NationStates Jolt Archive

Some of my teachers and friends claim that the media has a liberal bias. I'm not too sure about how true that is, but I consider the fact that I only know a few conservative channels such as Fox News, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc.

Duh. Everybody is biased about something.

Yes - the interesting question is - In what way is the media biased?

Amusingly the banner ad on this thread is for New Gingrich's newsletter. :D

Are they confusing opinion shows with news?

Yes, the media is biased. In what way a media outlet is biased varies.

Everything has a bias. You have to have some kind of bias to appeal to your target audience. Fox news has a conservative bias, so to a slightly lesser extent does MSNBC, while CNN is rather liberal.

Of course. The viewers have a bias as well. There are certain shows I would rather have root canal than listen to/watch.

The media is biased towards profit.

Except Fox, they're biased towards a complete lack of journalistic integrity.

My grandmother watches too much Fox News, which is the network that brought you the whole 'OBAMA ISN'T AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!" crap.

Oh no... Not again!

Unbiased news is, first of all, boring. In order to capture the interest of the news consumer, a bias has to be introduced. Imagine a news story reading "two passenger planes crashed into the Twin Towers today at @ 9:30 ET. Several thousand are either dead or missing. In related news, a third passenger plane crashed into the Pentagon and a fourth crashed in a field in Pennsylvania." There are no buzzwords, nothing is emphasized, no one is viewing with alarm, there are no man on the street interviews or suppositions, no film. There is just straight, dry news. For it to mean anything, a bias is required.

Now let it read "In a resounding victory against the infidel, Islamic heroes sacrificed their lives for the glory of Allah."

Or let it read "Islamic terrorists, lead by the infamous Osama bin Laden, attacked the US without cause, killing thousands of innocent victims. The heroic efforts of the NYFD and the NYPD... "

Well, you get the picture - unbiased is boring, biased is interesting and gripping.

Some of my teachers and friends claim that the media has a liberal bias. I'm not too sure about how true that is, but I consider the fact that I only know a few conservative channels such as Fox News, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc.

The media is a business. Besides, since when was Fox News conservative? I thought they were 'fair and balanced'. *tries to keep a straight face*

The media is a business. Besides, since when was Fox News conservative? I thought they were 'fair and balanced'. *tries to keep a straight face*

My grandma actually tried to use that line with me. I asked her "Ok, so they show both sides, but do they show one side in a favorable light, and the other in a negative light? I got the deer in headlights look from her. :D

Some of my teachers and friends claim that the media has a liberal bias. I'm not too sure about how true that is, but I consider the fact that I only know a few conservative channels such as Fox News, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc.

I am of the view that most media in the United States has a very liberal slant; it is a pity, since the media has had a role in determining policy since the 1960s when their negative broadcasts of the Vietnam War made it increasingly unpopular.

My grandma actually tried to use that line with me. I asked her "Ok, so they show both sides, but do they show one side in a favorable light, and the other in a negative light? I got the deer in headlights look from her. :D

I see that look a lot. :D

The media is biased because people are biased. As was already pointed out it does make the news a little more bland. You can get different opinions you just have to look for them. For example the BBC is catching on in the USA in some markets. There also things like Bloomberg and Reuters where they only care about making money, which is bias, but they do not care one way or the other who is running the show. We also have AP which gets a few hits every now and then.

Let's face it in the USA, people watch crap. Why? There really isn't much else on.

Let's see:
Survivor 94
American Idol 4002
Heros
24 season 64
Friends in rerun
Big Brother

Yes the media is biased.....towards making money.

The media is biased towards profit.

Except Fox, they're biased towards a complete lack of journalistic integrity.

This. The media is biased towards whatever will make them profit. Plus, even if some reporters seemingly have a left leaning bias, that doesn't change the fact that media would definitely not have the balls to say anything truly radical..

I am of the view that most media in the United States has a very liberal slant; it is a pity, since the media has had a role in determining policy since the 1960s when their negative broadcasts of the Vietnam War made it increasingly unpopular.
I think it's not so much the media moving left as the country moving right.

Are members of the media human?

If so, the media are biased.

Having said that, objectivity should be the order of the day for people in media.

Everything has a bias. You have to have some kind of bias to appeal to your target audience. Fox news has a conservative bias, so to a slightly lesser extent does MSNBC, while CNN is rather liberal.
CNN has an idiot bias. Which is why they are my number one source of information on pornography, missing white women, and Nancy Grace's latest bout of verbal diarrhea. Someone really needs to smack that woman.

CNN has an idiot bias. Which is why they are my number one source of information on pornography, missing white women, and Nancy Grace's latest bout of verbal diarrhea. Someone really needs to smack that woman.

Her head is disproportionate to the rest of her body. It's very disconcerting.

The media is biased towards profit.

Except Fox, they're biased towards a complete lack of journalistic integrity.

^ This is about right.

To go into more detail, the studies I've seen have suggested that reporters tend to be personally very slightly left of center, editors/producers/owners tend to be personally somewhat right of center, and that media coverage as a whole tends to slant slightly, but not majorly, to the right.

