NationStates Jolt Archive

I have posted this in two topics. It has been criticized, but never analyzed, and mostly tiptoed around. We all know FNC has a mild right-wing bias, and I am not defending them. I am trying to show that the other networks, specifically CNN, and newspapers like the New York Times, are anything but neutral.

Here's how this "neutral" network (CNN) spins the news:

What stories they choose to report: FNC is the only channel I have found that reports the openings of schools and hospitals in Iraq. All you hear from CNN is the bad news from Iraq. CNN's Iraq is a chaotic firework show, while other sources (and not just FNC) suggest that things are, for the most part, stable and that things are drastically improving over there.

The order of the stories they report: On a daily basis, I watched CNN report abuse in Iraq (live or recap). It was typically followed by a debate, then an update of whatever Kerry happened to be doing. They show something bad, link it to Bush, and boost his opponent. Try watching it and you'll see that.

The time spent reporting different stories: I heard almost nothing out of them about the UN oil-for-food scandal, but they spent an incredible amount of time talking about Abu Ghriab and "how high up the ladder it goes," while showing pictures of Bush. It was then found Bush had nothing to do with the abuse, but they didn't choose to spend much time reporting about that. If you watch, they also spend an inordinate amount of time reporting on the Kerry campaign or discussing the Kerry campaign; far more than what they say about Bush.

Absence of malice: reporting what is accurate, but not true. Remember the big crisis about Bush's national guard service? It turned out there were some payroll stubs that went missing. CNN was all over this, but they neglected to mention that every national guard payroll record for everyone in that time was missing. Why? No, Bush did not have them destroyed, as was implied. The reason was because the military was making the transition between storing such records on paper and storing them on microfilm. Some of the records were lost in the process. Though I must admit it was funny when they went too obvious: 9/11 Commission: No Iraq-Al Quada Link (on 9/11)

Believe it or not, even the graphics: take a good look at their "Decision 2004" graphic sometime. Keep in mind that blue states means Democratic, red states means Republican. The "Decision 2004" graphics shows a red circle with an elephant in it next to a picture of Bush, and a blue circle with a donkey in it next to a picture of Kerry. Fair enough. Below that is the white lettering "Decision 2004". Good so far... wait. Why is there a large blue star in there, too? Sort of drowns out the red.

There was a lot of debate about Outfoxed, and a lot of "ha ha"ing and finger-pointing from the left. Personally, I would be very interested in seeing a similar documentary about CNN.

As for the newspapers I have read, FNC dug up an interesting fact: The New York Times had 43 front-page headlines about Abu Grhaib, and only 2 about the oil-for-food scandal. In addition, when the report came out about how yes, Saddam actually was pursuing African uranium, the New York Times deemed it only to be worthy of page fourteen, as opposed to the front-page headlines received by the statement to the contrary made by the head inspector before the war.

Interesting...

I wouldn't know ... I don't pay attention to either news source, so I can't really give an opinion on the matter.

My major news source is NPR.

I would say fox puts a right wing spin and cnn puts a left wing spin in general. but i can say that both put a lot of oppossing viewpoints on and are actualy fairly in the center. many people would have you think based on their own views that one or the other is extremist but as an avid viewer of both let me say: neither of them are extremist. they are both slightly biased but as such they really do compliment each other.

I think it's rather obvious (I've seen "Outfoxed") that FNC is an arm of the Republican party. Where as CNN seems to give equal time to both sides. What FNC does is brings on a star of the right-wing to debate a relative unknown person from the other side, in which case the person on the right is able to make the person on the left look foolish because they are out-matched. They don't bring on any well known liberals or democrats to argue on an even playing field, which I'm sure goes un-noticed to those of us who aren't political junkies. All in all, a fairly smart tactic, despite it's obvious bias and under-handedness.

CNN on the other hand does no such thing..

*Nuff Said*

the media:
too liberal:45%
too conservative:14%
about right:39%
not sure:2%

the truth is in the polls.

october 2000: question: who do you think most people in the news media want to see win the election?:
gore:47%
neither more than the other:30%
bush 23%

the truth will set us free.

I wouldn't know ... I don't pay attention to either news source, so I can't really give an opinion on the matter.

My major news source is NPR.

NPR?

the media:
too liberal:45%
too conservative:14%
about right:39%
not sure:2%

the truth is in the polls.

What people think and what the truth are are often two very different animals. Just because people think some thing is true, doesn't make it so. A perfect example was a year ago 80% of Americans believed Saddam had some thing to do with 9/11, 80% is a large number, but they were wrong.

cite that number. 80% source it.

NPR?
NPR.

