Mass Media:Is there bias, perceived or actual?

[GarfieldJL]

Nope, your own bias means you think that, while others in this threads bias means they think MSNBC has "some liberal leaning but they do their best to be objective".

 

So we have Fox News having Brit Hume (a News anchor) cover both conventions with both liberal analysists and conservative analysists in one corner on prime time. And on MSNBC we have two left wing commentators one of which bashing the Republicans for having taking time to remember those that died on 9/11/2001. Specifically Keith Obermann whom MSNBC gave a pay raise I might add.

 

Regardless if you think that is true or not, it is the truth. That is all I have to say in this thread, I'll only be here to moderate it from now on.

 

I don't recall anyone from Fox News saying that the Clintons were "Pimping out" their daughter.

 

Or better yet, let's all behave like grown ups and admit when one of our favorite media sources has a political bias instead of trying to play the "more objective than thou" game. MSNBC has a liberal bias. Fox News has a conservative bias. Neither is very good about hiding it.

 

While Fox News is conservative will you admit that CNN, CBS, BBC, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and several other News outlets I'm not thinking of at the moment that happen to be on television all have a heavy left-wing tilt.

[Achilles]

While Fox News is conservative will you admit that CNN, CBS, BBC, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and several other News outlets I'm not thinking of at the moment that happen to be on television all have a heavy left-wing tilt.

I already commented on MSNBC (as far as I can, as I only occasionally watch Olberman's show). I cannot comment on the others as I avoid the corporate news networks as much as humanly possible. I am not their spokesperson.

 

Can I ask what in the world it would possibly accomplish if I did? All the blatant validation-seeking going on here is making me a little uncomfortable.

[GarfieldJL]

I already commented on MSNBC (as far as I can, as I only occasionally watch Olberman's show). I cannot comment on the others as I avoid the corporate news networks as much as humanly possible. I am not their spokesperson.

 

Can I ask what in the world it would possibly accomplish if I did? All the blatant validation-seeking going on here is making me a little uncomfortable.

 

Well, it's a two part thing, one we are establishing that most media outlets are biased the same way, and Fox News is the dissenter. Those media outlets have every reason to try to shut Fox News down because of the opposing viewpoints. That tends to make Fox News the most credible of the bunch.

 

Look at it this way if everyone is trying to look for any little mistake you make to in order to pounce on it and make you look like a fool, it's more likely that you'd take the time to double check things and not just go off on a bogus story.

[Adavardes]

jonathan7 there is a difference between simple bias and being a propaganda pulpit for a particular political party. Fox News may have some conservative leaning, but they do their best to be objective.

 

Compare that to MSNBC's using Keith Oberman and Chris Matthews for their coverage of the political conventions.

 

Specifically Keith Obermann whom MSNBC gave a pay raise I might add.

 

Olbermann*, and for every one of him, Fox has an O'Reilly.

 

And the idea that Fox News is objective in anything is purely laughable. They seek to taint everything with their conservative bias as much as possible, but you'd rather eat it up than believe that your precious Bush was actually a bad president, and anything that criticises him is liberal evil that is painting him in a bad light and making him seem wrong?

 

You said earlier that the liberal bias was so oppressive that we may be subject to losing our freedoms because of it. Not only is this a ridiculous overdramatisation of the truth, but it was, in fact, a conservative president that established the Patriot Act, severely limiting rights to personal privacy, ignored the Geneva conventions on several occasions, and willfully suspended Habeus Corpus. If you want to talk about a loss of freedoms, I suggest you turn your questions to Mr. Bush. I'm sure he'll be more than happy to avoid giving an answer.

[mimartin]

While Fox News is conservative will you admit that CNN, CBS, BBC, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and several other News outlets I'm not thinking of at the moment that happen to be on television all have a heavy left-wing tilt.

You’ll need you use the same adjectives for both.

 

 

I’ll say CNN and NBC have liberal leanings if you admit Fox News has a heavy right-wing tilt (I only watch those three, two for news, one for entertainment).

 

Love your use of word play tonight.

[GarfieldJL]

Olbermann*, and for every one of him, Fox has an O'Reilly.

 

O'Reilly is a lot more objective than Olbermann and makes an effort to present both sides.

 

And the idea that Fox News is objective in anything is purely laughable. They seek to taint everything with their conservative bias as much as possible, but you'd rather eat it up than believe that your precious Bush was actually a bad president, and anything that criticises him is liberal evil that is painting him in a bad light and making him seem wrong?

