Posted by
Juwar74 on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:27:12 PM
What is conservative media's obsession with the organization ACORN? Before the 2008 election, I have never heard of them. It's not like they have national notoriety like say the United Way, the NAACP or even Christian Children's Charities. I guess this is another example of conservative media doing yellow journalism by trying to make the recent news story of corruption among some of ACORN's workers a legitimate one through the use of innuendo and suggestion. As someone who has a degree in mass communications, I am appalled by conservative media's lack of fact checking and/or cross referencing and unilateral spin. I'm even more appalled that mainstream media decided to give this story any attention because of fear that they would be criticized by idiotic conservative outlets for being bias, and their quest to be competitive in the ratings war rather than using sound judgment to determine what is considered newsworthy using the standards of proper journalism. I guess everything superfluous is considered news today.
So why is ACORN news to conservative media, first and foremost. Well, it goes back to their basic approach to journalism--using innuendo and suggestion. Since many in the conservative camp have a low opinion of Obama, conservative media uses a form of logical fallacy in their reporting. It goes like this: A does B. C does B. Therefore, A equals C. So, ACORN does community organizing. President Obama did community organizing. Therefore, Obama is associated with ACORN. Some of ACORN's worker did something corruptive. Therefore, Obama is corruptive. This line of reasoning is similar to this: A dog has fur. A bear has fur. Therefore, a dog is related to a bear.
It incorrectly draws a connection between two dissimilar things that have similar characteristics.
Unfortunately, many listeners of conservative media aren't smart enough to see the fallacy. They lap it up as fact just as easily as milk.
It is no secret to an intelligent person that conservative media is infamous for framing all their so-called "facts" this way.
Conservative media also frame their stories to satisfy what their audience already believes instead of giving them the facts as it is. They do what networks did in the Eighties when deciding which sitcoms or dramas to put on the air. They use the opinions or behaviors of the audience (i.e. focus groups) to decide what goes on. When a news organization starts to do that, it is NOT a news organization at all. It is an entertainment entity. True journalism does not take into account people's desires in what is newsworthy. True journalism is objective, and conservative media DEFINITELY is not.
Case in point. FOX News knows that a large percentage of their audience, whether sane or not, under the Obama administration believes the government is out to get them. Therefore, they construct their news stories in a way to embolden their audience as oppose to inform them. They did an entire week on a few failed cases of national healthcare in other countries to give the impression that those cases are common in those countries and therefore should not be implemented in the U.S. They take a small sample and use it as part of a larger systemic problem.
They also do this with their so-called "polls." As someone who has worked at a polling company in Virginia, I can tell you, all polls are lies. On the O'Reilly Factor the other day, Bill placed a poll on the screen that said 63% of people opposed Obama's healthcare plan, while 31% approved. I made sure I looked at the source of the poll, and sure enough, the source was less than stellar.
Anytime a poll is sourced, it is always prudent to ask the basics. How many were polled? What was the political leanings of the participants? What regions are the people from? How many of those who approved were actually reported?, etc...
Knowing Bill, the poll he used probably had a high percentage of conservatives and not a random sample.
Hey, wait a minute. I'm getting off track here. I'm getting tired. It's late. But you know what I'm saying.