Media bias

**Brock Landers** · 09-10-2008, 02:37 PM

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

Bill OReilly
Chris Matthews
Tucker Carlson
Rush Limbaugh
anyone other individuals of note? Wolf Blitzer?

Also, television

FOXNews
NBC
CBS
ABC
MSNBC
CNN

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 another

**Tippster** · 09-10-2008, 02:53 PM

http://www.reuters.com/news/politics

http://factcheck.org/

No need to depend on TV. If you have to watch something make it the News Hour with Jim Lehrer on PBS. You'll have to devote more than half an ear and 5 minutes of attention, however.

**lemon boy** · 09-10-2008, 02:58 PM

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.

**Jer** · 09-10-2008, 05:07 PM

Well I sure am glad you left Kieth Olbermann off your list. He's completely unbiased and a really great journalist as well.

Holy fuck

**Brock Landers** · 09-11-2008, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by lemon boy

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.

I feel like both are career politicians and going to their site is just the same as listening to the same old lip service anyway. I want to know what theyve done in the past to back up what is on their website. I think it would be a little naive to simply look at each website, see how they make everything seem rosy under that candidate, and ignore any talk and discussion from others about what will actually work and what will actually be implemented.

I just want to have some sort of filter so I can rationalize what people are saying and why

**lemon boy** · 09-11-2008, 08:57 AM

http://www.factcheck.org/
http://www.votesmart.org/index.htm (includes some voting and some issue group ratings)
http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

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.

**Airsatz** · 09-11-2008, 09:35 AM

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.

**Brock Landers** · 09-11-2008, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Airsatz

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.

Thats what Im trying to do. I just like hearing different viewpoints and opinions on issues to gain a clearer, more practical understanding of how a plan would be implemented. Listening to these outlets gives me an opportunity to see a side of an issue I would otherwise not be exposed to. I just want to be able to filter it and decide for myself who is an idiot and who I believe in. Its not like I want to use Keith Olbermann's rants to define what I think of, I just would like to be able to take a look at what he is talking about and weed out the drivel and apply my own thoughts. I want to know what is drivel and what is a fact that wouldnt be reported on the McCain or Obama website.

**PNWbrit** · 09-11-2008, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Airsatz

BBC is a mouthpiece of the Brit government and reports to promote those interests.

I doubt you'd find a single legitimate, qualified student of journalism who'd support that claim.

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.

**NlytendOne** · 09-11-2008, 11:42 AM

I watched "Weapons of Mass Deception" last night. Give 'er a shot.

**Airsatz** · 09-11-2008, 12:24 PM

PNWbrit,

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.

**Bullet** · 09-11-2008, 12:44 PM

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.

**Summit** · 09-11-2008, 12:51 PM

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.

**peterslovo** · 09-11-2008, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Summit

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.

Heh, infotainment.

I posted this before in a different discussion, but fits perfectly here as well...sooo fitting.

**PNWbrit** · 09-11-2008, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Airsatz

I'm not trying to vilify the BBC, or paint them as puppet to whomever runs Parliament at a given time

Clearly...

Originally Posted by Airsatz

BBC is a mouthpiece of the Brit government

Originally Posted by Airsatz

nor would I put them in the same company as Fox News or The Washington Times

But then you did just that.

Originally Posted by Airsatz

I wouldn't give them any more credit than any other major news outlet.

Originally Posted by Airsatz

they choose what to report, and perhaps more importantly what NOT to report, and how it will be reported

Yeah. My guess is that It'd probably be slightly tricky to run a worldwide news agency that didn't do this?

**H-wood** · 09-11-2008, 03:38 PM

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...

**Tippster** · 09-11-2008, 03:52 PM

There's something hysterically retarded about using a movie to support your argument for a biased media.

**Jer** · 09-11-2008, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Tippster

There's something hysterically retarded about using a movie to support your argument for a biased media.

That's a bit caustic and even rude, don't you think? I wonder what Rusty Nailz would have to say about such behavior on his interwebz?

**jon turner** · 09-11-2008, 06:28 PM

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.

**nick > jesus** · 09-11-2008, 08:22 PM

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 award

**Barack H. Obama** · 09-12-2008, 07:08 AM

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.

PeterPan11 · 09-12-2008, 03:13 PM

Humans are biased. No way to avoid that.

Fox News doesn't even try, however.

login area

Featured Resorts

Thread: Media bias

Media bias

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

Most Recent Video

Most Recent Blog

Most Recent Photo

Home

Ski

Snowboard

Bike

Surf

Travel

Gear

Shop

Company