 

I've got my own complaints concerning President Bush, but the idea that Fox News is that biased doesn't hold water because it wasn't Fox News that made those comments about Hillary's daughter.

 

You said earlier that the liberal bias was so oppressive that we may be subject to losing our freedoms because of it. Not only is this a ridiculous overdramatisation of the truth, but it was, in fact, a conservative president that established the Patriot Act, severely limiting rights to personal privacy, ignored the Geneva conventions on several occasions, and willfully suspended Habeus Corpus. If you want to talk about a loss of freedoms, I suggest you turn your questions to Mr. Bush. I'm sure he'll be more than happy to avoid giving an answer.

 

Actually, the Patriot Act did not suspend Habeus Corpus, you can't read someone miranda rights on a battlefield with people shooting at you and if someone was shooting at you, you have just cause to arrest them. Furthermore despite what the media would like people believe, the government did not wiretap domestic conversations without a warrent.

 

You want a violation of Freedom of Speech try the "Fairness Doctrine" which is in reality the censorship doctrine.

 

Anyways, last I checked studies showed (at least ones that didn't have their own agenda) that Fox News was actually fairly close to center (the news programs not the commentary programs). CNN was supposedly close to center as well. The ones that were way out there were NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and ABC.

[Achilles]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt for as long as you can show me that you deserve it:

 

Well, it's a two part thing, one we are establishing that most media outlets are biased the same way, and Fox News is the dissenter.

If we change the bias to "corporate" bias, you'll have my buy-in immediately. The idea that the major news networks have a nearly uniform liberal bias does not match reality.

 

They are chasing marketing dollars, not points for anyone's ideology.

 

I'll be more than happy to take a look at any legitimate source you'd care to provide that shows other wise.

 

(hint: I don't consider Goldberg's blatantly biased book or "academic" papers which don't define their methodology or use poor methodology to be legitimate)

 

Those media outlets have every reason to try to shut Fox News down because of the opposing viewpoints.

Interesting premise. Please explain why I should accept this? What evidence do you have that supports such a conspiracy?

 

That tends to make Fox News the most credible of the bunch.

That's quite a leap. Two questionable premises and highly biased conclusion which doesn't necessarily follow either of the premises.

 

Have you considered that your agenda is affecting your objectivity? Again, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, so please consider this question in the serious manner it was delivered.

 

Look at it this way if everyone is trying to look for any little mistake you make to in order to pounce on it and make you look like a fool, it's more likely that you'd take the time to double check things and not just go off on a bogus story.

Okay, but you've repeatedly failed to do this. I can't follow the argument because it doesn't match reality.

 

Your line of reasoning is circular. I think if you can step outside the circular argument for just a moment, you might see that you're not actually doing what you seem to think you're doing.

 

If you are unwilling to do this, then none of us have any reasonable conclusion to draw other than you're trolling.

[mimartin]

They are chasing marketing dollars, not points for anyone's ideology.

The most intelligent thing written in this entire thread.

[The Doctor]

I do believe that Achilles has just won the internet, my friends.

[GarfieldJL]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt for as long as you can show me that you deserve it:

 

Don't even go there, cause I've already posted sources for what I've been saying in several threads.

 

If we change the bias to "corporate" bias, you'll have my buy-in immediately. The idea that the major news networks have a nearly uniform liberal bias does not match reality.

 

No, they all have a uniform left-wing tilt, look at the schools that teach journalists and look at the news reporting. Look at how they all went on a smear campaign on a private citizen.

 

They are chasing marketing dollars, not points for anyone's ideology.

 

Explains why MSNBC is dead last in ratings, and New York Times is now in financial trouble. If it was just for marketing dollars they wouldn't be in the mess they're in.

 

I'll be more than happy to take a look at any legitimate source you'd care to provide that shows other wise.

 

The problem is that sources I'd imagine you consider to be legit are the ones that are being accused of dishonest Journalism.

 

(hint: I don't consider Goldberg's blatantly biased book or "academic" papers which don't define their methodology or use poor methodology to be legitimate)

 

Goldberg is a liberal who wrote about left wing bias in the media, he isn't a conservative, he got fired for releasing his first book.

 

Interesting premise. Please explain why I should accept this? What evidence do you have that supports such a conspiracy?

 

I never said it was a conspiracy, Bernie Goldberg never suggested it was a conspiracy, just that they are arrogant to the point they believe they can't make mistakes so they end up reporting their opinions as the news.

