Mass Media:Is there bias, perceived or actual?

[GarfieldJL]

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

 

Then quote one of the sources, don't just throw up wikipedia links. The topic is about media bias...

 

Anyways I found another example, all the other media outlets (with exception of Fox News) went on and on about how Israel without cause bombed a UN Outpost in Lebanon.

 

Anyways it took some digging but there was one key piece that they failed to report that changed the entire story.

 

The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a "shield" to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.

-- Hezbollah was using UN post as a 'shield'

[jrrtoken]

Anyways I found another example, all the other media outlets (with exception of Fox News) went on and on about how Israel without cause bombed a UN Outpost in Lebanon.

 

Anyways it took some digging but there was one key piece that they failed to report that changed the entire story.

 

-- Hezbollah was using UN post as a 'shield'

You already posted this, here. And I still fail to see how this proves that mainstream media did anything wrong. Perhaps if you would enlighten me on this particular incident, then maybe your post would have base.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Then quote one of the sources, don't just throw up wikipedia links. The topic is about media bias...

 

Anyways I found another example, all the other media outlets (with exception of Fox News) went on and on about how Israel without cause bombed a UN Outpost in Lebanon.

 

Anyways it took some digging but there was one key piece that they failed to report that changed the entire story.

 

-- Hezbollah was using UN post as a 'shield'

lol ok, i'll play your game in place of you just admitting you were wrong.

 

http://www.michael-robinett.com/declass/c000.htm

http://www.asu.edu/alumni/vision/05v09n01/paperchaseends.html

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/war/mkultra/mkultra.shtml

http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actions/actions_cointelpro.html

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Church_Committee_Created.htm

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_church_reports.htm

http://foia.state.gov/Reports/ChurchReport.asp

 

you can file for the release of documents if you think the scans hosted on those sites are some sort of liberal conspiracy too if you like

[GarfieldJL]

You already posted this, here. And I still fail to see how this proves that mainstream media did anything wrong. Perhaps if you would enlighten me on this particular incident, then maybe your post would have base.

 

I posted it in the other location first because it was pointing out that the United Nations has absolutely no credibility when it comes to accusing Israel of anything. Second, this situation outlines a heavy anti-Israel bias in the media.

 

Basically they were harping on Israel killing UN observers and it turns out the UN knew that Hezbollah was using the location as a rocket launching platform and they refused to pull the observers out.

[jrrtoken]

I posted it in the other location first because it was pointing out that the United Nations has absolutely no credibility when it comes to accusing Israel of anything. Second, this situation outlines a heavy anti-Israel bias in the media.

lolwut? This proves nothing, just that they didn't find all of he details. In no way does this show that the media has an anti-Israel bias. In fact, I'd rather that the media have a more subjective view to the conflict rather than the usual Israel is awesome view that is the norm.

[GarfieldJL]

lolwut? This proves nothing, just that they didn't find all of he details. In no way does this show that the media has an anti-Israel bias. In fact, I'd rather that the media have a more subjective view to the conflict rather than the usual Israel is awesome view that is the norm.

 

PastramiX, does the term reutergate mean anything to you?

[jrrtoken]

PastramiX, does the term reutergate mean anything to you?

I wasn't aware there was a hotel called Rathergate. What happened there?

QFE

[EnderWiggin]

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.

 

Bawwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. If you can't find it, then it never happened. I wouldn't say what you claim I said.

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

 

I would disagree.

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

@ Achilles

 

I can tell you didn't read the article, because it was the same article, it was just 5 pages long.

You're right, I only clicked on the link for the 2nd and 3rd quotes because I didn't need to click on the link to make my point for the 1st.

 

But I do think it very telling that you're trying to hinge your argument on one article.

 

Oh, and did you intend to address any of points? I do think they are quite pertinent and probably in your best interest to address if you hope to maintain any sort of credibility here. I did shoot an awful lot of holes in your argument, after all.

 

Fact is that the overwhelming majority of Journalists (at least in the United States (probably true for Europe as well) are liberals).

I'm concerned that you cannot recognize the difference between opinion and fact.

 

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.

Pew is part of the conspiracy now, eh? And "probably much higher" doesn't sound very convincing.

 

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

Which is why well-sourced articles are always a wonderful thing. Even if they do read "Wikipedia" at the top.

