|
|
|
|
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 3/28/2007 2:51:06 PM | Every day on Faux "news" and the endless cattle call of right-wing loonies polluting the radio airwaves, all you hear is "the liberal media". That's there people's excuse for everything! My challenge to everyone out there in POF land is this: Give me an Honest-To-God example of how the media has a liberal bias. Some rules:
1-"Because they do. You know it" is NOT an acceptable answer.
2-Be specific. "They love Clinton and hate Bush" is also not an acceptable answer unless you can supply specific details.
3-Please don't waste everyone's time with "Rush/Sean/O'Reilly said.....". They are entertainers first and foremost. They are NOT serious journalists.
4-Try not to be TOO insulting. Let's keep this as civil as possible.
Thanks,folks. Can't wait to read the responses. | |
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 3/28/2007 3:38:27 PM | In all honesty, I don't think the media has either a liberal or conservative bias. As the networks have consolidated, the news has become like every other reality show on TV. The news has become another form of "infotainment" as some people call it, as there are few stories with any substance any more.
The real crime with Fox News, is that they started the current trend. There are hundreds of other stories they don't cover simply because they don't think their viewers would find it interesting. That's why you have such sophomoric journalism, especially when you focus on the latest thing that Brittany Spears has done or the idiotic "War on Christmas" series that Fox has run during the last two Christmas seasons.
Consider what this does to democracy. People in a democracy can't make an intelligent decision if they don't know the facts.
It's a crying shame.... | |
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 3/28/2007 4:17:30 PM | | archer216,my friend, you get it. The media itself isn't biased one way or the other. We all watch the news and form our own opinions. Those who claim "liberal bias" or "conservative bias" are just upset that a story dosen't jibe with their personal philosiphies. Fox decided they wanted to aim for a more conservative demographic, as MSNBC went the other way and catered to the liberal demographic. Network news isn't biased one way or the other. They have so much to report in a very short amount of time, they couldn't work bias in even if they wanted to. | |
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 3/28/2007 4:27:49 PM | Synopsis: Orwell Rolls In His Grave
Director Robert Kane Pappas’ ORWELL ROLLS IN HIS GRAVE is the consummate critical examination of the Fourth Estate, once the bastion of American democracy. Asking whether America has entered an Orwellian world of doublespeak where outright lies can pass for the truth, Pappas explores what the media doesn’t like to talk about: itself.
Meticulously tracing the process by which media has distorted and often dismissed actual news events, Pappas presents a riveting and eloquent mix of media professionals and leading intellectual voices on the media.
Among the cast of characters in ORWELL ROLLS IN HIS GRAVE are Charles Lewis, director of the Center for Public Integrity, Vincent Bugliosi, former L.A. prosecutor and legal scholar, film director and author Michael Moore, Rep. Bernie Sanders, Danny Schecter, author and former producer for ABC and CNN, and Tony Benn, former member of the British Parliament.
ORWELL ROLLS IN HIS GRAVE provides a vital forum for ideas that will never be heard in mainstream media. From Globalvision’s Danny Schecter: “We falsely think of our country as a democracy when it has evolved into a mediacracy – where a media that is supposed to check political abuse is part of the political abuse.” New York University media professor Mark Crispin Miller says, “These commercial entities now vie with the government for control over our lives. They are not a healthy counterweight to government. Goebbels said that what you want in a media system – he meant the Nazi media system - is to present the ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity.”
From the very size of the media monopolies and how they got that way to who decides what gets on the air and what doesn’t, ORWELL ROLLS IN HIS GRAVE moves through a troubling list of questions and news stories that go unanswered and unreported in the mainstream media. Are Americans being given the information a democracy needs to survive or have they been electronically lobotomized? Has the frenzy for media consolidation led to a dangerous irony where in an era of more news sources the majority of the population has actually become less informed?
ORWELL ROLLS IN HIS GRAVE reminds us that 1984 is no longer a date in the future.
