could have been handled much better. Finally, as he was leaving office, the 2008 financial crisis struck, leading to a deep and lasting recession. Bush was an unmitigated disaster, and his Presidency enraged a sizable percentage of the country. The problem is that half the country voted for the man, twice, and people don't like to think of themselves as wrong. So, when Democrats elected their man and said, "Finally that idiot is gone!" Bush's supporters immediately sought to paint Obama with the same brush that their man was painted with. Everything is a disaster, everything is his fault. The problem is that it's not so easy to do that, since the recession, the debt, the wars, etc. were not Obama's fault. They were Bush's.
Is the media strongly biased against the Trump administration?
The media liked Obama and gave him 90% positive press no matter what he did.The media doesn’t like Trump and give him 90% bad press no matter what he does.Those are facts, not made up. Trump has done more for this country in a year and a half than most presidents do in two terms.While the press has a right to not disclose their sources, there are far too many “undisclosed sources” to take them seriously anymore. Many of their stories are outright lies. The Russian collusion thing is costing billions (well over $16 billion so far) with no credible results.Yes, the liberal press is strongly biased against Trump. If they weren’t, you’d hear about how awesome our economy is right now. Unemployment way down, wages up, taxes down, stock market up… Our economy recently surpassed Hong Kong’s. All those factory jobs that Obama claimed couldn’t be brought back without a magic wand are coming back. N. Korea is a sticky subject, but he’s got Kim talking. He brought hostages home. He caught top ISIS leaders. ISIS is barely heard of anymore because they’re not longer the worldwide threat that they were under Obama. And the list goes onAny other president in history would be getting amazing press and a parade for doing what this president has done.I don’t care if you like his personality or his tweets, he’s doing awesome stuff. That alone should be the judge of his presidency. And the left can only complain.Just for contrast, Obama traded five terrorists for a traitor. Trump got hostages back without giving anything in return. Obama got tons of POSITIVE press for his illegal trade. He gave money in exchange for prisoners. He left a US Marine to rot in a Mexican jail. No bad press for these things.The bias is so blatant it’s amazing anyone would have to ask the question.