Houses that don't burn don't get reported, but I have seen a lot of "look at how well Iraq is doing" stories on 'liberal media'...

NPR?

National Public Radio

http://www.npr.org/

also, stephistan, isnt the media somthing people know a little bit about first hand? are you saying people are too stupid to know what way the media is telling them things? that is insulting. also, cite that number you gave.

There was a lot of debate about Outfoxed, and a lot of "ha ha"ing and finger-pointing from the left. Personally, I would be very interested in seeing a similar documentary about CNN.
What are you waiting for? Let us know how it turns out.

(Even if CNN is (for the sake of argument) biased towards the Democrats, it's a large leap from there to describing it as left wing. The Democrats are hardly radical after all. Better to see the two American parties as far right and centre right).

the truth is in the polls.Not without some background to the circumstances under which the poll was taken. Who funded the poll? How large was the sample group and how were they found? What specific questions were asked?

National Public Radio

http://www.npr.org/

Thanks! :)

(Sorry if that was a dumb question)

cite that number. 80% source it.

Sorry, I was wrong, it would appear it was more like 83% of people who didn't have a clue what they were talking about.

One Source (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0124-02.htm)

If it's not good enough for you, I can find others.

Sorry, this one is only 70%

Source Two (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/118345p-106678c.html)

gallup polling organization,the most well known independent polling organization in the world. sample size 3,017 people over 18 nationwide. the question:"Now thinking for a moment about the news media: In general, do you think the news media is too liberal, just about right, or too conservative?" (Options rotated)

there you go.

gallup polling organization,the most well known independent polling organization in the world. sample size 3,017 people over 18 nationwide. the question:"Now thinking for a moment about the news media: In general, do you think the news media is too liberal, just about right, or too conservative?" (Options rotated)

there you go.
hm i havnt ever heard of gallup before.. probably because its not so well known.. actually.. i've not heard of any polling organization yet. Wonder how they got that "most bla bla in the world" recognition.

"knight ridder" and common dreams websight are not nationaly acredited polling or news services. most notably cmmon dreams as If i am not mistaken , that is a left wing websight. please, we are discussing media bias dont make it worse! yes, i have yet to see any poll that backs up your assertion and is credible.

hm i havnt ever heard of gallup before.. probably because its not so well known.. actually.. i've not heard of any polling organization yet. Wonder how they got that "most bla bla in the world" recognition.
Gallup is very well known in the US.

gallup polling organization,the most well known independent polling organization in the world. sample size 3,017 people over 18 nationwide. the question:"Now thinking for a moment about the news media: In general, do you think the news media is too liberal, just about right, or too conservative?" (Options rotated)

there you go.

Yes, I consider Gallup to be the most respected polling service in the USA myself. However, they are going by what people answered, that doesn't mean what people believe is the truth. It just means that is what people believe.

Thanks! :)

(Sorry if that was a dumb question)


Not at all!

I like it mostly because it is free from advertising (except the occasional mention of "thanks for your support") and is not owned by Clearchannel. It's like the PBS of radio, meaning it is listener sponsored.

I like to think it stays pretty neutral in its news broadcasting and it has both conservative (Motley Fool) and liberal (Garrison Keillor) entertainment programs and doesn't give priority to either. Their major opinion show (All Things Considered) is deliciously unbiased and seeks interviews with people from all sides of any given topic, gives them equal time, doesn't cut anyone's mike off, and lets the listener make up their own mind.

No annoying pop music either.

:D

"knight ridder" and common dreams websight are not nationaly acredited polling or news services. most notably cmmon dreams as If i am not mistaken , that is a left wing websight. please, we are discussing media bias dont make it worse! yes, i have yet to see any poll that backs up your assertion and is credible.
http://www.knightridder.com/
Knight Ridder is a newspaper publishing company...

Thanks! :)

(Sorry if that was a dumb question)
Woah, you've never actually heard of NPR?

gallup is the largest and oldest polling company in the usa and im sorry, let me rephrase, if you follow polls that are not biased and nationaly followed, then you know about gallup. It is the premier polling service in the world. it has been operating since 1937 and has called every presidential election correctly since then. i follow polls very carefully and people like myself know that gallup is the most used poll in the media, news papers, and such.I am shocked you have not heard of it. i dont think" "common dreams" sights it that much.