The media is currently owned by the wealthy ultra-conservative elite who own and control everything else in America. What do you suppose they are doing with it? | |
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 3/28/2007 7:41:37 PM | Media is definatly biased, it has to be. it is almost impossible for people to be completly subjective, so when an editor or group of editors determine which of the thousands of daily stories will be covered in their limited space than their preconcieved ideas of what is important or relevant will determine what gets played or printed. The media is also a consumer product and audiences have bias. A media outlet must reflect that bias or at least shape it or it will soon run out of customers.
determining liberal or right wing bias is not as easy as giving a specific example, you must look at the stories that the media outlet publishes over a course of time, longer than 1 day and then determine the social or political view that the institution generally leans towards. The New York Times for example is sometimes seen as an example of the "liberal media", if you follow their coverage and editorial space over a longer period of time however it appears that they clearly support a very conservative world view, especially concering US foreign policy. Acusations of bias are usually thrown out by those who are angered by coverage of stories which may not reflect their own personal worldview. | |
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 3/28/2007 11:11:12 PM | Yes, Journalism is a consumer product, now.
It didn't used to be that way.
Back in my old College days I was a Journalism major for a couple of years. We were taught that journalists could not be completely impartial, but they were supposed to at least, give it a try.
Before Ronald Regan, there was an FCC regulation called the Fairness Doctrine.
The airwaves are owned by the public. A broadcaster leases the wave band from the Government and doing so carries a responsibility to the public interest, for the privilege of using it. It used to be, that radio and TV stations had a duty to give opposing viewpoints an opportunity to air their side. That is, until Regan came along.
The Reganites figured a broadcaster shouldn't have to worry about such things as fairness and they got rid of the Fairness Doctrine. This is why today, instead of music, the AM band is wallpapered with religious and pro-corporate right wing pabulum.
There really isn't a right or left wing bias, but rather a corporate bias.
Conservatism has ceased to be a political theory and has become a franchise system of selling ideas as consumable products, like Mc Donalds does hamburgers.
Listen to Rush Limbaugh for a while and notice how easily he changes his opinions depending on business conditions. Rush's flag waves in what ever direction the corporate wind blows. | |
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 3/29/2007 12:51:12 AM | The three most absurd things I have seen in recent years by media:
1) Presidential Coverage by Dan Rather -- I flipped around the stations and everyone else had most of the states counted while DR sat their like an idiot so stubbornly jaded that he would not even count the states that did not align with his personal politics. I never trusted them for news ever again. Blatently biased, that is not "news".
2) Don Shelby -- Putting down David Milch's latest primetime cop show because there was 9 minutes of violence meanwhile this mommy--a-s-s--kissing hypocrite LEADS most every newscast with blood. I wonder if any other viewers notice he did not THAT night but did so just the very next night? In my eyes Don Shelby just shot himself in the foot. Too bad he missed his head.
3) First report of princess diana's tragedy as just a broken arm.
Now the last one is not the fault of the news but the other ones are and they are exactly the reasons I can't stand them anymore. I listen to the hour long news shows usually as the short attention span stuff rarely leaves me fulfilled like I heard any real news.
Listen to talk radio, particularly on the war, it is an absolute night and day difference. Yes, the tv news media is jaded and it has been proven beyond any doubt. The problem is so many naive people buy into their emotional manipulation of the public that they do not look for better, more accurate sources. Most of it is designed to make people feel bad. Some people realized this, complained, and the tv news appeased them by now closing with one ultra short "feel good" story which is more an insult to intelligence and their own integrity! Not to mention an open announcement that they are too biased to even know what the definition of NEWS and MEDIA are.
Beyond that all I can say is that I am glad I am not a parent. I would be horrified by the amount of irrational fear they target at a parents mind. It's a recipe for a breakdown, or at the very least a neurotic behavior. | |
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 3/29/2007 12:55:13 AM | Proof is easily dismissed by the same people who can't see the forest for the trees.
