Results 1 to 22 of 22
Thread: Media bias
09-10-2008, 02:37 PM #1
Im not really into politics very much and I dont discuss it because I wouldnt know what Im talking about...but I defintely want to develop some more extensive thoughts on it for the upcoming elections, and I thought Id start with just recognizing well-known biases that are out there. Not to discredit, but just to have all of the facts and angles (or as many as possible).
Im not sure if any of the following have biases but from what I hear and read some of the following seem to always side one way or another
anyone other individuals of note? Wolf Blitzer?
NYTimes, USAToday? Washington Post?
I just feel like I want to know the obvious ones- that both sides would agree are for one side or anotherDecisions Decisions
09-10-2008, 02:53 PM #2
09-10-2008, 02:58 PM #3
WTF do you need the media for?
Go to mccain's site, see what he's for
Go to obama's site, see what he's for
pick the one you like the best."It is not the result that counts! It is not the result but the spirit! Not what - but how. Not what has been attained - but at what price.
- A. Solzhenitsyn
09-10-2008, 05:07 PM #4
Well I sure am glad you left Kieth Olbermann off your list. He's completely unbiased and a really great journalist as well.
09-11-2008, 08:45 AM #5
I just want to have some sort of filter so I can rationalize what people are saying and whyDecisions Decisions
09-11-2008, 08:57 AM #6
http://www.votesmart.org/index.htm (includes some voting and some issue group ratings)
Regardless, the candidate's statements on the issues are generally indicative of how they will govern. If you have a clear preference on any particular issue then it will be obvious from the issue statements which candidate is preferable to you."It is not the result that counts! It is not the result but the spirit! Not what - but how. Not what has been attained - but at what price.
- A. Solzhenitsyn
09-11-2008, 09:35 AM #7
Mass media networks do not report the news. They stir the pot. Netflix "NETWORK" before you put any stock into what the talking heads have to say. 99% of the TV/radio/print media market is controlled by big business, whose interests are profits, not an informed public. If you are going to watch the cable news anyway, just don't take it as worth anything more than the chuckle or hard-on it may give you.
Even high-brow, edumacated-man news outlets like The Economist and BBC have their sympathies. BBC is a mouthpiece of the Brit government and reports to promote those interests. Economist will promote free markets uber alles.
Learn to filter out the subtext."My geode must be acknowledged"
09-11-2008, 10:37 AM #8Decisions Decisions
09-11-2008, 11:27 AM #9
You could argue a liberalish bias (mostly only seen by Amurikans - which says as much about them as it does the BBC) and we can debate the recent Hutton report findings, although the reaction and changes in light of that are evidence against your point.
But mouthpiece and promoting interests of? Really? There are several British Prime ministers who've lost their job in no small part because of the tough time that BBC journalists have given them in interviews.
Ask Gordon Brown if the Today program or Jeremy Paxman ever feel like his puppets.
Last edited by PNWbrit; 09-11-2008 at 11:30 AM. Reason: fat fingered iPhoneing
09-11-2008, 11:42 AM #10
I watched "Weapons of Mass Deception" last night. Give 'er a shot.The greatest effort is not concerned with results.
09-11-2008, 12:24 PM #11
All these major news outlets are staffed by "students of journalism". I don't see a point here. I think if you talk to historians and media examiners you may get a different perspective.
I'm not trying to vilify the BBC, or paint them as puppet to whomever runs Parliament at a given time, nor would I put them in the same company as Fox News or The Washington Times (more like CNN). However, they are a worldwide news organization of huge influence.
I suppose I misspoke in the accusation that they are a mouthpiece of government (more like British interests). It would be more accurate to say that they choose what to report, and perhaps more importantly what NOT to report, and how it will be reported. They also have well known links to British Intelligence, who are not exactly a disinterested party in the geopolitical scene.
I'm sure there are many reports written on the influence of the BBC on world affairs, and probably room for many more. But thats not my goal so I'll just finish by saying I believe their news broadcasts do more than just report the facts, there are toes upon which they do not step, and there are those toes upon which they stomp. I wouldn't give them any more credit than any other major news outlet."My geode must be acknowledged"
09-11-2008, 12:44 PM #12
Don't confuse discussing an "opinion" with "reporting the news". Most of the shows on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. are "Opinion" shows and not the news. As a result the opinions will reflect those of the mouth piece or the owner of that station. So yes, it will be biased, inflammatory, purposefully ignorant and unbalanced - whatever is needed to support the opinion of the host or owner and to create an entertaining show.
Those are all Commentators not true news journalists that you listed.
