NationStates Jolt Archive

I've seen several posts lately presenting the unsettling notion that FOX is balanced. I expect to hear that from FOX. FOX lies. But there are a lot of people who actually believe it.

Similarly there are a lot of people who are still repeating the lie that "the media" are on the whole, left-wing.

I'm not going to get into whether or not they really are, what I want to know is how do you, personally, judge?

It seems that most people simply listen or read briefly, and then if they feel that they are being convinced that politicians that they like are wrong the simply say that the material is biased and look away. But this is a stupid way to do it. It's like getting in the bathtub on a cold day and complaining that the water is too hot. Of course it feels hot. You're cold. By the same token, if you're steeped in political propaganda and are exposed to simple facts that are presented in the most straightforward manner possible, then you're going to think that the information is biased towards the side with which you disagree.

Even counting the number of stories that oppose one side or another doesn't tell you very much. I don't want to see an equal number of pro-Darwinism and pro-creationsim articles in Scientific American. Creatsionism is bunk. It is not bias to ignore it.

So how do you decide whether or not FOX is biased? How do you decide if MSNBC is biased? Do you have any yardstick at all, or is it just your "gut?" Although, I must admit when I watch Jerry Falwell I want to vomit, so guts are sometimes right.

Similarly there are a lot of people who are still repeating the lie that "the media" are on the whole, left-wing.

.

I can easily tell bias from statements like that. Dead giveaway.

Most people dont judge bias per se. They judge a given source's viewpoint to be opposite their own and howl "Bias!" about every piece of information from that source whether a given piece of information is biased or it is not. It has been my experience that a majority of the complaints I have seen about bias are not nearly so much about actual bias as they are complaints about the audacity of a given source to disagree with the viewpoint of a reader. All of the complaints Ive seen which specify an entire news source as always biased rather than specifying an article or even a reporter fall into this category.

I can easily tell bias from statements like that. Dead giveaway.


How so?

I say that there's a lie about there being a liberal media and you say that it gives away my bias.

You can tell that I'm probably a liberal, because conservatives agree that there is a liberal bias, but how is there a bias there? In order for that to establish a bias you need to have some evidence that there is a liberal bias in the media. If you do, you still haven't given me any clue as to how you determine if there is a bias or not.

I've seen several posts lately presenting the unsettling notion that FOX is balanced. I expect to hear that from FOX. FOX lies. But there are a lot of people who actually believe it.

Similarly there are a lot of people who are still repeating the lie that "the media" are on the whole, left-wing.

I'm not going to get into whether or not they really are, what I want to know is how do you, personally, judge?

I judge people that cravenly stick with "left/right" and "liberal/conservative" - particularly the ones who feel the need to rant and generalize and rave at "the enemy" - as being narrow-minded assholes.

In the US, both terms tend to mean little more than Democrat or Republican. They're used to make what would otherwise be dull partisan bickering look like deep, political-philosophy arguments. It's a way of self-gratifying and getting to demonize opponents for use in strawmen/ad hominem debating tactics.

Any network that claims to be unbiased is lying. Every network has bias. Fox's bias is that it is mostly infotainment, as Rupert Murdoch has admitted. That is Fox Network as a whole, not just Fox News (local or cable). Every person on Earth has a bias, there is no avoiding it. The only true unbiased news is news without a reporter, just a camera man showing the actual event as it is happening, such as C-Span. The Media would be way better off admitting their biases.

I believe Fox News however isn't unbiased, but it is relatively balanced. I think it has a strong right swing, but is still balanced, simply because it does bring in people from both sides of the issues generally, however I generally get my news from newspapers and stuff, simply because TV news tends to make me sick.

I can easily tell bias from statements like that. Dead giveaway.