*****************
Some rules:
1-"Because they do. You know it" is NOT an acceptable answer.
2-Be specific. "They love Clinton and hate Bush" is also not an acceptable answer unless you can supply specific details.
3-Please don't waste everyone's time with "Rush/Sean/O'Reilly said.....". They are entertainers first and foremost. They are NOT serious journalists.
4-Try not to be TOO insulting. Let's keep this as civil as possible.
******************
Your "rule" # 3 pretty much makes YOUR position 0bvious and hence biased to begin with. It is therefore irrelevant what YOU think of those guys when you asked the original question. You can't have it both ways. "What do you think?" and then slap qualifiers on what anybody can say. Nonsense!
Therefore
MANY consider your villains to be good investigative reporters and journalists. One GREAT example is ... O'reilly is probably the number ONE factor in getting Jessica's Law passed in most states around the nation. It was brought in to take the choices away from idiot judges who thought child rape and murder was pretty much ok with them. Many of your, no doubt fav. papers and editorials have knocked O'Reilly for the pressure he has put on some states and judges for their ludicrous sentencing. YOU may, by inference (allowed BOTH ways here) consider kiddie porn, child rape and murder a wholesome past-time but some don't. MOST don't. If O'Reilly's an "entertainer" it bodes ill of the mainstream journalists who SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE ONES pushing for the states to pass protective laws like Jessica's. But they weren't. On the contrary.
Sean has done some GREAT work on the border fiasco. Yes, he drives around with Border Patrol guys and his reports "from the scene" are entertainment but they are also pointing out the idiocy and DANGERS of our border / ILLEGAL alien policies.
Are you suggesting that the pundits who write for the NY Times and some of the other Bush or America bashers are any more objective and centrist than your villains are, rightists? The fact is both sides tend to tell us what to think these days rather than present the facts and let US decide. Most of us have been slowly pushed into a herd mentality. We are told what to think. We are expected to forget facts that may not sit well with a new direction. We are told complete BS and most of us suck it up as fact. Our society has been dumbed down and our media and education system is mostly to blame. The ones who watch it and kknow what's happening are no longer of sufficient numbers to stop it so it just gets worse and worse.
One stat I remember that pretty much sums up where MOST media are entrenched politically is the pre-election "vote" or poll taken by the Harvard and Columbia Schools of Journalism just prior to Reagan getting 87% of the public vote. Students and post grads voted slightly under 6% in favor of the man. If that doesn't indicate a completely one sided view of how the political process is portrayed by our "unbiased" media I don't know what does.
In Canada there is an independent body that watches news broadcasts leading up to an election. News reports are SUPPOSED to be unbiased and equal coverage. Typically the reports show a 12 to 1 bias in favor of the left wing Liberals. In some cases equal time IS devoted to both candidates however it isn't unusual to show one candidate talking with mothers (I feel your pain) and a vid of equal length showing the other candidate falling off his bike or jamming a finger up his nose. Sound familiar? Subtle. Not even recognized for what it is by many but very telling if you still have a few IQ points left and can think for yourself.
Bush #1 was portrayed by many media types as a "wimp." Much of the US was stunned later while watching a cable documentary of Bush as one of the youngest FIGHTER PILOTS in the Pacific during WW2. Wimp and fighter pilot rarely show in the same sentence but that didn't stop various media describing him that way while writing in glowingest of terms about a pot-smoking draft dodger with a horribly tainted tenure as a state Gov.
Nope, No hint of bias there either.
Major world events? That's simple too. Clinton followed the advice of a few who had "agendas" and withOUT UN approval (they were busy hand wringing as usual) he bombed Belgrade for 29 days. He's a fµ¢king hero.
