Media Bias

ZaraDurden · Jun 7, 2005

arnegrim said:
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.

I wouldn't say it was conservative either...I would say that its pretty close to being State Media.

TheBear · Jun 7, 2005

I watched Katie Couric interviewing Kofi Annan this morning on the Today Show. Before the interview, I predicted that Katie would have nothing but 'fluff' questions for Annan. Well, not only did Couric prove me right, she out-did herself by prodding Annan to criticize Bush. And when Annan refused to do so, Couric made a remark something like, "You're being very diplomatic.", in a smug manner.

John Bolton was then 'discussed'. (Personally, I couldn't care less who represents at the UN. I think the whole thing should be gutted and revamped, or eliminated altogether. But, that's off-topic here.)

Back to the NBC interview of Kofi Annan, discussing John Bolton.....

Katie was basically 'advising' Annan, with lead-in questions and more prodding, that Mr Bolton was a bad choice.

I'll see if I can find the transcript and post it here.

This was a blatantly biased interview. Anyone who is not blinded by ideology, could see right through it.

There is just as much bias on the right. I just used this example because I just saw it today.

TheBear · Jun 7, 2005

Here's the link.

Take note of the headline of the story.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8128519/

Fa'Head · Jun 7, 2005

Scribbler said:
We watch Fox because objective news doesn't exist, so we choose right-leaning.

Wow, truth at last. No desire to do a little extra work and get both sides of the story? So you can reach your own objective conclusions?

Spawn · Jun 7, 2005

Fa'Head said:
Wow, truth at last. No desire to do a little extra work and get both sides of the story? So you can reach your own objective conclusions?

I chose Fox because I want my news balanced and my commentary Conservative.

Spawn · Jun 7, 2005

I love when people say that Foxnew is biased and cannot name ONE news anchor on the network. They harp on Hannity or O'Reilley and forget that NEITHER is offering NEWS. lol

TheBear · Jun 7, 2005

Fox News is biased too. Don't kid yourself.

Spawn · Jun 7, 2005

TheBear said:
Fox News is biased too. Don't kid yourself.

would you care to name any of the news anchors?

southernmissfan · Jun 7, 2005

The media is at the end of the day, a business. A very large corporation at that. What matters to them is profit, not whether America is full of well-informed citizens. Look at the content folks. Rarely, if ever, will you hear something vindictive of the United States, or praising of a foreign country, and it's virtually impossible to hear a criticism of corporate America.

While celebrity trials and kidnapped white kids are plastered on screen for hours on end, where's the Downing Street Memo? Even coverage of the Amnesty reports is mostly limited to the Administration responses and showing how "absurd" the gulag comparison was. Whatever happened to the muckrackers?

It's not that it's so much of a "right-wing" bias, but more of an establishment bias. If you go online and look at independent media, foreign papers, and even backpage mainstream articles, you'd be amazed at what doesn't make the daily rounds and talking points.

Spawn · Jun 7, 2005

southernmissfan said:
. . .it's virtually impossible to hear a criticism of corporate America.

unless of course it's halliburton which is evil no matter what they do. . . . .

Spawn · Jun 7, 2005

as for mainstream media not covering the story - you should be aware that the 3 broadcasters don't cover it unless the NYTimes or the WPost cover it.

southernmissfan · Jun 7, 2005

Spawn said:
unless of course it's halliburton which is evil no matter what they do. . . . .

I'd bet you money that 75% of America doesn't even know what Halliburton is, and why it matters.

And if the Times and Washington Post are the most "liberal" things you can conjure up, then sir, you have not been exposed to the more radical elements of society.

My main point is that it's your typical infotainment mixed in with a little daily roundup, usually with a flagrant "rah, rah America" attitude.

Spawn · Jun 7, 2005

southernmissfan said:
I'd bet you money that 75% of America doesn't even know what Halliburton is, and why it matters.

BaLoNeY! Everyone knows how evil Haliburton is even if they do not know what the company actually does. It was a democratic talking point and campaign issue for Petes sakes.

And if the Times and Washington Post are the most "liberal" things you can conjure up, then sir, you have not been exposed to the more radical elements of society.

Most radical? No. Most insidious of the liberal establishment in that their bias is often covert rather than overt - yes.

My main point is that it's your typical infotainment mixed in with a little daily roundup, usually with a flagrant "rah, rah America" attitude.

I guess Rather was doing his best RAH RAH when he broke the bogus memo story. and Newsweek was singing the praises of America when it posted the bogus Koran story?

Fa'Head · Jun 7, 2005

Spawn said:
I chose Fox because I want my news balanced and my commentary Conservative.

It's no secret that Rupert Murdoch is a staunch supporter of the Repub party and that his newspapers, and we can assume Fox News, have strongly supported Bush in both elections and his war on Iraq. It seems to me that it would be hard to provide balanced news when you're so blatantly helping a candidate to win.

Also, how is the memo story bogus? The parties from where it originated have not denied it's authenticity or accuracy, if I'm not mistaken. Just because it's negative against the President doesn't make it bogus.