As others noted, it's not that hard to form your own opinion. Obama's plan is fully outlined on his site. All issues covered with measurable goals bounded by time. McCain has his position on the issues. A bit more vague than Obama's but it's there. It's pretty easy to fact check any claims made by the candidates or these op-ed morons.
Unfortunately, most are too blissful in their ignorance or prejudice to look a little deeper.
Last edited by Bullet; 09-11-2008 at 12:52 PM.
09-11-2008, 12:51 PM #13
Bias has always been a problem... blatant partisanship and the trend towards infotainment instead of news seems to be the biggest growing problem now. All sides are guilty.Originally Posted by blurred
09-11-2008, 01:39 PM #14
Last edited by peterslovo; 09-11-2008 at 01:43 PM."A local is just a dirtbag who can't get his shit together enough to travel."
- Owl Chapman
09-11-2008, 02:29 PM #15
Last edited by PNWbrit; 09-11-2008 at 02:31 PM.
09-11-2008, 03:38 PM #16worm turn
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
The idea of liberal media bias is one of the greatest successes of the Karl Rove school of Republicanism.
Journalism is an inherently liberal activity in that it involves asking awkward questions, which is generally not good for the power-that-be, and definitely not good if you're defending faith-based ideas like invading Iraq, creationism, or trickle-down economics.
But for mainstream media, that edge is blunted by the need of the big (for-profit) corporations that own media outlets to please their most profitable advertisers, which tend to be other large, established (ie conservative) businesses. This leads to infotainment noise and softball interviews (ie Larry King).
In the end, it doesn't matter if the news operation leans liberal or conservative, as long as they do the job: corroborate quotes, check the record, ask difficult and precise questions, print retractions when they're wrong, etc.
TV is 99% noise of course, and if you buy the idea that the NYT, Wash Post, etc. are a liberal conspiracy rather than just occasionally incompetent, there are still a few places to find really good centrist journalism, and more thoughtful analysis than party-line op-eds- hint: it might take a while to read, and the conclusions will probably include the things that political operatives and corporate PR guys really hate- shades of gray, qualifications, nuance, complexity, etc.
Christian Science Monitor- (not run by the religious group) has very well-regarded work, especially international events.
The Atlantic is about the only remaining center-right media outlet in the U.S. that includes actual adult thought.
The Economist certainly is coming from a specific perspective which is a kind of conservative... but it's a good perspective to have whether you're conservative or liberal. And it's a hard to picture the BBC as an establishment lap-dog when it's the product of an essentially socialist broadcast media policy, and as a massive and diversified global organization that's publicly accountable, it's probably pretty hard to manipulate...
09-11-2008, 03:52 PM #17
There's something hysterically retarded about using a movie to support your argument for a biased media.
09-11-2008, 04:00 PM #18
09-11-2008, 06:28 PM #19
It's impossible not to have bias, to have some sort of base perspective to come from. Simply choosing what you are going to report on, even if you don't hold some sort of opinion within the piece, inherently demonstrates bias. Now, there are appropriate ways to report to diminish the effect of your bias. Using language that is not accusatory, not name-calling, and is open to discourse with others is a positive way of using bias. Knowing there is a differing point of you, presenting both sides of an argument, etc. This is why I try to read different articles from different kinds of sources (particularly for the stuff that I'm most interested in, because it is hard to do this for everything), and I look for stuff that tries to be centered and unbiased as much as possible. It's also good to check the "about us" information in periodicals and web pages to see where the publishers are coming from, usually there is some kind of statement of political affiliation, purpose, or perspective.
I always liked Zinn's quote "You can't be neutral on a moving train". One of the reasons I like reading Zinn is that he is very candid about his bias towards working people.Ride Fast, Live slow.
We're mountain people. This is what we do, this is how we live. -D.C.
09-11-2008, 08:22 PM #20Registered User
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
sort of related.
i watched O'reily's interview with Obama the other day, and was pretty impressed with both sides.
that being said, Bill still wins biggest douche awardPreserving farness, nearness presences nearness in nearing that farness
09-12-2008, 07:08 AM #21
I'd just like to thank those who decided to come to my website to get the most up to date, unbiased, uncut, clear plans that I have for this great country of ours.
I can't say that I've ever seen a "liberal media bias" so I wont comment on that.
What I can say is that through this great process of becoming the democrat nominee, I've been given very fair treatment from the media.Originally Posted by Barack H. Obama
09-12-2008, 03:13 PM #22PeterPan11 Guest
Humans are biased. No way to avoid that.
Fox News doesn't even try, however.