Bush followed the advice of almost EVERY Intel agency in the world including Russian, German, British, French and Egyptian as well as a bunch of senior Iraqi defectors who said Saddam did have WMD projects ongoing. He gave up waiting for the UN to enforce their own 17 (SEVENTEEN) resolutions and bombed Baghdad. He's a lyin villain.
Personally I bellieve ALL politicians are lyin scum, bought and paid for by various big business or special interest groups with mega-budgets, so insulated by their handlers that they remind me of the Hollowood pond scum who grew up in a trailer park but after making millions consider themselves geo-political experts with some kind of God given right to travel the world saying anything that enters their vacuous heads because they are incapable of understanding WTF is happening in the world anyway. They ALL have agendas that are far more to do with "FOR them" issues than the citizens they swore to protect and lead in a wise and balanced fashion.
But "is there left wing bias in the press?" Ahahahaha ... my answer is a resounding #ONE. | |
|
Jemue
|
Joined: 1/26/2005
Msg: 9 | |
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 3/29/2007 1:01:33 AM | All things are some what bias as long as people are involved, with what ever good intention, its just a case of how much, and if its an unacceptable amount.
Though the people you are asking to prove that it is, believe it is regardless of proof, same argument for religion, dissolve yourself of reason and explanation and stick with what you know, because questioning anything shakes the foundations of how we/they/use believe the world is.
It's about defining their world and what the believe, so for the proof doesn't matter, "white is black and black is white, tell me other wise and your a liar". | |
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 3/29/2007 3:30:08 AM | Turn on the AM radio anytime.
What do I hear?
Only Liberal spew, Rush, Hannity, Savage, Bennett...others
they all are talking about the same THING.......
The liberal Bias is the Big Lie of our time.
The words of Tom Delay, on all the liberal media???
He accused the Liberal media of ruining his leadership.
..............................
Media Matters for America
Thu, Jul 20, 2006 2:58pm EST
Third time's not the charm: Sunday-morning talk shows still imbalanced
Summary: In Media Matters' third examination of guest appearances on ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and NBC's Meet the Press, research demonstrated that Republicans and conservatives outnumbered Democrats and progressives from April to June of 2006.
On February 14, Media Matters for America released a comprehensive study analyzing the guest appearances on ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and NBC's Meet the Press from 1997 through 2005. In April, Media Matters released an update to that study, analyzing the shows for the first quarter of 2006. In both reports, the results demonstrated that Republicans and conservatives dominated on all three Sunday shows. Media Matters has now completed an analysis of the second quarter of 2006, April through June, and the key conclusions reached in the first two studies remain unchanged.
Republicans and conservatives outnumber Democrats and progressives. More conservative journalists appear than progressive journalists. Panels are more likely to be imbalanced toward the right than toward the left. Republicans and conservatives are given more solo interviews. In short, the title we gave to our original study -- "If It's Sunday, It's Conservative" -- remains true.
In the second quarter, the Sunday-morning programs continued to host more Republicans and conservatives than Democrats and progressives. Across all three shows, Republicans and conservatives made 66 appearances, compared with 48 appearances by Democrats and progressives.
First-quarter results:
Second-quarter results:
On each show, Republicans and conservatives outnumbered Democrats and progressives in total guest appearances. Face the Nation featured nearly twice as many Republicans and conservatives as Democrats and progressives during the second quarter. That disparity was in line with the findings from the first quarter, which showed that 47 percent of the show's guests were Republicans and conservatives, while only 32 percent were Democrats and progressives. Compared with the first quarter, Meet the Press showed improvement in the second quarter; however, the program still hosted more Republicans and conservatives than Democrats and progressives.