 

That's quite a leap. Two questionable premises and highly biased conclusion which doesn't necessarily follow either of the premises.

 

It actually isn't a big leap considering that until Fox News came into existance the liberal left had a monopoly in television news. Fox is a competitor so there's the financial motive, and Fox isn't more of the same liberal talking heads so there is a political motive to try to discredit Fox.

 

Have you considered that your agenda is affecting your objectivity? Again, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, so please consider this question in the serious manner it was delivered.

 

That's why I had done a lot of research on this over the last few years, seriously, you can tell there is a problem when Sean Hannity has to start defending Hillary Clinton.

 

Okay, but you've repeatedly failed to do this. I can't follow the argument because it doesn't match reality.

 

Your line of reasoning is circular. I think if you can step outside the circular argument for just a moment, you might see that you're not actually doing what you seem to think you're doing.

 

If you are unwilling to do this, then none of us have any reasonable conclusion to draw other than you're trolling.

 

I really don't want to go through several topics and find all the sources I posted all over again to make my point.

 

A very telling example is the fact we had a more comprehensive investigation into the background of 'Joe the Plumber' than we did concerning Barack Obama by the mainstream media, they even got ahold of some stuff illegally.

[Adavardes]

Don't even go there, cause I've already posted sources for what I've been saying in several threads.

 

No, no you haven't, besides Fox News and Newsbusters.

 

No, they all have a uniform left-wing tilt, look at the schools that teach journalists and look at the news reporting. Look at how they all went on a smear campaign on a private citizen.

 

Source please.

 

Explains why MSNBC is dead last in ratings, and New York Times is now in financial trouble. If it was just for marketing dollars they wouldn't be in the mess they're in.

 

So... basically... You just proved that MSNBC isn't pandering to corporate interests for the cash, and Fox is...

 

How does that work to your advantage, exactly?

 

The problem is that sources I'd imagine you consider to be legit are the ones that are being accused of dishonest Journalism.

 

By who? You? I have seen no sources corroborating this statement.

 

It actually isn't a big leap considering that until Fox News came into existance the liberal left had a monopoly in television news. Fox is a competitor so there's the financial motive, and Fox isn't more of the same liberal talking heads so there is a political motive to try to discredit Fox.

 

Fox discredits itself on a regular basis. Try watching it objectively once in a while, if that's even at all possible for you.

 

That's why I had done a lot of research on this over the last few years, seriously, you can tell there is a problem when Sean Hannity has to start defending Hillary Clinton.

 

Research? Really? Sources.

 

I really don't want to go through several topics and find all the sources I posted all over again to make my point.

 

You have never posted sources beyond a conservative blog and Fox news to support the majority of your arguments, so this statement is false. PROVE YOUR STATEMENTS.

[Achilles]

Don't even go there, cause I've already posted sources for what I've been saying in several threads.

Legitimate sources, sir. Legitimate sources.

 

No, they all have a uniform left-wing tilt, look at the schools that teach journalists and look at the news reporting.

More false premises leading to unsupported conclusions.

 

Look at how they all went on a smear campaign on a private citizen.

Smear campaign?

 

Explains why MSNBC is dead last in ratings,

For which hour? You are aware that ratings are determined by hour, right?

 

and New York Times is now in financial trouble.

1) They aren't the only ones

2) I don't suppose that the mass exodus to electronic media has anything to do with it

3) This actually supports my argument re: corporate media rather than refutes it (hint: the newsprint media outlets are in trouble because investment dollars are drying up. This has more to do with ebay and craig's list than whatever political conspiracy you're selling).

 

If it was just for marketing dollars they wouldn't be in the mess they're in.

See above

 

The problem is that sources I'd imagine you consider to be legit are the ones that are being accused of dishonest Journalism.

I've already given you my criteria for legitimacy. Either you can meet those criteria or you cannot.

 

Goldberg is a liberal who wrote about left wing bias in the media, he isn't a conservative, he got fired for releasing his first book.

I'm aware of the spin. I'm also aware that it's spin.

 

I never said it was a conspiracy, Bernie Goldberg never suggested it was a conspiracy, just that they are arrogant to the point they believe they can't make mistakes so they end up reporting their opinions as the news.

This doesn't answer either of my questions.

 

It actually isn't a big leap considering that until Fox News came into existance the liberal left had a monopoly in television news. Fox is a competitor so there's the financial motive, and Fox isn't more of the same liberal talking heads so there is a political motive to try to discredit Fox.