[Adavardes]

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

 

But the Newsbusters BLOG, however lacking in source material as compared to the wikipedia given by jmac, is perfectly legit.

 

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.

 

I never hear you calling for reliable sources when Garfield throws up an accusation that is totally uncorroborated, or backed up only by Newsbusters. I think this is evidence enough to call your level of objectivity into question.

 

Then quote one of the sources, don't just throw up wikipedia links. The topic is about media bias...

 

Again, you never felt the need to do that with your blog links, so why should anyone feel the compulsion to meet your demands? I believe it was you, when you were asked to cite sources for some claims you made, similar to what you asked of jmac, who said:

 

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.

 

To me, the lack of proof for your arguments means that you are inventing instances where you've given sources, but when you're asked to find them, you either claim that they were deleted, or that you don't want to look for them. Yet you feel justified in asking someone else for sources, someone who cared enough about the credibility of their words to concede and give you the sources.

 

There's a word for that. Starts with "h" and ends with "ipocrisy".

[ForeverNight]

I never hear you calling for reliable sources when Garfield throws up an accusation that is totally uncorroborated, or backed up only by Newsbusters. I think this is evidence enough to call your level of objectivity into question.[/Quote]

 

Of course, that necessitates being involved in the debate enough to have a chance to call Garfield on using Blogs as the end-all for evidence. Besides which, I can't say I'm in Kavar's enough to see "Oooh! Garfield posted! Let's jump on him about using Blogs!"

 

But, in any case, I'd say that a Blog is more "reliable" than Wiki. Just for the sheer fact that Wiki can be edited by anybody at any time for any reason, and that you're not required to cite your sources, or make sure that your sources match up with what's said.

 

Basically, while Wiki can be used as a starting point -I know that I use it as that a lot- it is not a source to be used in a debate that is at all serious. This also goes for Blogs. Just don't source them in a debate or paper, period.

[mimartin]

But, in any case, I'd say that a Blog is more "reliable" than Wiki. Just for the sheer fact that Wiki can be edited by anybody at any time for any reason, and that you're not required to cite your sources, or make sure that your sources match up with what's said.

Something that is one person’s opinion is more reliable than a source that is edited.

 

Sure, I will go along with that and I will cite this Blog to end all debate on who is most bias of all Media Outlets.

 

The Ultra-Supreme All Accurate Blog

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

all that doesn't matter, man, reality's a lie

[EnderWiggin]

But, in any case, I'd say that a Blog is more "reliable" than Wiki. Just for the sheer fact that Wiki can be edited by anybody at any time for any reason, and that you're not required to cite your sources, or make sure that your sources match up with what's said.

Seriously? One man can write anything he wants without any consequence, and it's more reliable than a wiki page that is constantly being checked/corrected by... oh, I don't know... the whole internet?

 

RELIABILITY, IN ACTION.

 

_EW_

[ForeverNight]

Hence the quotes around reliable. It is reliable in the sense that the data in it never changes, and, if it is properly researched and cited, then there's not going to be a lot of back and forth on it about what it says. Whereas Wiki can be edited by anybody on the internet and not everybody has benign intentions.

 

Oh, and nice stab at me, I'm glad to see that this debate is filled with really mature people.

 

And, if you'll see the bottom of that post... well, I'll just quote myself.

 

Basically, while Wiki can be used as a starting point -I know that I use it as that a lot- it is not a source to be used in a debate that is at all serious. This also goes for Blogs. Just don't source them in a debate or paper, period.[/Quote]

[Vaelastraz]

But even if Wikipedia can be edited by everyone, what about its citations? It's all there.. just click at those citations and determine for yourself if they are reliable.

 

So, for example, if the wikipedia entry for G.W. Bush had a statement along the lines of "Furthermore, it has been proven that Bush is a blithering idiot" in it, and there's not source then it should not be used in a debate...

[Adavardes]

Hence the quotes around reliable. It is reliable in the sense that the data in it never changes, and, if it is properly researched and cited, then there's not going to be a lot of back and forth on it about what it says. Whereas Wiki can be edited by anybody on the internet and not everybody has benign intentions.