Elected officials and members of the Bush administration
The discrepancy between the number of appearances by elected Democrats and the number of appearances by elected Republicans or members of the Bush administration has stayed roughly the same since the release of Media Matters' initial study, although there was variation between the shows. While former administration officials of either party are not included in the charts below, an imbalance would exist even if we included only the three former Clinton administration officials who each made one appearance during this period (John Podesta on Face the Nation, Dee Dee Myers on Meet the Press, and Al Gore on This Week). Overall, elected and administration Republicans outnumbered elected Democrats by a considerable margin in the second quarter. Again, Face the Nation displayed an increase from the first-quarter findings. Meanwhile, This Week's results stayed roughly the same from the previous quarter. Meet the Press made strides toward greater balance in this category, closing the gap somewhat compared with its poor first-quarter performance.
First-quarter results:
Second-quarter results:
Journalists
For guest appearances by journalists, the split between neutrals, progressives, and conservatives was roughly the same as in the previous quarter.
First-quarter results:
Second-quarter results:
This Week had the same proportion of conservative to progressive journalists as in the first quarter of 2006 -- a ratio of 2-to-1. Meet the Press hosted more neutral journalists during the second quarter, while hosting three conservatives and two progressives (compared with four conservatives and two progressives in the first quarter). As in the first quarter, Face the Nation hosted one more conservative than progressive (one to zero in the first quarter, and two to one in the second). As was the case in our previous studies, This Week showed some of the greatest disparities, in large part because conservative columnist George F. Will participates in every panel discussion and is often joined by another conservative. But in every case -- as in the first quarter of 2006 and our original study covering 1997-2005 -- progressive journalists lose out.
Panel composition
During the second quarter of 2006, more panels skewed to the right than to the left overall than in the previous quarter.
First-quarter results:
Second-quarter results:
Meet the Press, in particular, took a step backward; the disparity between right-leaning panels and left-leaning panels nearly doubled from the first quarter, from 21 percent to 14 percent in favor of Republicans/conservatives, to 38 percent to 8 percent. This Week had roughly the same proportion of right-leaning panels to left-leaning panels as during the first quarter. Face the Nation improved from its first-quarter showing, this time having all panels balanced.
Solo interviews
During the first quarter of 2006, Meet the Press showed a large disparity between Republicans/conservatives and Democrats/progressives in solo interviews -- 75 percent to 17 percent. During the second quarter of 2006, Meet the Press reversed that showing, interviewing twice as many Democrats/progressives (six) as Republicans/conservatives (three). While the Meet the Press' first- and second-quarter results taken together still favor Republicans/conservatives (52 percent Republican/conservative, 35 percent Democratic/progressive, and 13 percent neutral), the second-quarter results appear to be a step in the direction of balanced guest appearances over longer periods of time. Once again, This Week's results were similar to the previous quarter's. Face the Nation, on the other hand, showed a large increase in disparity, again favoring Republicans and conservatives. In the previous quarter, Republicans/conservatives were given 50 percent of solo interviews, while Democrats/progressives were given 32 percent. During the second quarter, the disparity increased -- 60 percent of solo interviews went to Republicans/conservatives, while only 7 percent went to Democrats/progressives.
First-quarter results:
Second-quarter results:
Conclusion
The results we have presented here demonstrate that the three major networks' Sunday-morning talk shows continue to favor Republican and conservative voices over Democratic and progressive ones. They also suggest that the three programs in question have done little to address the overt imbalance in guest appearances.
While Meet the Press had better results during the second quarter, Face the Nation showed increases in pro-Republican disparities in a number of categories, including overall guests, elected and administration officials, and solo interviews. This Week displayed little improvement, showing roughly the same results from the first quarter of 2006.
The question still stands, and the networks have yet to answer it: Media Matters asks these networks whether a significant Republican/conservative tilt in the guest lists of Meet the Press, This Week, and Face the Nation serves the public interest of balanced political discourse.
—R.M.S. | |
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 3/29/2007 5:15:33 AM | | It is far worse than just an entertainment product...it is Propotainment and arguably the single most important mind control machine on the planet. It pretends to be journalism when it is all centrally manipulated propoganda. We need to recreate the entire estate from the ground up. | |
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 3/29/2007 5:59:29 AM | the tv news media is jaded and it has been proven beyond any doubt
I cannot speak for others but i would love to review that 'proof'. Where can I find it? | |
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 3/29/2007 6:36:10 AM | Is it just me, or did DAVE 632 imply that anyone who disagrees with O'Reilly supports child rape?
