Media Bias

[Spawn]

Media bias is a hot topic in America - let's deal with it.

 

[ZaraDurden]

Id love to discuss it, but can we narrow it down a bit? What about media bias would you like to discuss?

 

[Spawn]

yet another example of media bias:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/leo060605.asp

 

[ZaraDurden]

What what would the Jewish World Review have to gain by being slanted against the US, who is by far the largest supporter of their home state of Israel?

 

[Spawn]

What what would the Jewish World Review have to gain by being slanted against the US, who is by far the largest supporter of their home state of Israel?

oh too funny. Now I'll know to ignore your posts. Thanks

 

[ZaraDurden]

The media, being today a for-profit industry rather than being concerned with reporting truth, has alligned itself with corporate America out of shared interest. Many on the Right, particularly this administration and the neoconservatives as a whole, have made it abundantly clear that they put the interests of the wealthy above all others. Therefore is makes perfect business sense for the media to fall in line with the wishes of this administration, which is what they as a whole have done.

They have done this to such an extent, that even the so-called liberal media of CNN actually reports their news to the US and the rest of the World differently. On the day that the Saddam statue was toppled in Baghdad, CNN World showed casuality pictures along with the coverage of the toppling of the statue all day, while CNN in the US only showed the latter. Why? Showing casuality pictures makes the war more unfavorable among the people, who really never wanted war in the first place. It has not benefitted the citizen at home, especially in the pocket, while at the same time has brought tremendous benefit to those friends of the neoconservatives directly in the pocket.

 

[ZaraDurden]

oh too funny. Now I'll know to ignore your posts. Thanks

Honestly, why is it funny?

 

[Dworkin]

Don't ask questions, just be glad he is ignoring you now.

 

[WarSong]

The media, being today a for-profit industry rather than being concerned with reporting truth, has alligned itself with corporate America out of shared interest. Many on the Right, particularly this administration and the neoconservatives as a whole, have made it abundantly clear that they put the interests of the wealthy above all others. Therefore is makes perfect business sense for the media to fall in line with the wishes of this administration, which is what they as a whole have done.

They have done this to such an extent, that even the so-called liberal media of CNN actually reports their news to the US and the rest of the World differently. On the day that the Saddam statue was toppled in Baghdad, CNN World showed casuality pictures along with the coverage of the toppling of the statue all day, while CNN in the US only showed the latter. Why? Showing casuality pictures makes the war more unfavorable among the people, who really never wanted war in the first place. It has not benefitted the citizen at home, especially in the pocket, while at the same time has brought tremendous benefit to those friends of the neoconservatives directly in the pocket.

Simply being loud doesn't make Liberals the majority, and if you don't see a left-wing bias in the media then you are blind.

 

[HumbleMan]

I voted slanted to the left, although I don't think it's anywhere's near the level of conspiracy postulated by some here. I think it's more of a slant by omission. Most journalists do identify themselves as liberal and as such tend to report on issues more in tune with their philosophy.

 

[Redneck]

I know that I've seen a definite anti-gun bias in the media, even on Fox news.

One of the local stations also put an interesting spin of the Seattle police confiscating firearms "because they might be used in a crime."

I'd say that the local networks are probably more toward the center, but on the national networks, there is definitely a left-leaning bias.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Most media will display some kind of Bias. The best way to get to the bottom of a particular story is to try and find the same story in as many other media outlets as possible, and then try and build a picture of what the actual facts of the story are once they are divested of any 'interpretation' put on them by presenters etc. One excellent example of this recently was the newstory about the discovery of some rounds of ammunition in Iraq by Polish? troops. Some stations hailed a discovery of the long missing WMDs whereas others were more cautious. By reading all the reports you could see that there was a common thread of basic information, and then wild apporximations surrounding that on many channels. It was then possible to make some conclusions about the accuracy of some fo the claims being made. I going to have a look and see if I can find any old links to this story to help illustrate my point, but my wife is due home any minute and I am supposed to have the dinner ready!

I think it is unlikely that we will ever have a news station which we agree with 100%. The important thing is to take each story and treat it with the same level of scepticism until you have had a chance to check all the sources, and take into account what axes they have to grind. That is unless you WANT to ally yourself to one particular news source, (and one particular political view for all seasons), and put your brain on stand by...

