today's media bias

[ThatRobGuy]

You do realize this quote has been taken out of context, right?

So is it just coincidence that his actions and decisions fall in line with what he said?

 

[EdwinWillers]

So is it just coincidence that his actions and decisions fall in line with what he said?

He doesn't mean to do what he does either; we're misinterpreting that, and taking it out of context as well.

 

[NightHawkeye]

He doesn't mean to do what he does either; we're misinterpreting that, and taking it out of context as well.

Exactly!

It's the perceived purity of intentions that matters. The fetid smell of corrupt results is of no concern.

 

[EdwinWillers]

It's the perceived purity of intentions that matters. The fetid smell of corrupt results is of no concern.

Yup. There is no "context" for the latter, only the former.

 

[TerranceL]

You do realize this quote has been taken out of context, right?

Let me guess, you expected them to quote the whole speech?

 

[stiggywiggy]

What liberal media? Only by the standard of "not incredibly right equals leftist," which is faulty. But let's keep Camus' comment in mind: it isn't what people believe that's important, but why they believe what they do. Likewise, media corporations are by definition right-wing in their motivation given the profit motive that has consequently resulted in the sensationalizing, "conflictizing", and therefore dumbing down of what passes for news, all for the sake of a profit motive. The problem of the media isn't a liberal bias; it's a problem of capitalism being itself in areas it isn't best fit to be.

Speaking of Camus' comment, I think you inadvertently demonstrated the essential underlying "why" of your own belief and of the belief of many like-minded liberals. You put theory over practice, or more accurately theory in lieu of observance. You put Camus' ideas, or your interpetation of them, over actually observing news anchors and hearing what they say. Was it Camus who planted the erroneous idea in your head that capitalism is inherently right-wing?

Camus is a fine philosopher, my favorite among agnostics, but using him to gauge a political spectrum seems as fruitless as using Euclid to measure musical talent.

You assume the "why" of the news media's existence is to "make a profit," and you're probably right, since I'd hardly think they would be the one anomalous corporate entity that did NOT define profit as goal. But to assume that they have calculated that the best way to do this, is to appeal to the masses via a right-wing slant of the news is apparently not true, since we don't see that happening, but quite the opposite.

I think too may "journalists" in the mainstream media are trying to cultivate an image of themelves as Edward R. Murrow or something. They must have a furrowed brow to give them gravitas, and everyone knows that a liberal outlook on life can't help but furrow one's brow. They feel their mission is not simply to relay the news to people, but to instruct the people on the proper political outlook in which to view the events of the news.

But that's what happens when the bulk of one's education about current events is received in places like the faculty lounge, as opposed to the actual world in which those events occur. Pretty boys with gleaming teeth no longer read us the news. We have serious Instructors who can speak with nuance.

 

[Received]

Speaking of Camus' comment, I think you inadvertently demonstrated the essential underlying "why" of your own belief and of the belief of many like-minded liberals. You put theory over practice, or more accurately theory in lieu of observance. You put Camus' ideas, or your interpetation of them, over actually observing news anchors and hearing what they say. Was it Camus who planted the erroneous idea in your head that capitalism is inherently right-wing?

Theory in lieu of observance? Observation is meaningless without a theory to make the observation meaningful. I completely understand your intention in claiming that journalists are really liberal these days; part of the problem with this is that liberal/conservative are reflexive terms that don't necessarily (but should) take into consideration historical precedents where these terms meant something completely different. You know, fifty years ago the popular conservatives of the times were more liberal than the liberals of today. You could actually make that point in many justifiable ways with regard to Reagan's track record in comparison with Obama's. I'm simply looking at a grander picture in determining the meaning of the reflexive liberal/conservative terms. You're apparently adhering to the definition of, "whatever isn't conservative is liberal," even though conservatives of today are extremely conservative in parts, and quite a different breed (neoconservatives) in others, which means the definition of liberal also loses its real value in a sense. In order for the terms to have any solid meaning, rather than a completely relative one, you need to look beyond the immediate situation, back to the past.

Camus is a fine philosopher, my favorite among agnostics, but using him to gauge a political spectrum seems as fruitless as using Euclid to measure musical talent.

Disagreed; the idea I took from him applies to virtually anything, and isn't outside of the political sphere by any means. His thoughts actually fit snugly in politics, where everyone is all about sounding grand and good for the present polis, but their actual intentions are usually corrupt and often dumb (for money, more votes to the extent of not having a strong ideological backbone, etc.).

You assume the "why" of the news media's existence is to "make a profit," and you're probably right, since I'd hardly think they would be the one anomalous corporate entity that did NOT define profit as goal. But to assume that they have calculated that the best way to do this, is to appeal to the masses via a right-wing slant of the news is apparently not true, since we don't see that happening, but quite the opposite.