The media is only as biased as the corporations that own their outlets. Make your own assessments from that.

Her head is disproportionate to the rest of her body. It's very disconcerting.
She uses that head to disorient her enemies in combat. It is like the hood on a cobra.

People think the media has a liberal bias because if one considers Fox News to be fair and balanced everything else is about as far left as Das Kapital.

Draw what conclusions from that you will.

I am of the view that most media in the United States has a very liberal slant; it is a pity, since the media has had a role in determining policy since the 1960s when their negative broadcasts of the Vietnam War made it increasingly unpopular.

Yes, it was the broadcasts of senseless murder by US soldiers against people some 10,000 miles away where young men were being drafted to go and get traumatized, injured or die...yeah, the broadcast of atrocity is what made that war unpopular. Not the atrocities of senseless killing of both Vietnamese people and young US soldiers themselves.

Yes, it was the broadcasts of senseless murder by US soldiers against people some 10,000 miles away where young men were being drafted to go and get traumatized, injured or die...yeah, the broadcast of atrocity is what made that war unpopular. Not the atrocities of senseless killing of both Vietnamese people and young US soldiers themselves.
Ah, I get it. Because the people of the 1960's were all capable of astral projection, so they didn't need news media to provide them with information about what happens miles and miles away. A pity we forgot how to do that...

I've got to wonder why this question is even being asked as I would have thought it rather obvious. Of course it's damned biased! Media will only be as objective as the people who produce it.

Bias is implicit, since all news is made by human beings. HUmans cannot eliminate all bias; we are always making judgements of one kind or another.

The majority of US media has a mild left wing bias, though it is fair to say that this is a considerable reduction from the period of the '70's and early '80's. A minority has a mild conservative bias, and a smaller group holds extremist views, primarily right-wing (though I have encountered similar left-wing immoderates occasionally as well).

On the other hand, Australia's media has been kept deliberately centrist by over-generous ownership laws and poor oversight, resulting in news services which are low-bias, but also of little use.

She uses that head to disorient her enemies in combat. It is like the hood on a cobra.

That would explain a lot! :eek:

Ah, I get it. Because the people of the 1960's were all capable of astral projection, so they didn't need news media to provide them with information about what happens miles and miles away. A pity we forgot how to do that...

You do realize I'm supporting the reporting of the atrocities and not the demonization of those who dared to do their jobs, right?

'Cause your post seems to lean toward me not knowing that the US audience would never have seen a thing if it weren't for the press. That would be wrong.

It's fairly obvious by listening for like 5 seconds to any of these stations that:

Fox is biased toward Conservatives
MSNBC is biased toward liberals (heavily)
CNN is biased toward liberals (but not as bad)
And no on earth has watched ABC News for five years... so we don't know!

You do realize I'm supporting the reporting of the atrocities and not the demonization of those who dared to do their jobs, right?

'Cause your post seems to lean toward me not knowing that the US audience would never have seen a thing if it weren't for the press. That would be wrong.
Wait, I thought Alexander was in support of the media, because he said it was a pity that it was becoming unpopular.
I appear to have confused his pronoun use.

Everything has a bias. You have to have some kind of bias to appeal to your target audience. Fox news has a conservative bias, so to a slightly lesser extent does MSNBC, while CNN is rather liberal.

Erm... MSNBC has a conservative bias? Did anyone tell Olbermann?

Erm... MSNBC has a conservative bias? Did anyone tell Olbermann?I don't know what you're on about. [/forgot to give him the letter]
<.<
>.>

Yes, it was the broadcasts of senseless murder by US soldiers against people some 10,000 miles away where young men were being drafted to go and get traumatized, injured or die...yeah, the broadcast of atrocity is what made that war unpopular. Not the atrocities of senseless killing of both Vietnamese people and young US soldiers themselves.

That was no different to World War I, World War II or the Korean Police Action; what was different is that instead of backing the military, the media did everything in its power to attack it.

Compare what the media produced in World War II with what they produced in Vietnam, and it is unfortunate that such an attitude continues to this day - especially with Iraq, where the media first agreed with it, then made a 180 degree turn.

Some of my teachers and friends claim that the media has a liberal bias. I'm not too sure about how true that is, but I consider the fact that I only know a few conservative channels such as Fox News, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc.

They're all biased towards making money. Shocking, no?

Is the media biased? ...is water wet?

Some of my teachers and friends claim that the media has a liberal bias. I'm not too sure about how true that is, but I consider the fact that I only know a few conservative channels such as Fox News, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc.

Fox is of course extremely biased, though in favor of conservatives as you noticed. The only other American news network I watch is CNN, and they tend to be either right or centrist. For the right, they've got Lou Dobbes (fear of immigrants and China), Nancy Grace (guilty until proven innocent), and they had Glen Beck (the worst of the worst?), until he left to join his kindred spirits on Fox. As for the rest, I think they're fairly centrist, by which I mean that they won't be so overtly political, they will probably call either side on explicite bullshit, but will try to report the rest neutrally. This can be a detriment since, instead of digging for the facts, they'll simply report both side's arguments and call it "fair journalism." Unfortunately, this makes it appear both sides are valid even when one isn't. At least that's how I see it.