Polling is what people believe, it says nothing about the people conducting the poll, but it says some thing about the people taking the poll. In other words, it proves by my Iraq-9/11 example just how uninformed the average American truly is. At least the ones that seem to get polled.

thsi is about the media and its biases remember? thats the thread. (not the link of saddam and 911). just a friendly reminder. im leaving now though. Have a fun time.

gallup polling organization,the most well known independent polling organization in the world. sample size 3,017 people over 18 nationwide. Just because they're well known doesn't mean they're infallible. They got the General election results completely wrong on one occasion in Britain.the question:"Now thinking for a moment about the news media: In general, do you think the news media is too liberal, just about right, or too conservative?" (Options rotated)Link? It just strikes me as highly dubious methodology if they're asking such a vague question with no leader questions.

we are discussing media bias dont make it worse! yes, i have yet to see any poll that backs up your assertionIn that case, as well as the information on the poll, please provide other evidence as well (not anecdotal obviously) to back up your claims. Particuarly as, even if the polling methodology is sound, and I'm not convinced, it doesen't actually measure the reality of media bias, merely the perception, and they're two entirely different things.

also, stephistan, isnt the media somthing people know a little bit about first hand? are you saying people are too stupid to know what way the media is telling them things? that is insulting.

Bullshit. People ARE stupid, and gullible, too. Just because someone thinks something is X doesn't make it so. An opinion poll doesn't mean shit, because it's all in the eye of the beholder. Furthermore, people have been hearing about the "liberal media bias" for the past ten-plus years, thanks to tons of Conservative pundits shoving it down their throats. That's bound to affect their opinions, too.

Bottom-line is that polls are practically meaningless, particularly if you're just asking regular people what they THINK about something. What the hell do I care if someone thinks CNN is biased and Fox news is "Fair and ballanced"?

i follow polls very carefully

WHY? :confused:

WHY? :confused:

He probably doesn't..*LOL*

He seemed to fail to understand that just because Gallup conducted the poll it doesn't mean the people they polled knew what they were talking about, that's why it's called an "opinion poll" I don't question Gallup's integrity to conduct a poll, I question the intelligence of the people they're polling.

Add in this:

Democratic Convention 2004- While the Bill Clinton speech was being shown on CNN and MSNBC, FNC was reporting what President Bush was doing during the Dem. Convention: likewise....

I would say CNN is right-wing, as most American television news programmes are. Like most American tv channels, it displayed a flying USA flag during the beginning of the "War and Terror" which does tend to rule out any neutral stance quite graphically.


Fox News is so right-wing, that to most European viewers it's actually funny that it could be considered a source of news. It's viewed more as a curiosity.

I'll agree with that. Sadly I couldn't find that option on the poll until I had already posted. :p

"knight ridder" and common dreams websight are not nationaly acredited polling or news services. most notably cmmon dreams as If i am not mistaken , that is a left wing websight. please, we are discussing media bias dont make it worse! yes, i have yet to see any poll that backs up your assertion and is credible.

The common dreams article is a reprint of an Seattle times article and has the notation at the top. It is NOT an article written by them.

Here is a link citing a Washington Post poll at the time with a 69% rating:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Here is a link to an article citing a Princeton Research poll that had only 17% of respondends knowing that none of the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi. over 40% believed that MOST were Iraqi.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/02/06/iraq_poll/

Here is a lower number, but the question is also more specific. It has 45% of americans believing that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9-11 attacks:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm


There are tons of examples out there...
http://www.rense.com/general41/sd7.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

I can't be bothered to find them all for you. Feel free to get off your duff and do some reading of your own. the results are clearly consistent though - prior to the war the majority of Americans had been led to believe that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were involved in the attacks of 9-11. Because they sure as hell didn't come up with that theory on their own!

I would say CNN is right-wing, as most American television news programmes are. Like most American tv channels, it displayed a flying USA flag during the beginning of the "War and Terror" which does tend to rule out any neutral stance quite graphically.


Fox News is so right-wing, that to most European viewers it's actually funny that it could be considered a source of news. It's viewed more as a curiosity.As many American liberals say, what says patriotism is right-wing? These channels display American flags not because they are left- or right-wing, but because they are American.

I am, to say the least, surprised at how many people regard CNN as right-wing. I guess Europe and Canada are more left-wing than I thought if they think American liberals are moderate conservatives. Just a matter of perspective, I guess. To the deepest regions of the left, anyone further to the right than Ted Kennedy is an ultraconservative.

I was shocked to see that the first post in this topic was completely ignored. Nobody has yet been able to derail my arguement, yet people still think CNN is right-wing.

I guess we seek out what we want to hear and tune out everything else.

What stories they choose to report: FNC is the only channel I have found that reports the openings of schools and hospitals in Iraq. All you hear from CNN is the bad news from Iraq. CNN's Iraq is a chaotic firework show, while other sources (and not just FNC) suggest that things are, for the most part, stable and that things are drastically improving over there.

Bad news sells more. Any journalist will tell you that.