Most people dont judge bias per se. They judge a given source's viewpoint to be opposite their own and howl "Bias!" about every piece of information from that source whether a given piece of information is biased or it is not. It has been my experience that a majority of the complaints I have seen about bias are not nearly so much about actual bias as they are complaints about the audacity of a given source to disagree with the viewpoint of a reader. All of the complaints Ive seen which specify an entire news source as always biased rather than specifying an article or even a reporter fall into this category.
Be quiet! I order you to shut up!




Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed!

Any network that claims to be unbiased is lying. Every network has bias. Fox's bias is that it is mostly infotainment, as Rupert Murdoch has admitted. That is Fox Network as a whole, not just Fox News (local or cable). Every person on Earth has a bias, there is no avoiding it. The only true unbiased news is news without a reporter, just a camera man showing the actual event as it is happening, such as C-Span. The Media would be way better off admitting their biases.

I believe Fox News however isn't unbiased, but it is relatively balanced. I think it has a strong right swing, but is still balanced, simply because it does bring in people from both sides of the issues generally, however I generally get my news from newspapers and stuff, simply because TV news tends to make me sick.

But how do you know if it's really "from both sides?" Also, they routinely ask the supposed liberals loaded questions to make them look foolish and tend to invite 3 self-styled conservatives for every supposed liberal. The only thing you're using to determine who is liberal is comparing them to the other people on the panel. If you were to sit Barry Goldwater down next to a modern conservative, he'd look like a hippie. Nixon would be to liberal to become president running as a Democrat today, yet we still remember him as a conservative.

And how are you any better off with newspapers? The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch. The Washington Post is owned by Sun Myung Moon. How can you trust anything that comes out of them?

I think these arguments are silly. The two forms of it are:

"Most major media outlets are unbiased, while things like Fox News are full of right-wing whackos!"

OR

"Things like Fox News are unbiased, while most major media outlets are full of left-wing whackos!"

The second part of both those statements are true. Every national or international news agency has some sort of bias and there's no way to escape it.

So you know what I do? I watch Fox News, CNN, the Daily Show and the Colber Report, then once I have the a story from those widely varying angles, then I can make an informed decision as to what's really going.

I judge people that cravenly stick with "left/right" and "liberal/conservative" - particularly the ones who feel the need to rant and generalize and rave at "the enemy" - as being narrow-minded assholes.

In the US, both terms tend to mean little more than Democrat or Republican. They're used to make what would otherwise be dull partisan bickering look like deep, political-philosophy arguments. It's a way of self-gratifying and getting to demonize opponents for use in strawmen/ad hominem debating tactics.

They don't mean much more than that, because they're so ill-defined. That's what I'm trying to address here. There are actual spectra of political beliefs, and there's nothing wrong with trying to catagorize them.

Just like any given psychologist might have a wonderfully complex and fine tuned understanding of the human psyche, but if he sees the most efficient way of addressing psychiatric disorders as excersises designed to build healthier habits in the hopes that those lead to healthier moods, he's still appropriatly described as a behaviorist. Even if he thinks that BF Skinner was a blind old fart.

By the same token, someone who believes in trying to raise the standard of living of the working class, ensuring expanded civil liberties, and allowing people to speak their minds wherever and whenever they want, he's still appropriatly described as liberal, even if he owns a gun and his job as a coal miner leads him to believe that the environmentalists can go take a flying leap if blowing up the lovely green mountain means 3 more years of employment for his work crew.

It's just verbal shorthand. The problem is, because it's so ill defined, propagandists have been trying to put a whole lot of inuendo into the word. 20 years ago "liberal" was synonymous with "decent human being" and conservative meand "asshole." Now, depending on who uses it, "liberal" can mean "gay communist terrorist city-dwelling pacifist college-educated brainless coffee aficionado (as opposed to a good honest coffee drinker,)" simply because conservatives have been very careful to use a speaking version of a google-bomb to connect those thoughts in the minds of the American public.

What I'm trying to get at in this thread however is "does anyone have a coherent idea of what they're talking about when they use the terms "liberal" and "conservative?" You have good reason for thinking that they don't. But I'd like to hear some people explain what the words mean to them. Sadly my hook seems to have a dead worm on it.