You were saying something about you not saying there was a conspiracy.

 

That's why I had done a lot of research on this over the last few years, seriously, you can tell there is a problem when Sean Hannity has to start defending Hillary Clinton.

This doesn't address my question.

 

I really don't want to go through several topics and find all the sources I posted all over again to make my point.

You don't need to, as I've already seen a majority of what you consider "legitimate sources". They are not, so you can save yourself the trouble. Hence the part of my post that you quoted.

 

A very telling example is the fact we had a more comprehensive investigation into the background of 'Joe the Plumber' than we did concerning Barack Obama by the mainstream media, they even got ahold of some stuff illegally.

Not the thread for this. Please don't make me report posts.

[GarfieldJL]

I had to dig around to find it on this forum since I had already posted it but here.

 

But what really shattered my faith -- and I know the day and place where it happened -- was the war in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia, only carried CNN, a network I'd already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse.

 

I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story … but it never happened.

-- http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=2

 

That was on page 2 of the article. There was more on page 3

 

But nothing, nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.

 

Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass -- no, make that shameless support -- they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press.

 

I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather -- not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake -- but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.

-- http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=3

 

And it continues on page 3

 

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

 

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

 

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

-- http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=3

 

 

This is from ABC News, and it's a liberal source.

 

Not the thread for this. Please don't make me report posts.

 

Wrong it is the thread for this because it was a perfect example of media bias and outright dishonesty.

[Achilles]

Story 1

Let's assume for a moment that everything here is accurate and true.

 

Now, do you think this helps your argument or hurts it? As has been discussed in another thread, the Israel lobby in the U.S. isn't exactly brimming with godless liberals. If the conservative christians are supporting Israel and the corporate news machine is reporting a story re: Israel with a pro-Israel bias, do you think that's because that station has a liberal agenda or perhaps a conservative one? Or maybe even a corporate bias?

 

Story 2 & 3

Please help me understand how an opinion piece from a source that you labeled as liberally biased a few post ago, which slams "the liberal media", supports your argument.

 

Are you familiar with the term "echo chamber"?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Furthermore despite what the media would like people believe, the government did not wiretap domestic conversations without a warrent.

you amuse me to no end.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TALON_(database)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_electronic_surveillance_program

[ForeverNight]

jmac, to echo the cries of Achilles and Mimartin, legitimate sources, please!

 

How many of us here seriously can call Wikipedia a reliable source? I know that if I were to do a paper in any class and I cited Wiki for it, my teachers would fail that paper right on the spot.

 

So, please, reliable sources.

--

As for bias, I have to say that most of what I've seen leveled against Obama by the major news outlets for their "Hard" questions have been... disappointing. Now, if we could get everybody who's going to be asking the questions to "play nice" and to leave their bias at home, then I figure there'd be less issues with them... Ah well, there's always going to be bias, just look at the type of people who want to go into the news.

[Achilles]

How many of us here seriously can call Wikipedia a reliable source? I know that if I were to do a paper in any class and I cited Wiki for it, my teachers would fail that paper right on the spot.

Link

 

What's wrong with wikipedia as a starting point? If the wiki is poorly sourced, then your argument is sound. Otherwise, this just sounds like when people invoke Godwin's Law.

[EnderWiggin]

O'Reilly is a lot more objective than Olbermann and makes an effort to present both sides.

 

I love BillO, but this is just wrong. He's a conservative in all ways shapes and forms, and he flaunts it.

Link

 

What's wrong with wikipedia as a starting point? If the wiki is poorly sourced, then your argument is sound. Otherwise, this just sounds like when people invoke Godwin's Law.

 

Agree. I can't stand it when people try to discredit a sourced wiki entry just because it's on wikipedia.

 

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

I love BillO, but this is just wrong. He's a conservative in all ways shapes and forms, and he flaunts it.

 

Actually I can say he's more honest and objective than Olbermann, Hillary Clinton campaigning for herself is more objective than Olbermann, I'm saying he's that bad.

 

Agree. I can't stand it when people try to discredit a sourced wiki entry just because it's on wikipedia.

 

Didn't you say wikipedia has no credibility? I seem to remember you saying that on another thread. The orders for the wiretaps was for phone convos on foreign soil and if they happened to call someone in the US or vice-versa that's when one of the people being listened in on was in the United States.