The order of the stories they report: On a daily basis, I watched CNN report abuse in Iraq (live or recap). It was typically followed by a debate, then an update of whatever Kerry happened to be doing. They show something bad, link it to Bush, and boost his opponent. Try watching it and you'll see that.

Fine. I'll watch it indepth for a while tomorrow.

The time spent reporting different stories: I heard almost nothing out of them about the UN oil-for-food scandal, but they spent an incredible amount of time talking about Abu Ghriab and "how high up the ladder it goes," while showing pictures of Bush. It was then found Bush had nothing to do with the abuse, but they didn't choose to spend much time reporting about that. If you watch, they also spend an inordinate amount of time reporting on the Kerry campaign or discussing the Kerry campaign; far more than what they say about Bush.

Abu Ghirab was more sensational to report than UN oil-for-food scandal. There were pictures of people being abused, on leashes- what pictures were there for the UN scandal? Pictures sell more.


Believe it or not, even the graphics: take a good look at their "Decision 2004" graphic sometime. Keep in mind that blue states means Democratic, red states means Republican. The "Decision 2004" graphics shows a red circle with an elephant in it next to a picture of Bush, and a blue circle with a donkey in it next to a picture of Kerry. Fair enough. Below that is the white lettering "Decision 2004". Good so far... wait. Why is there a large blue star in there, too? Sort of drowns out the red.

That's trivial. Why even bother bringing that up?

As for the newspapers I have read, FNC dug up an interesting fact: The New York Times had 43 front-page headlines about Abu Grhaib, and only 2 about the oil-for-food scandal. In addition, when the report came out about how yes, Saddam actually was pursuing African uranium, the New York Times deemed it only to be worthy of page fourteen, as opposed to the front-page headlines received by the statement to the contrary made by the head inspector before the war.

If there were pictures of Kofi Annan shaking hands with Saddam Hussein while handing him a briefcase, it would have made page one, believe me. Even if you are dead-set in believing CNN is leftist, which i disagree with, you can look at it from this perspective: You have to remember that media is commercial, and by implying a false bias, perhaps CNN is drawing gullible "left" viewers.

Its all about money. It so happens that Abu Ghirab was likely to sell more and attract more interest than Oil-For-Food, and CNN made a commercial decision.

As many American liberals say, what says patriotism is right-wing? These channels display American flags not because they are left- or right-wing, but because they are American.

I am, to say the least, surprised at how many people regard CNN as right-wing. I guess Europe and Canada are more left-wing than I thought if they think American liberals are moderate conservatives. Just a matter of perspective, I guess. To the deepest regions of the left, anyone further to the right than Ted Kennedy is an ultraconservative.

I was shocked to see that the first post in this topic was completely ignored. Nobody has yet been able to derail my arguement, yet people still think CNN is right-wing.

I guess we seek out what we want to hear and tune out everything else.

Does that "we" include you? You talk as if you have provided neutral truth, when in actual fact your original post contains nothing more than opinion, speculation and a slightly paranoid obsession with graphical trivia.

To be honest, the main issue with the TV news media is not if it is left or right, but simply that it is bad. Very little effort is put into investigation anymore. That costs money after all. Instead, from a political standpoint, it might as well be distribution arms of the party media followed up by some discussion and opinion, but little - if any - actual investigation of the underlying facts that were faxed to them.

Some lean more towards one party or the other in terms of their pundits, and some give more coverage to one or the other party. But none actually do a good job of digging for stories anymore. If it doesn't come off the AP newswire and if they don't have a picture to go with it - it might as well not exist.


In that respect they have all prostituted themselves to the great tv-ratings gods and to the corporate shareholders who want their 10% ROI.

I am, to say the least, surprised at how many people regard CNN as right-wing. I guess Europe and Canada are more left-wing than I thought if they think American liberals are moderate conservatives. Just a matter of perspective, I guess. To the deepest regions of the left, anyone further to the right than Ted Kennedy is an ultraconservative.

I think you have highlighted something here; what is the definition of liberal. To me, liberal does not equal left-wing, it presents an image of someone in the centre or centre-right of politics but perhaps with more of an interest in social welfare that standard conservatives.

American society is certainly more right-wing that Europe, and indeed the rest of the world. You can tell this by looking at the poverty gap and lack of social welfare that neither of your major parties, Republican or Democratic, have really done much to address. I would imagine that's why you perceive Europe as being left-wing. In reality, we have a fair and balanced argument from all sides, from the far left to centrists to the far right. America, generally, has just the centre, centre-right and extreme right. For instance, you've never had a major social-democratic or socialist political party, which pretty much makes you a unique society among democracies.