They don't mean much more than that, because they're so ill-defined. That's what I'm trying to address here. There are actual spectra of political beliefs, and there's nothing wrong with trying to catagorize them.

I agree.


Just like any given psychologist might have a wonderfully complex and fine tuned understanding of the human psyche, but if he sees the most efficient way of addressing psychiatric disorders as excersises designed to build healthier habits in the hopes that those lead to healthier moods, he's still appropriatly described as a behaviorist. Even if he thinks that BF Skinner was a blind old fart.

Hmm, I suppose, but politics is a much hotter and more widespread problem with this sort of general categorization. Since political opponents are more frequently portrayed as the Enemy these days.


It's just verbal shorthand. The problem is, because it's so ill defined, propagandists have been trying to put a whole lot of inuendo into the word. 20 years ago "liberal" was synonymous with "decent human being" and conservative meand "asshole." Now, depending on who uses it, "liberal" can mean "gay communist terrorist city-dwelling pacifist college-educated brainless coffee aficionado (as opposed to a good honest coffee drinker,)" simply because conservatives have been very careful to use a speaking version of a google-bomb to connect those thoughts in the minds of the American public.

I like the analogy to the google-bomb. Very appropriate.

What I'm trying to get at in this thread however is "does anyone have a coherent idea of what they're talking about when they use the terms "liberal" and "conservative?" You have good reason for thinking that they don't. But I'd like to hear some people explain what the words mean to them. Sadly my hook seems to have a dead worm on it.

Well, to my understanding and without going to the wiki, a liberal is someone who values liberty, a conservative someone who values tradition. Liberals are trying to change things, conservatives try to keep things the same. But I know thats a pretty shaky definition.

I really think the terms have been rendered meaningless - its not just that "liberal" means "Asshole" now and it used to be the other way around, its that "liberal" seems to apply to Communism (IMO the exact opposite of liberty) and "conservatives" seems to apply to people who want to create a One World Government. Or is it vice versa? It's both now for some reason. Black means white means black.

I'm sure others will answer, but usually the people who use the terms the most on this forum will nod sagely to this thread (if they post at all), and then go back to babbling about The Typical Liberal Psychology or the Evil Conservative Agenda.

I think these arguments are silly. The two forms of it are:

"Most major media outlets are unbiased, while things like Fox News are full of right-wing whackos!"

OR

"Things like Fox News are unbiased, while most major media outlets are full of left-wing whackos!"

The second part of both those statements are true. Every national or international news agency has some sort of bias and there's no way to escape it.

So you know what I do? I watch Fox News, CNN, the Daily Show and the Colber Report, then once I have the a story from those widely varying angles, then I can make an informed decision as to what's really going.

But you're still assuming that the furthest left the media shows you go is "THE left" and likewise for the right.

It isn't. There's no socialist media available in the mainstream at all. Air America has fairly spotty liberal talk. All the rest, including the verious 24 guys are demonstrably pro-republican and by extension arguably pro-conservative in their bias. So you thing you're adding 1,1,1,1,-1,-1,-1,-1, and getting an average of 0, when you may well be adding 1,0,-1,-1,-1,-1,-2,-5 and getting an average of -1.25 that you think equals zero.

I tend to look at who is saying it. godhatesfags.com has some obvious credibility issues when it comes to presenting itself as fair and ballanced in the case of homosexuals.

What's the reputation of who is saying it? AP and Routers tend to have a better rep than Matt Drudge.

Is what is being said backed up by other sources? Are these scources good or the equivlent of "I overheard it in a bar"? Fox News, while I feel gives a right wing slant to things, does tend to back up what it is saying (The news portions of, the editorials don't seem to need to be bothered with facts). Random blogs, or NS General posts, seem to assume that any tale told by someone or a wiki entry counts as proof.

