NationStates Jolt Archive

Many ppl seem to belive that both Fox news and CNN are biased. That simply isn't true. Well it is... but for a different reason then what your used to.

Both of these networks have target audiences. When CNN started back in 81 it was just a way for ppl to get news before the aloted timeslots of the other non-cable network newses. As it grew it got more internationalized. Many of the ancors come from britian. Therefore they have a more european perspective on things. Many European nations tend to have a negitive veiw of America. This came off as liberal to many Americans because as a nation they don't like to be critisised. So CNN, very internationlalized, shifted its target audience to the rest of the world. Seeing the profit that could be had from targeting an American audience, billionare tyrant Rupert Murdock decided to have a news network that catered to a more conservative American audience.


So... These biases are more based on greed from advertising revanue then anything else. So trying to blame either side for shifting ppl to the other side in an election just isn't fair. There motivated by adrevanue and nothing else.

Side not: I like Rupert Murdock. I just love that referance from the simpsons ;)

Also, I know my grammer and spelling sucks so just don't bother flaming me. Im just not a very good writer.

Of course. There's not such thing as a "biased news channel." It's not like the Producer only accepts anchors that are Republicans or Democrats. The producers all want one thing - ratings. No matter what. They want their bloody ratings.

Exactly. Thats why im so tired of ppl just yelling at these thing because there biased. There just trying to make a profit, not win an election.

This is even worse...heh...
The news should be there to report news--not to make a profit.

Whats the point of doing something if your not going to get a reward. Even with charities you get a sense of self satisfaction for helping someone.

Whats the point of doing something if your not going to get a reward. Even with charities you get a sense of self satisfaction for helping someone.
Reporting the news properly without a spin would grant you the self-satisfaction of helping someone.

No it wouldn't. THink of all the debt you would acummulate with running a tv station with out money?

The problem is...

Everyone in the news has a bias. The writers, prodicers, ad ppl, even the ancors. You could get a non biased news in communism. The problem is then that it will be censored by the goverment. Sadly... No one can win :(

No it wouldn't. THink of all the debt you would acummulate with running a tv station with out money?

The problem is...

Everyone in the news has a bias. The writers, prodicers, ad ppl, even the ancors. You could get a non biased news in communism. The problem is then that it will be censored by the goverment. Sadly... No one can win :(
Uh? Eh? .....................no?

I know the reporters and such will have their own personal viewpoints, but you can cut that down by picking more people like Aaron Brown and less people like Sean Hannity. Also, you could counter-balance lefts with rights. Make every show in the Crossfire style (or Hannity and Colmes style, but don't let Hannity be a bitch). Now once you've done this and decided not to let advertisers dictate your reporting, you've created an unbiased media station. You don't have to deny all advertisers, just don't let them affect your reporting.

This is even worse...heh...
The news should be there to report news--not to make a profit.I've got no issue with them turning a profit--it's the pursuit of profits in lieu of everything else that gets to me. There used to be a sense of higher purpose in journalism--and there still is in some places, just not in the big leagues. That's why I think it's no surprise that the people doing the best job as far as accuracy is concerned are the government-funded groups--it's counter-intuitive, I know, but it's proven again and again by studies on accuracy in the media. In the US, the highest marks go to PBS and NPR for accuracy. In Britain, it's the BBC. In Canada, it's the CBC. It seems that if you remove the profit motive, the journalists actually do their jobs.

I've got no issue with them turning a profit--it's the pursuit of profits in lieu of everything else that gets to me. There used to be a sense of higher purpose in journalism--and there still is in some places, just not in the big leagues. That's why I think it's no surprise that the people doing the best job as far as accuracy is concerned are the government-funded groups--it's counter-intuitive, I know, but it's proven again and again by studies on accuracy in the media. In the US, the highest marks go to PBS and NPR for accuracy. In Britain, it's the BBC. In Canada, it's the CBC. It seems that if you remove the profit motive, the journalists actually do their jobs.
Eh, yea, read my previous post.

Uh? Eh? .....................no?

I know the reporters and such will have their own personal viewpoints, but you can cut that down by picking more people like Aaron Brown and less people like Sean Hannity. Also, you could counter-balance lefts with rights. Make every show in the Crossfire style (or Hannity and Colmes style, but don't let Hannity be a bitch). Now once you've done this and decided not to let advertisers dictate your reporting, you've created an unbiased media station. You don't have to deny all advertisers, just don't let them affect your reporting.

But the reporters have biases and such. ppl will always think that someone is biased. Just because no one thinks anymore :(

And yes Hamity is a total bitch however he is not an ancor. More of a host if you ask me. He isn't funny either. His radio program sucks because he is to serious. He needs to be more tounge and cheek like Rush.