Dave, the problem with your analogy, that the general media "SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE ONES pushing" laws like Jessica's law proves your inability to understand news. News does not tell us how to act or what to believe- News simply reports, and allows you to, hopefully, view the issue intelligently and come to a conclusion. News is not and should never be a means to push a political ideology or belief.
Think of it this way- the reason the first amendment includes freedom of press isn't a fluke- the media does not exist to protect us from our own judgments- it exists to help protect us from abusive Governments, and their judgments. Some are harsher on certain Governments than others, but at the end of the day, the media's ultimate goal isn't to push laws or help us be better people- its to report the facts, and let society make the necessary changes based on these facts.
And because of intermixing politics and the media, we now have the current national problems.
One stat I remember that pretty much sums up where MOST media are entrenched politically is the pre-election "vote" or poll taken by the Harvard and Columbia Schools of Journalism just prior to Reagan getting 87% of the public vote. Students and post grads voted slightly under 6% in favor of the man. If that doesn't indicate a completely one sided view of how the political process is portrayed by our "unbiased" media I don't know what does.
How 'bout a source?
Bush followed the advice of almost EVERY Intel agency in the world including Russian, German, British, French and Egyptian as well as a bunch of senior Iraqi defectors who said Saddam did have WMD projects ongoing. He gave up waiting for the UN to enforce their own 17 (SEVENTEEN) resolutions and bombed Baghdad. He's a lyin villain.
Do you honestly believe that if the Iraq War/Occupation ended in 29 days and the troops came home after that, that there would be as many objections?
Dude, you're comparing a month of bombing to, as of this point, 48 months of occupation. Your analogy just doesn't hold up....
Not to mention many reports have shown that President Bush's Administration pushed their intelligence agencies to present outright lies, as well as reporting to the public information they have been TOLD is a lie.
And, lastly, I don't think anyone believes Former President Clinton is a hero for his actions in Belgrade. Ask any Clinton supporter, and chances are they've never heard of Belgrade, let alone admire him for that. | |
|
e-wok
|
Joined: 9/25/2006
Msg: 14 | |
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 3/29/2007 6:36:23 AM | When most of the media is owned by defence contractors (no lie), I
would find it hard to believe it comes close to that bias. Even
Air America went bankrupt. So, the money is with entertaining
the barbarians....the media is one big info-mercial selling you
on a war. Only when the truth eventually rears it's head, the
media tries to ask for forgiveness by ACTING all liberal and shit....I'm
not buying. | |
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 3/29/2007 7:23:54 AM | If the media was truly liberally biased, this President would have never been elected for his second term. The softball questions he was thrown, the lack of critical commentary when he made statements that could be easily tracked and verified all make it quite obvious that the press served the needs of the President and this administration before it served the nation's citizens.
Most talking heads are members of the same aristocracy that has a great say in how the nation is run. They send their children to the same private schools, are members of the same clubs, live in the same gated communities, make salaries that place them among the top earners in your society, and work for companies that are corporations with ties to this same administration.
They realize that not carrying the company line will quickly get you struggling to get hired to be the replacement weatherman at the local Peoria TV station. 
Imagine a world were an Edward R. Murrow was alive, and realize the great difference in how this presidency would have been handled.
When the East Asia Security Act was being voted on, the initial vote would have passed it. When the various defence lobbies started to make direct calls to politicians (who were on the House floor at the time), those votes were CHANGED.
Live on C-Span....
The final vote was strongly against it.
This was a bill that would have been good for America's security. It was a bill that the President himself stood strongly for.
No one, except Lou Dobbs, mentioned that politicians( both parties , btw) had (in effect) been bought off and voted against a bill that would have made America safer.