Is there an attempt to present the other side in a full manner and not as a strawman? Selective editing is a hallmark of both liberal and conservative stories. There needs to be a good ballance between the two sides, and both sides needs to come from good sources.

Finally, is what being said obviously serving an ajenda. Press releases from the White House or Senator Reid's office have obvious ajendas. Mainstream media have ajendas of selling something.

All of this is pretty basic in evaluating source material for bias and correcting for. Personally I dislike Fox News because it does more infotainment than hard news, but I also dislike CNN for the same reasons.

Any network that claims to be unbiased is lying. Every network has bias. Fox's bias is that it is mostly infotainment, as Rupert Murdoch has admitted. That is Fox Network as a whole, not just Fox News (local or cable). Every person on Earth has a bias, there is no avoiding it. The only true unbiased news is news without a reporter, just a camera man showing the actual event as it is happening, such as C-Span. The Media would be way better off admitting their biases.

I believe Fox News however isn't unbiased, but it is relatively balanced. I think it has a strong right swing, but is still balanced, simply because it does bring in people from both sides of the issues generally, however I generally get my news from newspapers and stuff, simply because TV news tends to make me sick.

Besides the morning news, I get my news from THE DAILY SHOW and THE COLBERT REPORT, mostly because I could not listen otherwise... :D

when i watch a news program, i want the news. for the most part there isnt bias in a straightforward reporting of what is happening in the world. when the reporter or newscast puts out an opinion of, say, how the war in iraq is going, its easy to tell that that is opinion/analysis and judge it as such.

most news outlets dont have bias so much as "point of view". the easiest example of this is the difference between CNN and the nbc/cbs/abc nightly news broadcast. the networks have a definite new york point of view. CNN is in atlanta and it shows in the regional stories it covers.

remember that big east coast power blackout of a few years ago? the networks reported almost exclusively "public interest" stories about new york. how wonderfully they handled it, how great the people of nyc are. one would have thought that the only city affected was NYC. or that the cbs evening news was a local nyc broadcast. thats point of view.

i dont watch much cable news network programming. i dont have foxnews in my channel rotation at all. ive only seen it a few times. less than a dozen. i have seen quite a bit of cnn and msnbc over the years.

fox cable news is the only outlet that i have noticed has an actual bias. and as i said, ive only seen it a few times. how odd would it be that those were the only times when the news was actively trying to lead me to a certain opinion rather than reporting the events, asking the questions that need to be asked, and letting me make my own conclusions. im not talking about pundit shows devoted to someones opinions. im talking about the freaking news. im not talking about being "pro america", all the news networks are pro america and give the current administration the benefit of the doubt. im talking about slanting the coverage of certain events to lead you to one conclusion only. whether that be "george bush should be re-elected" or "the war in iraq is a great idea".

So how do you decide whether or not FOX is biased? How do you decide if MSNBC is biased? Do you have any yardstick at all, or is it just your "gut?" Although, I must admit when I watch Jerry Falwell I want to vomit, so guts are sometimes right.Take a look at how things get reported. MSNBC, CNN, and FOX all try to get you to watch their channel for ratings. The means by which they do this is by talking about things they think you want to hear. "Breaking News!" is a good example of how they do it. They have one case with sparse facts that they repeat over and over again, with the tantalizing promise that they'll update you on any new developments, which don't happen for a while. Usually, it'll be something that the editors think people want to hear, like the JonBennet story.

For bias, look how things are reported. Check out the vocabulary. Different words can have the same meaning, but have different connotations, meaning they "feel" differently (example: "spy" and "secret agent". Spy has a slightly more adventurous and/or negative connotation, secret agent a more bureaucratic and/or noble connotation).
Check what side of the story is being reported and who is being put into what light. Focusing on a specific part of a story or side of a conflict isn't inherently biased. Giving undue attention to trivial or less important details because of the assumption that that's what the audience wants to hear, however, is.

How so?

I say that there's a lie about there being a liberal media and you say that it gives away my bias.