Also, with PBS, it becomes a non-stop beg athon because they only get about 20% of there income from the goverment. Another interesting thought... Some of the hosts from NPR went to air america when it came out. I find that no bias aproch very amusing. Somehow they ended up biased.

But the reporters have biases and such. ppl will always think that someone is biased. Just because no one thinks anymore :(

And yes Hamity is a total bitch however he is not an ancor. More of a host if you ask me. He isn't funny either. His radio program sucks because he is to serious. He needs to be more tounge and cheek like Rush.
If you would have read all of my post then you might not have needed to make this post.

I did. I'm convinced anyone will bring out there own biases in any news orginisation.

I did. I'm convinced anyone will bring out there own biases in any news orginisation.
Like I said, if you would have read my whole post...

I don't believe that I ever said you could 100% eliminate bias. I was mostly talking about eliminating commercial-driven bias and I also offered a way of cutting down the bias (by having the opposing biases counteract each other)

I know. But i want absolutly no spin.

I'm going to go a step farther here and argue for open biases in the media. The problem isn't that there's bias--it's that all these media companies try to act like they're fair and balanced, and it just ain't so.

In the UK, the papers and other media outlets have open biases--everyone knows that the Guardian is liberal and the Mirror is conservative and the Telegraph is psychotic and so no one is surprised. They're able to put forth their point of view and readers can apply the approrpiate filter.

But in the US, FNC claims to be "fair and balanced" when everyone with a lick of sense knows they're conservative. MSNBC seems to have a personality crisis every couple of weeks, but generally leans conservative in hopes of getting some of the people who aren't ready to commit to Fox, and CNN--they're still so shell-shocked about not being number one anymore that they're trying everything they can and generally failing.

There's also the issue of what it means to be balanced--balance doesn't mean giving everyone equal time, especially if one side is spouting stuff that's factually inaccurate. Balance should mean accuracy and room for dissenting opinion on matters of opinion, but not giving room to bullshit just because they happen to disagree.

:sniper: Take that bias!

Open biases sound good. I still want ppl to think for themselves. And equal time is fair. YTOu have something against fairness?

:sniper: Take that bias!

Open biases sound good. I still want ppl to think for themselves. And equal time is fair. YTOu have something against fairness?
Equal time for dissenting viewpoints is fine--too bad it doesn't exist right now. The problem is when a "news show" let's two groups get on the air and toss out any sort of bullshit and never calls them on any of it if it's inaccurate.

It's like the famous statement about John Kerry and John Edwards being the first and fourth most liberal senators in the Senate. It's crap, and even the magazine that published it admitted it. From today's Daily Howler (http://dailyhowler.com/dh080604.shtml) discussing this very issue:
YOU’LL SEE IT HERE AND NOWHERE ELSE: “By any measure of his votes,” Carlson said, Kerry is “the most liberal member of the Senate.” When GOP hacks say that Kerry and Edwards are first and fourth most liberal senators, they are citing a survey from National Journal. But on March 6, that very same Journal—explicitly responding to this misleading claim—published its list of current senators with the most liberal lifetime voting records. Here it is—the Journal’s Top Ten. Guess whose names aren’t on it?

National Journal: Most liberal senators, lifetime voting
1. Mark Dayton, D-Minn.
2. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md.
3. Jack Reed, D-R.I.
4. Jon Corzine, D-N.J.
5. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
6. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
7. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
8. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
9. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
10. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt
“By any measure of his votes,” Carlson said, Kerry is “the most liberal member.” Will CNN correct this groaning misstatement—an apparent lie? Of course they won’t; the net doesn’t care. Of course, there’s little sign that Brazile or McMahon give a good flying f*ck either. It’s good to be a Washington pundit. Why waste time on such affairs?

Good journalism requires calling out people when they make factual misstatements, regardless of whether or not you agree with their political views. In the piece I quotes, Somerby takes not only Tucker Carlson to task, but also Donna Brazile and Steve McMahon. Inaccuracy is inaccuracy, no matter who does it, and journalists betray theiy training when they let it stand.

I'm sorry, I watced "Outfoxed" there is no way that Fox News is not a wing of the Republican party. If it's not biased I'm Mary Poppins..lol

It's funny to hear all these people arguing that what Greenwald did with "Outfoxed," they could do with CNN or some other network to "prove" they're liberal, and yet no one has announced plans to do so. I mean, you'd think Newsmax would rise to the challenge and put together a shoddy version at the very least.