Fox News? Right-wing radio? Right-wing authors galore (have you ever taken half a minute to graze the titles in the Current Affairs or Political Science sections)? Take note that just because there are apparently fewer right-wing media outlets (which, taking radio into consideration, probably isn't the case at all) than moderate and pseudo-liberal ones (I can only call MSNBC on a few hours of the day liberal, and they a true-blue old-school conservative with a three hour show in the morning to balance this out), this doesn't mean at all that the playing field is skewed toward the left. It's a matter of how many people are being reached for each politically slanted company, and Fox murders the ratings compared to other slants, and talk radio is virtually monopolized by the right (don't you dare call NPR anything other than moderate).

I think too may "journalists" in the mainstream media are trying to cultivate an image of themelves as Edward R. Murrow or something. They must have a furrowed brow to give them gravitas, and everyone knows that a liberal outlook on life can't help but furrow one's brow. They feel their mission is not simply to relay the news to people, but to instruct the people on the proper political outlook in which to view the events of the news.

Having a political slant is one thing; openly entreating others to share these views is quite another. I don't know a single person, liberal or conservative, on the news who has openly said something to the effect of, "be liberal (or conservative)!" All you hear is ranting from individuals with presupposed political biases. And that is completely fine. I'm happily a left-leaner, but ordered a wonderful conservative magazine for two years (before realizing I was ordering too much stuff) called The American Conservative. The issue I have is with sensationalized, factually questionable, borderline-Machievallian media style -- which Fox has perfected, and MSNBC is well on its way to emulating.

But that's what happens when the bulk of one's education about current events is received in places like the faculty lounge, as opposed to the actual world in which those events occur. Pretty boys with gleaming teeth no longer read us the news. We have serious Instructors who can speak with nuance.

I agree with the spirit of this comment very much. But, alas, because of the profit motive, and with it the tendency for sensationalizing and superficializing of news to attract a majority who doesn't bother to demand the opposite (and really, just because the majority wants something and there are companies who clamor to meet the demands of this majority, doesn't at all make it fair for the minorities, whether liberal or conservative, who want good news but can't seem to find it given all the trash that the majority has been demanding), we live in a world where it's very hard to find good, reliable, fact-based media on either side of the political spectrum.

 

[AceHero]

Oooh, oooh, I almost forgot - - that PolitiFact article you quoted? They clipped THAT text from the speech - omitting this (his POINT in making the speech):

We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more … Source.

Okay, but as far as I know the hubbub has been over the misquoted "you didn't get there on your own" part of the speech. We've heard variations on the above quote from the president for a long time now.

 

[jgarden]

why am I not surprised? Media has been in the bag for obama since 2007. nothing new to see here.

ABC, CBS & NBC Wait Five Days to Report Obama's 'You Didn't Build That' Attack on Business | Media Research Center

Most of the media simply refused to interpret the President's remarks out of context!

 

[TerranceL]

"out of context" now means, anyway that could be seen as negative by a democrat.

 

[Illuminaughty]

I wonder why the "liberal media" worked so hard to scare people regarding Saddams WMDs and "the terrorists" and such. It's the 24 hour a day fear mongering coming from the supposedly liberal media that riles the people up in support of war. The neocons couldn't have asked for better war cheerleaders. Some of the news corporations might lean democratic but they certainly aren't liberals in my book. More establishment center right.

 

[Rion]

"out of context" now means, anyway that could be seen as negative by a democrat.

Pretty much.

The truth is, the media didn't bother to vet this guy. Heck, they were worshiping him like he was some kind of god during the 2008 election. Now they have to do everything in their power to make him look good, not because he's a Democrat, necessarily, but because it will reflect on them otherwise.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Pretty much.

The truth is, the media didn't bother to vet this guy. Heck, they were worshiping him like he was some kind of god during the 2008 election. Now they have to do everything in their power to make him look good, not because he's a Democrat, necessarily, but because it will reflect on them otherwise.

Personally, I don't know how they live with themselves.

But getting the left wing media perform an act of legitimate journalism would be like trying to clean the muck off a pig by rolling it around in the slime and then drying it off in the dust. You might make the pig happy, but what did you accomplish, really?

 

[stiggywiggy]

Some of the news corporations might lean democratic but they certainly aren't liberals in my book.

You need a new book. Try some genre besides Fantasy Fiction.

 

[TerranceL]

I wonder why the "liberal media" worked so hard to scare people regarding Saddams WMDs and "the terrorists" and such. It's the 24 hour a day fear mongering coming from the supposedly liberal media that riles the people up in support of war. The neocons couldn't have asked for better war cheerleaders. Some of the news corporations might lean democratic but they certainly aren't liberals in my book. More establishment center right.

Our media here in the states are pretty much giant, massive, cowards. I mean if cowardice was something you could see, you'd see it from orbit.

Asking the tough questions is frowned upon because then you might not get invited back to the white house.

It happened during the bush administration and it's happening now.

Jon Stewart Mocks Media Reaction To Michael Hastings' Ability To Do Actual Journalism (VIDEO) [UPDATE]

In the aftermath of the interview that destroyed Gen. McCrystals career the media had alot to say:

From Politico:

And as a freelance reporter, Hastings would be considered a bigger risk to be given unfettered access, compared with a beat reporter, who would not risk burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal's remarks.

