I admit that publisher Woody’s “Notebook” observations are usually (at least to the extent that I have read them) relevant to local events and sometimes nostalgic reminisces, as well as additional ruminations, but I take exception to a recent reflection in his “Three kind words, Benghazi, TV opinion” Notebook writings.
I suppose his words could be described as editorial “one-liners,” since they seem to have no substantive reasoning to back them (at least as evidenced in the editorial).
I guess I am old fashioned to the extent that I think that “editorials” really ought to at least explore the reasons as to why a certain conclusion is necessary (especially if they appear on the editorial page!).
Mr. Woody makes reference to the Pew study results that indicate that Fox News dedicates just 55 percent of airtime to political opinion, while MSNBC devotes 85 percent of airtime to opinion.
It appears that you might be left to your own conclusion that somehow Fox News is more objective than MSNBC.
That certainly might be the case but here is the rub — MSNBC does not, as nearly as I can tell, purport to be “fair and balanced” as does Fox News.
MSNBC readily recognizes that it is progressive/left and programs accordingly.
Would not Fox News enjoy a bit more respect if it branded itself (honestly) as an organ of the more conservative right and not as a purveyor of unbiased (read “fair and balanced”) news?
Is Fox News really “fair and balanced” based on such findings (55 percent opinion) or does it simply hope that we will really think so?