 

@ Achilles

 

I can tell you didn't read the article, because it was the same article, it was just 5 pages long. Fact is that the overwhelming majority of Journalists (at least in the United States (probably true for Europe as well) are liberals).

 

Fact is even Pew Research despite trying to hide it, is left wing though the numbers is probably much higher than what they're saying.

 

In the most recent survey, 40% of journalists described themselves as being on the left side of the political spectrum (31% said they were “a little to the left” and 9% “pretty far to the left”). But that number was down notably, seven percentage points from 1992, when 47% said they leaned leftward.

-- The American Journalist: Politics and Party Affiliation

 

It is easy to argue that the bias is far worse than the numbers portray, because it has been pointed out that many of them don't even realize they're biased.

 

If newsrooms have moved slightly rightward, the research shows, however, that journalists are still more liberal than their audiences. According to 2002 Gallup data in “The American Journalist,” only 17% of the public characterized themselves as leaning leftward, and 41% identified themselves as tilting to the right. In other words, journalists are still more than twice as likely to lean leftward than the population overall.

 

When it came to the subject of party affiliation, 36% of the journalists said they were Democrats in 2002 compared with 44% in 1992. (That’s the lowest percentage of self-proclaimed Democrats since 1971.) The percentage of Independents dropped slightly from 1992 to 2002 and the ranks of Republicans grew incrementally from 16% to 18%. (There was actually a notable bump in the percentage journalists who named another political affiliation or declined to answer the question in 2002)

-- The American Journalist: Politics and Party Affiliation

 

The data here is kinda skewed because of 9/11/2001. But still Pew Research shows a rather large gap.

Furthermore, if you'll look at the information presented, it appears that they don't even closely resemble the actual populace concerning leanings, so it isn't about corporate interests, it's about ideology.

[EnderWiggin]

Didn't you say wikipedia has no credibility? I seem to remember you saying that on another thread. The orders for the wiretaps was for phone convos on foreign soil and if they happened to call someone in the US or vice-versa that's when one of the people being listened in on was in the United States.

 

Source? That doesn't sound like me.

 

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

Ender, I've already had to dig through the forums to find one source that I'd already posted months ago. I really am not in the mood to go hunting through who knows how many posts to find the post where you specifically said that.

 

Wikipedia can be editted by anyone, and if it's something concerning a political issue, the articles tend to be suspect.

[Adavardes]

I'd watch the videos, but I'm on a slow connection right now, so I'll get back to you on that. Still, I'm not arguing that Olbermann isn't biased. He is, yes, very much so. But O'Reilly is also just as biased, that's my only real point of contention here. I'm tired of the double standards.

 

The blogger included a video of what was said and what he was commenting on.

 

That's not a source that has any credibility, regardless of how he twists a video of Olbermann to his advantage.

 

Oh I have sources, in fact I'm having no problem backing up the stuff I'm saying concerning Olbermann.

 

Let me see sources for every argument you've made in this thread, then. Surely, if you've made arguments here that are corroborated, then the sources would be here, right?

 

It's not a conspiracy theory, and I've been providing sources, as to other things, it's hard to find things on the web that were deleted from the web though.

 

This isn't an argument, it's a farce that can neither be proven, and probably has no basis in fact anyway.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

jmac, to echo the cries of Achilles and Mimartin, legitimate sources, please!

 

How many of us here seriously can call Wikipedia a reliable source? I know that if I were to do a paper in any class and I cited Wiki for it, my teachers would fail that paper right on the spot.

 

So, please, reliable sources.

--

As for bias, I have to say that most of what I've seen leveled against Obama by the major news outlets for their "Hard" questions have been... disappointing. Now, if we could get everybody who's going to be asking the questions to "play nice" and to leave their bias at home, then I figure there'd be less issues with them... Ah well, there's always going to be bias, just look at the type of people who want to go into the news.

try reading the wiki pages, most of them cite declassified documents from the projects that weren't burnt, church committee findings, or court cases related to people the government ****ed over with all the illegal **** they did.

[GarfieldJL]

try reading the wiki pages, most of them cite declassified documents from the projects that weren't burnt and church committee findings.

 

I think I'll pass, again wikipedia needs to be taken with a grain of salt when we're talking about media bias or things political in general.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I think I'll pass, again wikipedia needs to be taken with a grain of salt when we're talking about media bias or things political in general.

they cite external sources and many of them are government documents released under the freedom of information act.