You can tell that I'm probably a liberal, because conservatives agree that there is a liberal bias, but how is there a bias there? In order for that to establish a bias you need to have some evidence that there is a liberal bias in the media. If you do, you still haven't given me any clue as to how you determine if there is a bias or not.

It just keeps going on and on. Make it stop, I implore you!

No, in order to prove that people who say there is a liberal bias are telling a lie you need to prove they are incorrect. See the difference?

Logic aside, which is how this thread started in the first place, there is no way to determine bias from a single statement. But if I read enough veiled attacks from a single poster, rather than open attacks, it is pretty easy to deduce that the poster has adopted a politicised style of writing. If his works are always or nearly always against his "enemies" rather than for his "friends" or for anything really it is particularly easy to notice a chip on his shoulder. Chips be bias.

Fox doesn't really lie, they just spin.

I start with the assumption that all human beings have some kind of bias and some degree of bias.

Then I listen to what people have to say about their own views. When enough people self-identify as "liberal" or "conservative" and when enough of their views coincide with each other on enough points, I use that data to identify "Liberal" and "Conservative" opinion platforms.

Then I compare the content of media outlets to the opinion platforms that constitute "Liberal" and "Conservative" to determine the prevailing bias of the given news outlet.

Then I compare their biased statements to available facts to determine the degree of their bias.

From this, I conclude that MSNBC has a liberal bias but still presents enough facts that viewers are able to get usable information with which to make up their own minds. Thus, they are a good source of information.

Whereas, FOX has a conservative bias that is so prevalent that facts are typically edited, twisted, or omitted in order to support biased statements. Therefore, they are not a good source of information.

Whereas, the magazine The Economist has a conservative bias but, like MSNBC (and actually better than them), they also present enough facts and are clear enough about their own bias that readers can easily tell fact from opinion. Thus, they are a good source of information.

You know, it really isn't all that difficult to spot bias, people. All you have to do is pay attention and listen to more than one source.

Has anyone ever noticed how Vetalia's posts usually read like articles in The Economist?

when i watch a news program, i want the news. for the most part there isnt bias in a straightforward reporting of what is happening in the world. when the reporter or newscast puts out an opinion of, say, how the war in iraq is going, its easy to tell that that is opinion/analysis and judge it as such.


I wouldn't be so sure. News, which seems to be neutral, can be biased by not telling everything.

In Germany, there is a tabloid called BILD. It is a very conservative paper, and if something in the world doesn't fit in for BILD, they don't write about it.

An Example: A couple of months ago, George W. Bush was visiting Germany. As he isn't very popular in Germany, there were a lots of protests. But BILD didn't mention them.

Similarly there are a lot of people who are still repeating the lie that "the media" are on the whole, left-wing.


Just like here in Italy. Former PM Berlusconi (right wing) owns 3 analogue tv channels, a lot of digital channels, some radio channels, half a dozen newspapers, controls 80% of advertising market...

...so when he claims "the commies control the media!"...

...a great part of the italian media (those he owns, plus some "independent") make huge titles with "the commies!" etc...

...and a lot of italians believe him.

What the hell... if commies did control the media, do you think he would be likely to appear in the news each time?

:sniper:

as a future member of the Armed Forces, i find it to be contrary to my service to involve myself in politics. that isn't to say i go along w/ everything the president says. for the most part, i think he has the intelligence of a retarded monkey (coke does that to you). this is purely from a tactical point of view by the way, and i could have told him from the start the war would be for [expletive deleted]. So, as an answer to your question, i don't watch news programs anymore because both sides need to go and [expletive deleted] themselves with a [expletive deleted] while they're being figuratively[expletive deleted] and at the same time lterally [expletive deleted] by the [expletive deleted] that were [expletive deleted] in the first [expletive deleted] place.

politics: derived from the words 'poly' and 'tics,' poly meaning 'many' and ticks being blood-sucking arachnids.