Politico realizing that they just gave up the goose mysteriously removed that article.

STEWART: But the real shock to these reporters was what this Rolling Stone journalist would be giving up.
CELESTE HEADLEE, NPR; [on tape, to Hastings] You obviously were not worried about access in the future; I can't imagine you're going to get it.
STEWART: Yeah... I don't need it anymore... I got this amazing story.


It shouldn't be about getting access... it needs to be about reporting the darn news.


Michael Hastings is a hero for doing that almost nobody does today, reporting.


John Stewart is a hero for calling out the stupidity of the media.


Annnnnnd rant off.

 

[TerranceL]

I lied about rant being off:

Think Again: A “Very, Very Bad” Article

Still, its sentiments were apparently widely shared. Celest Headlee of NPR complained to Hastings that, “You obviously were not worried about access in the future. I can’t imagine you’re going to get it.” And conflict-of-interest king Howard Kurtz submitted one inane question after another to Hastings on his CNN interview show, “Reliable Sources.”
First off, Kurtz wanted to know if Hastings had “any regrets” about costing Hastings his job. Second, he demanded to know if Hastings thought it “likely that McChrystal and his team assume that some of their joking, that some of their banter would be treated by you as off the record?” Next Kurtz wondered if, after Hastings “got some criticism for quoting one comment by one aide while he was getting drunk, or ‘hammered,’” Hastings had “second thoughts about that?” Finally, he relied not on his own apparently excellent journalistic judgment but on that of Bill O’Reilly. This apparently Kurtz-approved ethical expert “said on his Fox program this week that you're a far-left guy” before demanding, “So, are you on the liberal side of things, and are you—do you have doubts about the Afghan War?”
Never mind the irony of the best-known media reporter in American appearing to complain about actual reporting. Hastings, after all, swatted away every one of these silly questions and many more by citing the most obvious tenets of basic journalism 101. When people are on the record, they are on the record. If they say things that might cost them their job, that’s their problem. Beyond fairness and accuracy, a journalist’s responsibility is to his reader, not to his source. Hastings didn’t fire McChrystal, after all.

Then the ever empty headed Lara Logan had this to say:

Hastings’s answers only seemed to make his interlocutors even angrier. CBS’s Lara Logan—whom Kurtz invited on after cutting off Hastings’s responses—was positively livid when she appeared on the program. Her problem apparently stemmed from Hastings’s ability to get McChrystal and his men to trust him and then go ahead and accurately do the job he had told them he was going to do by reporting what they had to say:
And what I find is the most telling thing about what Michael Hastings said in your interview is that he talked about his manner as pretending to build an illusion of trust and, you know, he's laid out there what his game is. That is exactly the kind of damaging type of attitude that makes it difficult for reporters who are genuine about what they do, who don't—I don't go around in my personal life pretending to be one thing and then being something else. I mean, I find it egregious that anyone would do that in their professional life ... I mean, the question is, really, is what General McChrystal and his aides are doing so egregious, that they deserved to end a career like McChrystal's? I mean, Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has.
Talk about Stockholm syndrome. The confusion inherent in the above complaint is truly awesome. In the first place, Logan (and Kurtz) do not seem to understand that it is the reporter's job to get information from his subject by “establishing trust.” (If either one had ever read Janet Malcolm’s thoughtful study, The Journalist and the Murderer, which deals exactly with this topic, they give no evidence of it here.) Second, once again, Hastings didn’t fire McChrystal—Obama did. And he did so for reasons that very few people, even his political enemies, have bothered to dispute. Finally, the notion that journalists who reveal the truth about the misguided wars their country faces had better shut up and leave it to the generals to tell us what we need to know—well, really, the Pentagon can save a great deal of money by replacing its entire propaganda apparatus with Kurtz, Logan, and “journalists” who think the way they do. (And by the way, it might have been decent of Kurtz to give Hastings a chance to respond to Logan’s egregious accusations rather than cutting him off mid-sentence.)

 

[John Lee Pettimore III]

Pretty much.

The truth is, the media didn't bother to vet this guy. Heck, they were worshiping him like he was some kind of god during the 2008 election. Now they have to do everything in their power to make him look good, not because he's a Democrat, necessarily, but because it will reflect on them otherwise.

Have you felt the thrill going up your leg?

I don't think Rush Limbaugh ever said that about Bush.

I don't think any conservative columnist described Bush as an enlightened being.

Then there's this.

 

[Rion]

News Versus Propaganda - Thomas Sowell - Page 1

If people in the media cannot decide whether they are in the business of reporting news or manufacturing propaganda, it is all the more important that the public understand that difference, and choose their news sources accordingly.

 

[[serious]]

What is this? thread #6 about the out-of-context quote?

Bridges and roads people, that's what obama was saying they didn't build. The whole no man is an island and everyone has had a hand up is a long running component of his stump speeches. Romney has made the same point in his own speeches.

 

[kermit]

So the right is complaining that the media isn't buying into their narrative. Today it was posted that even Townhall.com is starting to admit that the right took him out of context.