[Shannonnn]

And the audiences eat it up, of course. Good entertainment for them.

[KurtFF8]

Yeah that's true, even when the guest is well-equipped to debate they're going on a show watched by people with all opposing viewpoints. Case in point, McCain on The Daily Show the other day. Didn't matter what he said, he wasn't going to get so much as a head nod from the audience and Jon Stewart was going to be rolling in lulz and applause. I think a lot of times it's not intentional, just a side effect of being on a show that opposes every fiber in your body...

But the Daily Show isn't a real news program and isn't supposed to provide objective news, and is stated entertainment so it's ok and not really the straw man they're engaging it.

But when you have stations like FOX and CNN that are actually supposed to be objective and truly be fair and balanced doing the same thing, that is where the problem is.

[The Immortal Goon]

Guests with opposing views who are invited to appear on his show should know that they're going to get their ass handed to them, right or wrong.

Sure - but by putting up the most extreme person to represent the opposition you're making it doubly as bad - it's a clear and deliberate attempt to make anyone who disagrees with you look crazy or something.

But they shouldn't be putting themselves in that situation anyway. It's like when Clinton went on Fox News - she shoudn't have even bothered.

-TIG

[kami321]

Well take Fox news for example, when it's time for them to get someone of an opposing view (say trying to get the liberal stance on an issue), they're probably not going to go looking for the most knowledgeable person in terms of that issue and instead, what I feel is deliberate, find someone who will make (in this case) liberals look bad because they can't make the argument as well as someone who would be more knowledgeable.

Oh this one I'm painfully familiar with. The anti-Putin channels which my parents just love to watch do this all the time and it is extremely annoying.

[QatzelOk]

Media Innoculation

Kurt, there is another very similar media phenomenon to the "strawman fallacy" that you talk about. It is called "innoculation."

It works like this: Media powers-that-be (or one of their clients) are threatened by something that is highly critical. As an example, there might be a mass murder that is somehow thought to be connected to media viewing.

So they create a critical approach that will DO THEM NO HARM. For example, they invite a critic onto the news who claims that children often immitate the cartoon violence immediately after they watch it.

The "sensible" pro-media spokesman than says, "But children who watch cartoons don't grow up to be any more violent than children who don't watch cartoons, do they?" And our media "critic" then conceeds that they don't.

The REAL criticism of media might have said that media saturation is robbing us of our grasp on reality so that children no longer know what is real and what is fake.

This criticism might have hurt media too much, so the "innoculation" actually protects media against this more serious criticism, just like an innoculation of a weaker virus protects an organism from a truly life-threatening virus.

We must protect media hegemony.

[Shannonnn]

It's a mess of power, money and manipulation. People will believe anything they hear from a well-dressed reporter. No one wants to listen to a 'crazy liberal' who tells them they're being lied to.

[Arcadian]

Just as a counter-example (and for something quite interesting to watch) here's a video of when Hannity & Colmes invited Christopher Hutchens on to speak about Jerry Falwell's death. Not sure how they envisioned the interview proceeding, but personally I think Hutchens proved too articulate for them, and too savvy to be railroaded the usual way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKkOSMaTk4&mode=related&search=

That's also something that must be remembered in this discussion: it's not just the inability of the guest that makes the "news" so one-sided. Usually the host has a lot of power in allowing viewpoints to come to the fore, or not. So when someone with an opposing view is scoring big points, the host has the ability to cut him off, and vice versa for someone who the host supports.

[KurtFF8]

it's not just the inability of the guest that makes the "news" so one-sided.

Well that isn't my claim. Of course there are many factors that go into it, I just decided to point this one out as I don't think it gets that much attention.

So when someone with an opposing view is scoring big points, the host has the ability to cut him off, and vice versa for someone who the host supports.

Maybe for a talking point show like the O'Rilley Factor, but I'm talking more generally, even on the shows that are just there to report the news.