Spawn · Jun 7, 2005

Fa'Head said:
It's no secret that Rupert Murdoch is a staunch supporter of the Repub party and that his newspapers, and we can assume Fox News, have strongly supported Bush in both elections and his war on Iraq. It seems to me that it would be hard to provide balanced news when you're so blatantly helping a candidate to win.

so when what 90% of reporters say they voted for Kerry or Gore or Clinton or when a reporter says they don't know ANYONE who voted for Nixon - they all voted of McGovern - they are NOT biased?

AGAIN - if you cannot even name the news anchors on Fox you can hardly speak about bias at the network.

Also, how is the memo story bogus? The parties from where it originated have not denied it's authenticity or accuracy, if I'm not mistaken. Just because it's negative against your President doesn't make it bogus.

Actually - the person who is supposed to have written the memos is dead and thus cannot deny writing them - funny that - but his family ALL deny the possibility of their existence and they are been completely proven to have been forged - made with MSWORD for petes sakes!! SO of course the story MUST be true right??? A dead general traveled in time to write memos in MSWord about orders he would not possibly have given. Sheesh. Now thats fair and balanced media

southernmissfan · Jun 7, 2005

Spawn said:
BaLoNeY! Everyone knows how evil Haliburton is even if they do not know what the company actually does. It was a democratic talking point and campaign issue for Petes sakes.

Most radical? No. Most insidious of the liberal establishment in that their bias is often covert rather than overt - yes.

I guess Rather was doing his best RAH RAH when he broke the bogus memo story. and Newsweek was singing the praises of America when it posted the bogus Koran story?

Everyone has heard of Halliburton, but very, very few actually know what is, what it's done, who's involved with it, and why it matters. Just because the Democrat talking heads (what very, very, very few of them are even allowed on tv for interviews), doesn't make it apart of any sort of journalism.

Both the Times and the Post are very cautious, and since they are apart of the establishment, will always stop short of nailing the ruling elites.

Wow, two cases. The first, a sensational story during an election full of "Swift Boat Veterans". It had little to no relevancy to his policies or anything significant, for that matter. The second was among growing allegations of abuse, and because of one detail, the White House suddenly blamed them for their failures in Afghanistan. Now the abuses, admitted by the Pentagon, are barely given the light of day. Notice, that the only reason the Newsweek story got coverage was not the allegations of abuse, but rather the White House denial and later retraction of the story.

Look at content folks, content. Very, very few stories ever make it on the networks, and even then, any opposing view that might be given is nothing but party bickering.

Fa'Head · Jun 7, 2005

Spawn said:
AGAIN - if you cannot even name the news anchors on Fox you can hardly speak about bias at the network.
media

Bush couldn't name Heads of State at one time and they still let him be President.

Spawn · Jun 7, 2005

Fa'Head said:
Bush couldn't name Heads of State at one time and they still let him be President.

Heads of which states? It's not like Bush was running as an expert in internation politics or like he had been vice president for the last 8 years when that happened. Heck I'll bet that 98% of the members of CF could not name who the current president of Iran is without looking it up!

Fa'Head · Jun 7, 2005

Spawn said:
Heads of which states? It's not like Bush was running as an expert in internation politics or like he had been vice president for the last 8 years when that happened. Heck I'll bet that 98% of the members of CF could not name who the current president of Iran is without looking it up!

Be that as it may, I'm not running for the highest office in the land, of which foreign affairs is a very important part. It's just a funny notion that I can't recognize bias on Fox because I don't know newsanchor names yet it's no big deal that Bush couldn't tell us the names of important foreign leaders he'd have to meet with if elected. I'm gonna laugh myself to sleep over that one.

Spawn · Jun 7, 2005

Fa'Head said:
Be that as it may, I'm not running for the highest office in the land, of which foreign affairs is a very important part. It's just a funny notion that I can't recognize bias on Fox because I don't know newsanchor names yet it's no big deal that Bush couldn't tell us the names of important foreign leaders he'd have to meet with if elected. I'm gonna laugh myself to sleep over that one.

UM - Bush was not making claims about those foregin leaders like YOU are making about Fox news. Now if Bush had said that "the French prime minister is biased" but could not NAME that Prime Minister - you would have a point. since he didn't - you don't.

Media Bias

The mainstream media as a whole slants

LEFT.

RIGHT.

BIAS? What Bias?

Comfortably Numb

NON-WOKED

NON-WOKED

Active Member

Don’t hate me for being right. I’m too beautiful!

Don’t hate me for being right. I’m too beautiful!

NON-WOKED

Don’t hate me for being right. I’m too beautiful!

Well-Known Member

Don’t hate me for being right. I’m too beautiful!

Don’t hate me for being right. I’m too beautiful!

Well-Known Member

Don’t hate me for being right. I’m too beautiful!

Active Member

Don’t hate me for being right. I’m too beautiful!

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Don’t hate me for being right. I’m too beautiful!

Active Member

Don’t hate me for being right. I’m too beautiful!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency