The trouble with Media Whores Online, according to Spinsanity, is that:
“MWO specializes in stripping away the complexity of our nation’s politics, fitting events into a simplistic ideological framework. This worldview portrays a long-running struggle between noble-minded leaders supported by the broad American majority and a cadre of evil partisans acting in bad faith with the support of the media. By selectively choosing favorable topics and spinning those it can’t avoid (especially by omitting context and contradictory facts), the editors manage to push an ideological line with little or no admission of conflicting truths.”
This wouldn’t matter very much except that, as writer Brendan Nyhan says, “increasingly, MWO matters” because mainstream publications such as “The Nation, Salon, Hollywood Reporter and the Los Angeles Times” are now quoting the site. First, let me say I agree with Spinsanity’s assessment of MWO. But then if you look to the links on the left you’ll find MWO. And if you’ve been reading this blog for very long, you’re well aware of my consternation with entertainment passed off as journalism. You are also well aware that I do not consider web sites such as MWO, Spinsanity, or even Rhetorica, to be journalism (geez…I don’t even consider much of what we see on TV news to be journalism). I consider such sites, however, to be part of the great civic conversation that the Internet makes possible. And there is room for all extremes here, including the academic extreme of neutrality that I try, and often fail, to uphold.
I’m still wondering about this medium we call the Internet. I’m not prepared to condemn it just yet as Neil Postman has. Nor am I prepared to praise it unconditionally. I am conflicted about it. And that conflict is evident in that I find MWO an acceptable contribution to the conversation while at the same time I revile the TV cable shows that strip “away the complexity of our nation’s politics, fitting events into a simplistic ideological framework.” (via InstaPundit)