 

So we're supposed to trust in the word of one person who has no temperance from others to keep him unbiased and objective, and take the 50/50 chance that he is one of those people that don't have "benign intentions"? Seems to me that you're contradicting yourself at every turn on this, my friend. A blog and wikipedia are pretty much the same, save for the fact that multiple people with multiple ranges in opinion are allowed to edit the content on a wiki page, leaving a wider, more comprehensive viewpoint on certain matters of debate, as everyone is unique and has an individual way of seeing things, as opposed to the solitary opinion of one person, who is going to be biased, and in reality, can only have one perspective on an issue.

 

People don't think like one another, so to reach the hearts and minds of many, the contributions of many is in the best interest for political debate. Yes, certain writers have mastered the art of rhetoric, and appealing their case, their unique vision as created only by them, but that is only applicable for philosophy, or simply ideologies created for consideration. Not factual occurances, because they happen to all of us, and are not constructed by a single human mind.

 

Ergo, wiki > blog. Sometimes a well-cited wikipedia article can even be more reliable in context with many human beings than a single political pundit, regardless of his many qualifications. Something to think about that corresponds to the topic of this thread.

 

Oh, and nice stab at me, I'm glad to see that this debate is filled with really mature people.

 

[GarfieldJL]

So we're supposed to trust in the word of one person who has no temperance from others to keep him unbiased and objective, and take the 50/50 chance that he is one of those people that don't have "benign intentions"? Seems to me that you're contradicting yourself at every turn on this, my friend. A blog and wikipedia are pretty much the same, save for the fact that multiple people with multiple ranges in opinion are allowed to edit the content on a wiki page, leaving a wider, more comprehensive viewpoint on certain matters of debate, as everyone is unique and has an individual way of seeing things, as opposed to the solitary opinion of one person, who is going to be biased, and in reality, can only have one perspective on an issue.

 

Pot calling the Kettle black eh? I used two liberal sources, that admit there is a serious left-wing bias in the mainstream media. I'm well aware that I'm a conservative, but you're not exactly an unbiased person either.

 

People don't think like one another, so to reach the hearts and minds of many, the contributions of many is in the best interest for political debate. Yes, certain writers have mastered the art of rhetoric, and appealing their case, their unique vision as created only by them, but that is only applicable for philosophy, or simply ideologies created for consideration. Not factual occurances, because they happen to all of us, and are not constructed by a single human mind.

 

Then why is it that conservatives are actively discouraged from going into journalism? There was a rather large disparity in Pew research between conservative leaning and liberal leaning journalists, and they are semi-trying to cover up the problem.

 

Ergo, wiki > blog.

 

I got news for you, Pew Research is not a blog, and it is a better source than a wiki. ABC News isn't a blog site either, and it was a liberal source saying there was a left-wing bias problem in the media.

 

Sometimes a well-cited wikipedia article can even be more reliable in context with many human beings than a single political pundit, regardless of his many qualifications. Something to think about that corresponds to the topic of this thread.

 

When a person that is trying to cover up a said bias admits there is a problem, then excuse me there is a problem.

 

 

The issue hear is that the press is supposed to be independent of either party, yet this year with the sole exception of Fox News, we saw all the major media outlets, most newspapers, etc. serve as the Democrat Party's Attack Dogs. This is a very dangerous precident that was set this election, and anyone whom has studied Constitutional History would find this situation extremely troubling.

 

 

A link to a wikipedia article: Reutergate

I'll try to find some other sources, but the point is it was conservative bloggers that caught Reuters using doctored photos.

[jrrtoken]

The issue hear is that the press is supposed to be independent of either party, yet this year with the sole exception of Fox News, we saw all the major media outlets, most newspapers, etc. serve as the Democrat Party's Attack Dogs.

And as always, we saw Fox News as the Republican pulpit, which hasn't really changed much.

This is a very dangerous precident that was set this election, and anyone whom has studied Constitutional History would find this situation extremely troubling.

This is nothing. The 2000 election was when Bush protrayed McCain as a rather vile person, claiming that he fathered his adopted child Bridget by a black prostitute, due to her dark skin. He was also called a homosexual, and a sort of "Manchurian Candidate", disillusioned from his POW days. Kinda funny that McCain became almost as bad as Bush during the '08 election...

[Adavardes]

Pot calling the Kettle black eh? I used two liberal sources, that admit there is a serious left-wing bias in the mainstream media. I'm well aware that I'm a conservative, but you're not exactly an unbiased person either.

 

 

 

Then why is it that conservatives are actively discouraged from going into journalism? There was a rather large disparity in Pew research between conservative leaning and liberal leaning journalists, and they are semi-trying to cover up the problem.