Personally I think the BBC is usually better at reporting facts and leaving conclusions to the listener, obviously it is not infallible, but it is regularly accused of bias by both the right and the left which is a pretty good sign of balanced and honest reporting. However I always check out other sources. One mistake I think a lot of people make is assuming any negative reporting of their pet politician or political situation is biased. Sometimes they have misjudged the situation and lack the maturity to climb down gracefully so they stick heir heads in the sand and shout about bias.

 

[Spawn]

I voted slanted to the left, although I don't think it's anywhere's near the level of conspiracy postulated by some here. I think it's more of a slant by omission. Most journalists do identify themselves as liberal and as such tend to report on issues more in tune with their philosophy.

I would not call it a "conspiracy" just the facts. The media subtly include thier bias without even realizing it half the time. A reporter will label Rick Santorum as a conservative senator but merely calls Teddy Kenndy a senator even though kennedy is just as liberal as Santorum is conservative.

 

[Fa'Head]

What would be the way to correct the supposed left-leaning bias in media? Why, according to conservatives, swing hard to the right, of course. You'll still have biased media, but now it's saying what they want to hear and that makes it ok.



Right-wing Media by Rob Kilmer

Over the last decade or so, right-wing media has achieved a peculiar status in mainstream America. Conservative commentators, radio personalities, and publications have ingeniously justified their naked partisanship as a necessary “response” to a wholly invented enemy - media bias. When you step back and look at this, you begin to realize the resulting inequity of information dissemination in this country.

There is a fundamental problem with the right-wing characterization of the “us versus them” landscape in media today. Simply stated, there is no “them”. Only one side really believes it is engaged in a daily struggle for the hearts and minds of the American public. Conservatives have hysterically maintained that the so-called liberal media, collectively known as “the major networks and the New York Times”, has embarked upon ideologically driven reporting in the past. As a result, conservatives, emboldened by their self-proclaimed status as victims, defend their openly biased reporting as “self-defense” and, in so doing, engage in practices that not even their make-believe oppressors would ever contemplate.

Regarding the liberal media, is it really possible that a conspiracy of this magnitude actually exists? Furthermore, is there any real evidence of it? Ask yourself this: Was there any shortage of coverage of Bill Clinton’s “scandals”? When you compare the actual outcome of the never-ending investigations to the reporting thereof, it is clear that the major networks were diligent, at least. Clinton was never charged with any crime and never found to have violated any law. The $74 million dollars worth of investigations resulted in exactly no findings of wrongdoing. Furthermore, he was acquitted by a Republican Senate of impeachment charges. Yet, the public at least partially associates his administration with scandals. That is because the networks exhaustively reported every development in these “investigations”. The networks strive for impartiality, and are constantly criticized by the right and left for their reporting. That is the nature of reporting - you never please everyone.

The true irony of the right-wing approach to reporting is that, in the name of “balance”, it betrays the very principles it routinely accuses the major networks of ignoring. Consider the flexible journalistic standards in practice at America’s most viewed conservative medium, Fox News. Bob Woodward recently revealed that Fox’s chairman, Roger Ailles, advised President Bush in the aftermath of Sept. 11. Advised the president? Aside from the fact that Mr. Ailles failed to disclose his advisory status to his network’s viewers, the bigger question is this: Is this the proper role of a man charged with the responsibility of objectively disseminating the news? Hardly.

Mr. Ailles is not the only one at Fox News with dual duties. Tony Snow is an anchorman for Fox News Sunday. He also guest-hosts the Rush Limbaugh show - arguably the most conservative forum in America today. Fox News routinely rails against “media bias” on the part of network news. I can not imagine a more blatantly hypocritical arrangement than Tony Snow bashing “liberals”, “feminazis”, and “environmentalist whackos” Monday through Friday and then anchoring a news show on Sunday that holds itself out as “fair and balanced”. Can you imagine the conservative outcry that would ensue if Tom Brokaw were the guest-host of an ultra-liberal show and routinely ridiculed the President?

The conservative agenda now drives the White House, Congress, and to an alarming extent, the Supreme Court. Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh show each achieve the top ratings in their respective mediums. Can conservatives rightfully maintain their status as victims? Only time will tell. However, if the current climate persists, rest assured that the conservative cause will continue to be given voice at high decibel, and contrary thought will inexplicably continue to be cast as oppressive.

 

[Sycophant]

I chose right, because you are obviously referring to the US media, which generally all somewhat right (with some deviation around that).

Honestly, the 'left' in the USA is still on the right of a real political spectrum. And most media (including network news) is still quite distictly right-leaning with constant, almost unwavering, support of the US administration and it's policies.