It's the greatest story never told, and the proof you need to see the myth of the liberal media blown out of the water once and for all. | |
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 3/29/2007 7:37:15 AM | | There has been a mainstream mass media blackout on real questions concerning 911. It matter not if the questions in the end turn out to be valid...the important thing is the fact that he issue/isuues are not open for examination. Think on that. They have done an amazing job controlling the media in general and providing awesome misdirection in terms of making it seem like left and right and causing debate. The differences in the offered sides matter not...the real issue is that they control the agenda, what issues come out and are discussed and debated. The debate matters little in comparison to the issues selected. | |
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 4/27/2007 4:00:53 PM | | Mr. Knoxman I think the people on f-x news do not even know the true dictionary definition of liberal nor do the bomb throwing right wing talk show hosts . Thats how dumb I think these folks are and their sheep flock to them and mimic them .... but thats the thread I started lmao. I believe media is biased toward the right . Not one media outlet questioned this quagmire in Iraq leading up to the war . Scott Ritter was deemed irrelevent which is a damn shame . Thats enough proof right there that the media is not biased liberal or left . | |
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 4/27/2007 8:33:49 PM | Having read the posts so far here it seems like the only thing most agree on is that the media is biased in a direction opposite their own bias.
So therefore, as an optimist, I find the media not so much biased right or left (although there are ample examples of both) but biased toward consistently emphasizing bad news over good, sometimes manufacturing controversy where there is little.
Just one example of many:
A few years ago I helped organize a conference whose theme was the many links between environmental and economic health. Our keynote speaker was Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who made an eloquent and passionate case that what's good for the environment is good for the economy, and vice versa. Almost all participants in the event came away feeling far more optimistic about merging the two priorities than they started with.
But the reporter for the largest newspaper in the state covering the event cornered RFK Jr. after his speech and devoted his entire line of questioning to his take on the highly controversial practice of blasting mountaintops off to get at the coal underneath, a topic not even mentioned in his speech. RFK Jr. didn't think much of the practice, so the headlines the next day blared KENNEDY BLASTS MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL, with nary a mention of his actual address at the conference, or for that matter, the conference itself, other than that it was what brought Kennedy to the state.
At another event there was a panel of media representatives, and I asked the panel how we could get GOOD news on environmental progress reported on. They looked at each other in confusion, and finally one offered up "maybe pick a slow day for real news?"
I've been interviewed countless times over the years on a number of topics, not all relating to the environment. And I've been close to a number of other news events that were reported on. NEVER have I experienced a media outlet getting the story completely right. I'm not talking liberal or conservative. I'm just talking about simple facts like numbers, dates, the names of people or who was where when, what they did, who said what to whom. TV is consistently the least accurate, with public radio having the best track record. Other radio outlets and newspapers vary depending on the reporter.
Interestingly, about thirty years ago, a friend of mine had to be rescued from a mountain climbing expedition when bad weather came in and his insulin froze. He nearly died, the rescue was dramatic and heavily covered by radio, tv, newpapers, and magazines. They all made mistakes, but who did the most accurate job reporting the event? The National Enquirer. Go figure.
So I may be diverting the thread a bit, but I'll just offer this simple advice. Take WHATEVER you get from the media with a grain of salt. If it's political bias you're looking for, you can find it easy enough, in whichever direction will upset you the most. If it's accurate accounting you seek, good luck. And if you happen to share my belief that the ratio of good that happens in the world compared to bad is a whole lot higher than ever gets reported, you'll probably have to go do your own investigation and tell all your friends, unless it's a real slow day for 'real' news.
So there's an optimist's pessimistic view on neutral reporting.
Dave
| |
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 4/27/2007 10:49:41 PM |
The media itself isn't biased one way or the other
That's a terribly naive view.
As soon as you have a human processing information and deciding what to present and how to present it, you have bias no matter how objective they try to be - and very few of them seem to be trying very hard.