 

1. Wasn't talking about anyone in particular, just any human being, as it is a fact of humanity that individuals will be biased and our viewpoints will be subjective. There are varying levels of willingness to hear both sides, and tolerance for other perspectives, but nobody is going to be perfectly objective. They can get close, but never to an absolute. That goes for me as well, and you, though you have proven that you have little to no tolerance for other perspectives, and condemn any who disagree with you.

 

This was about wiki vs. blogs, and in my opinion, wikipedia is a better source because it tends to encompass more perspectives and can often be more corroborated by many sources than single-minded blog entries by a solitary man or woman.

 

2. You keep saying that, but your words are always filled with vague non-facts and lack any real meaning. Truth is, you can't prove it, so I'd prefer if you'd just stop bringing it up.

 

The issue hear is that the press is supposed to be independent of either party, yet this year with the sole exception of Fox News,

 

You're right, it wasn't a democrat attack dog, it was a republican attack dog, and a vicious and insatiable one at that.

 

Fox news is just as biased as every other news station on the air, IF not more, and to claim otherwise is to have such a severe lack of realisation in how biased YOU are, and to reveal a clear and blatant double standard between conservative and liberal content.

 

As a certain member of this forum said earlier:

 

"All news is biased, and so are you.

 

[/thread]"

[GarfieldJL]

And as always, we saw Fox News as the Republican pulpit, which hasn't really changed much.

 

That explains why Sean Hannity had to defend Hillary because he thought the rest of the Media went over the line. Fact is even Pew Research's own data shows that Fox News was the most balanced news source, even though they tried to portray it as they were too the right of Rush Limbaugh.

 

This is nothing. The 2000 election was when Bush protrayed McCain as a rather vile person, claiming that he fathered his adopted child Bridget by a black prostitute, due to her dark skin. He was also called a homosexual, and a sort of "Manchurian Candidate", disillusioned from his POW days. Kinda funny that McCain became almost as bad as Bush during the '08 election...

 

Why do you think I was rather upset that the Democrats nominated a left wing ideologue by the name of John Kerry. I wouldn't have minded voting for Joe Libermann for President, but the 2004 election was one of those lesser of two evils.

 

And McCain didn't become as vile as Bush in 2008, that was just the press doing the Democrat's smear work. Fact is that what McCain brought up is legit as we're seeing with the Governor of Illinois, Tony Rezko, etc. So the difference is McCain used truth, whereas Bush used a bunch of lies.

[The Doctor]

Oh, silly us. When smear campaigns are used against a Republican, it's blatantly false, but anything raised against a Democrat, no matter how ludicrous, has merit. Good to know for the future.

 

^_^

[GarfieldJL]

Oh, silly us. When smear campaigns are used against a Republican, it's blatantly false, but anything raised against a Democrat, no matter how ludicrous, has merit. Good to know for the future.

 

What ludicrous charges were made about Obama, aside from the citizenship thing which was started by a Hillary Clinton Supporter.

[The Doctor]

... for my reply, please see every other post you've made in regards to Barack Obama.

[GarfieldJL]

... for my reply, please see every other post you've made in regards to Barack Obama.

 

<snipped>

 

Or Rev. Wright? Which is true

 

Or Rezko -- which is also true

 

 

 

Seriously, the media's shear lack of investigating of Obama's ties is proof in and of itself that there is a serious bias problem to say the least.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/opinion/12rich.html

 

An Opinion article from the New York Times, we've already established when they accuse a conservative of anything they have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3174101/Barack-Obama-called-terrorist-at-Republican-rallies-as-US-election-campaign-turns-nasty.html

 

What does this have to do with a news agency? Furthermore, Obama kept calling McCain, George Bush. And further Palin never called him a terrorist, she said he pals around with terrorists, which William Ayers is a terrorist. Instead you just showed again the bias of the media.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/04/palin.obama/index.html

 

See above statement.

 

http://www.humsurfer.com/newsbusters-obama-threatens-to-bring-a-gun-what-if-mccain-had-done-same

 

What the heck site is that cause it sure isn't Newsbusters and I've never even heard of humsurfer.com.

 

How many ways can the staff say 'NO AYERS OUTSIDE THE AYERS THREAD' before you realize we're serious?