 

[ZaraDurden]

You're going to tell me that its liberal media that labels its war coverage the same name that the State gives to its war operation: "Operation Iraqi Freedom". The Pentagon is by no means objective--it tests out these names on groups of people to see which one they respond most favorably so they can drum up support for a war, no matter how justified or not the war is. That is its job. All of the major networks, including the so-called 'liberal' ones, have taken this name and labeled their war coverage 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' as if that was at all unbiased. Very few of taken anything that might be considered objective or middle of the road such as "The War in Iraq".

You are going to tell me that its the liberal media that does not show any pictures of dead or injured soliders or Iraqis in the field? In the late 60's this was all over the news, could be seen every night in American homes on TV, but now? Do you see anything but the occasional tank riding through the desert or soldiers in the sunset or bomb blasts in the distance? And why is that? Does it benefit that soldiers in the field that we wont show the reality of whats going on over there? That they are still dying everyday? The US newsmedia has practically forgotten our soldiers, and thats because as long as you dont know how badly they suffer you allow them to fight in this senseless war.

The media is so liberal that the offer permanent positions to ex military officials and generals to talk about war, yet you can't find one single person talking about peace in the Middle East.. talking about opposing Israel and its constant violation of UN sanctions, about doing something about Darfur, about the idea that maybe countires besides the US have the right to self defense, about labor unions struggling for pay--these are liberal issues and they get no air time.

The US media has nothing to gain by being liberal! Sycophant is so right about the American political spectrum not being analygous to the world spectrum, and thats why some media is seen as 'liberal'.

 

[arnegrim]

You're going to tell me that its liberal media that labels its war coverage the same name that the State gives to its war operation: "Operation Iraqi Freedom". The Pentagon is by no means objective--it tests out these names on groups of people to see which one they respond most favorably so they can drum up support for a war, no matter how justified or not the war is. That is its job. All of the major networks, including the so-called 'liberal' ones, have taken this name and labeled their war coverage 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' as if that was at all unbiased. Very few of taken anything that might be considered objective or middle of the road such as "The War in Iraq".

You are going to tell me that its the liberal media that does not show any pictures of dead or injured soliders or Iraqis in the field? In the late 60's this was all over the news, could be seen every night in American homes on TV, but now? Do you see anything but the occasional tank riding through the desert or soldiers in the sunset or bomb blasts in the distance? And why is that? Does it benefit that soldiers in the field that we wont show the reality of whats going on over there? That they are still dying everyday? The US newsmedia has practically forgotten our soldiers, and thats because as long as you dont know how badly they suffer you allow them to fight in this senseless war.

The media is so liberal that the offer permanent positions to ex military officials and generals to talk about war, yet you can't find one single person talking about peace in the Middle East.. talking about opposing Israel and its constant violation of UN sanctions, about doing something about Darfur, about the idea that maybe countires besides the US have the right to self defense, about labor unions struggling for pay--these are liberal issues and they get no air time.

The US media has nothing to gain by being liberal! Sycophant is so right about the American political spectrum not being analygous to the world spectrum, and thats why some media is seen as 'liberal'.

If you want to compare the American media against a global political spectrum... it is nowhere close to being 'conservative' either... but that's comparing apples to golf clubs.

 

[rua2j33]

“The press is the hired agent of a moneyed system, set up for no other reason than to tell us lies where their interests are concerned.” - Henry Adams

 

[Scribbler]

I would not call it a "conspiracy" just the facts. The media subtly include thier bias without even realizing it half the time. A reporter will label Rick Santorum as a conservative senator but merely calls Teddy Kenndy a senator even though kennedy is just as liberal as Santorum is conservative.

This even affects the way they approach a candidate. Noone threw the "identify the world leaders" quiz on Gore or Kerry like they did on Candidate Bush. Bush got labeled an idiot, and again all throughout the past 4 years. Now we discover Kerry's GPA was lower than Bushes. Even Kerry's IQ was lower than Bushes. His excuse? "I was probably hungover." What would happen if Bush said THAT? And nary a word about Gore flunking out of Divinity school.
Nope, Bush is an idiot, Gore & Kerry were geniuses, and that is how we will report it. Facts are irrelevant. Conservatives don't watch Fox for right-leaning news. We watch Fox because objective news doesn't exist, so we choose right-leaning.

 

[Ryder]

I like the History channel, their coverage is a little behind, but it's pretty balanced.