Liberals complain about the right-wing bias of the media; conservatives complain about the liberal bias of the media. Both sides cite numerous examples to support their case.
Dave hit the mark: NOTHING the media says should be trusted completely - they never give you the entire story.
To realize just how biased the American media is, compare what they present to what is being presented in overseas news shows and papers. SO much more information that somehow doesn't make it into the press here.
MiniTruth, indeed.
sv | |
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 4/28/2007 11:02:18 AM | The media is biased towards the easy story. Many years ago I noticed that most "news" stories in the paper were actually somebody whining about something. They hold a press conference, issue a release, or hold an event. Easy to cover. Look at how many "news" stories have been made out of Rosie and Donald sniping at each other. For that matter, look at how much coverage Donald gets every time he whines about Martha Stewart, gambling laws or anything else that focuses his tiny intellect. Combine this with "news" stories about attractive young women doing something Naughty (not wearing knickers, using drugs, or finding a new boyfriend), and 90% of the paper is filled.
Contrast this with the Lord's Army. I only heard about it on African radio out of South Africa until recently, and it's still buried on page 12 when it's covered at all. This is real news. But it would require someone picking up a phone and actually looking for information. So we don't hear about it. | |
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 5/13/2007 5:08:02 AM | | Halftime thats a good point . Everywhere you go , you have crappy customer service, workers doing 20 things for like 7 bucks an hr. Our society has gotten away from doing things correctly to doing things cheaply. Its unfortunate but it spills over into the media, and the 911 tragedy [thats another thread].Look at F-x making a news story out of saying Happy Holidays over Merry Xmas. On the realm of things , you know how ridiculous that is . | |
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 5/13/2007 7:29:04 AM | | Funny, every time I see fox news, they report both sides. How is that not fair? I watch and read news from multiple sources to get the full picture. All newspapers and media leave things out of a news story so its left up to us to put the pieces together. | |
|
NateC
|
Joined: 4/10/2006
Msg: 23 | |
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 5/13/2007 7:46:06 AM | Orwell Rolls in His Grave sounds interesting, but considering it has Michael Moore in it, and he's allowed to criticise the media, is a major concern. He's a known spin doctor himself; there's a documentary some of his former friends are putting together regarding this.
Because of such a major oversight, the credibility of that documentary is already damaged quite severely. Unless it's criticising him ;)
I'll wait until it rolls around to TMN on Demand.
However, I think that yes, there is a bias in the media, but rarely is it a liberal one. Anything even slightly leaning to the left is called "liberal" anyway, and anything slightly leaning to the right is "conservative"; it's Mudslinging V2.0 :P
The media bias will be dependent on who owns it, obviously. Rupert Murdoch is a neo-con, hence the reason why Fox has Bill O'Reilly as a regular instead of just once in awhile. Everyone's got an agenda to push. | |
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 5/13/2007 3:11:03 PM | Get the books,"Bias and Arrogance", by Bernard Goldberg. I have them both. Wonderful reads. www.bernardgoldberg.com/
Not only does he name the bias he proves it with literal examples. The media should report the news. Not make social policy or opinion. | |
|
| Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 5/13/2007 3:34:09 PM | The media should report the news. Not make social policy or opinion.
Even Edward R. Murrow, one of the more objective journalists in American history, would disagree that the media should be totally objective. Sometimes the media has an obligation to call into question social policy, especially when it's not just.
I can't prove crap, but I would venture a guess that the media is about 60% liberal and 40% conservative. When the media reports something that's worthy of reporting, I don't think they do a bad job, but a lot of the "news" isn't worthy of reporting. Heck, even NPR and the BBC report crap every now and then, and they make a real effort to remain unbiased.
They all made mistakes, but who did the most accurate job reporting the event? The National Enquirer. Go figure.
That's great! LOL! Should I believe what they say about Elvis now? ;) | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