Can't comment on other forms of media much. I think blogging and so on tends to me more liberal, though their are conservative exceptions (the favorite internet candidates were Ron Paul and Barrak Obama, right?). Newspapers I don't know about overall, just that bias probably varies from paper to paper and from one area to another. Movies are varried; I've seen movies with both liberal and conservative messages, and no studies on which are more predominant. The only thing I have observed is that Christian messages still seem to be quite common in Hollywood movies, but that doesn't nessissarily equal conservative.

One thing you've got to remember about America, though, is that its shifted somewhat to the right of much of the Western world. So even what's "liberal" in the US may be quite "conservative" in some areas. Hell, some of Obama's policies sound close to the Canadian Conservative Party (stay in Afghanistan, not outright supporting gay marriages, both private and public health care).

As for the rest, I think they're fairly centrist, by which I mean that they won't be so overtly political, they will probably call either side on explicite bullshit, but will try to report the rest neutrally. This can be a detriment since, instead of digging for the facts, they'll simply report both side's arguments and call it "fair journalism." Unfortunately, this makes it appear both sides are valid even when one isn't. At least that's how I see it.

All too true, unfortunately. If it helps you to understand why this happens, I can tell you that digging for the facts is very satisfying, but usually a waste of time. You end up with something that you are pretty sure is factually accurate, but publishing it would land you a libel case, if not a prison sentence.

[Goes back to writing about a court case where someone who he is sure was guilty got found not guilty.]

Movies are varried; I've seen movies with both liberal and conservative messages, and no studies on which are more predominant. The only thing I have observed is that Christian messages still seem to be quite common in Hollywood movies, but that doesn't nessissarily equal conservative.

Hang on a second, let us not forget that Hollywood is one of the most liberal institutions in the country. The only conservative film directors that I can think of are Mel Gibson and David Zucker; I can think of very few conservative actors/actresses. I would say that movies have a slight liberal bias because of the political views of the actors/actresses and directors.

Is this even a question? Duh.

Erm... MSNBC has a conservative bias? Did anyone tell Olbermann?

Yeah I messed up, I'd blame the drugs if I was on any.

Any news anchor or writer, or whatever is obviously going to be biased based on his/her own political views...

Thats why Hannity and Maddow are on the same medium...


Its more the fact that there is a Net Liberal Bias among the individuals on TV...Fox is still a Conservative Channel, but because CNN and MSNBC are largely Liberal, it means they are outnumbered 2 to 1...

and a Net Conservative Bias on the Radio...NPR is notedly Liberal, but there is only one NPR station in states, and most independent stations are largely Conservative...creating a higher Conservative to Liberal ration on the Radio...

All media is commercially and politically biased.


The bias depends on the source from Xinhua to Pravda.ru, BBC to Sony Entertainment, Microsoft to Slashdot - Each has different bias and focus based on the audience they're targeting.


Just remember that Truth is a commodity an' you'll do fine.

all media must be bias, as its reported by humans, and all humans have some sort of bias politically, even thoose who dont admit to it.

Its more the fact that there is a Net Liberal Bias among the individuals on TV...Fox is still a Conservative Channel, but because CNN and MSNBC are largely Liberal, it means they are outnumbered 2 to 1...

The problem in my opinion is that while everyone makes a fuss of Fox being a Conservative channel, no-one makes a fuss over CNN and MSNBC being Liberal channels. If people actually made a fuss, then all would be well in my opinion.

This is particularly crucial given the power the media have, as shown with last years US elections.

The problem in my opinion is that while everyone makes a fuss of Fox being a Conservative channel, no-one makes a fuss over CNN and MSNBC being Liberal channels. If people actually made a fuss, then all would be well in my opinion.

This is particularly crucial given the power the media have, as shown with last years US elections.

Is not this thread people making a Fuss? Is not the massive attacks against the "Liberal Media" and the wide-spread use of the term making a Fuss? That net Conservative Radio is constantly making a fuss...


There are just as many people making a fuss about the Liberal Media as with the Conservative media...because there is no such thing...Its just both sides of the political spectrum wishing to be the Victim so they can attack the other side...

Skallvia, when people think of Fox, they usually think of it in a negative light, emphasising the fact that it is a Conservative channel. When people think of CNN, they don't think of it in a negative light, and most wouldn't even care that it has a Liberal bias.

To put it an easier way, who would you believe more. Fox, or CNN?

Skallvia, when people think of Fox, they usually think of it in a negative light, emphasising the fact that it is a Conservative channel. When people think of CNN, they don't think of it in a negative light, and most wouldn't even care that it has a Liberal bias.

To put it an easier way, who would you believe more. Fox, or CNN?

Um, no, When I think of CNN, I think of the Communist News Network, a product of people making a fuss about its Liberal Tendencies...


I believe neither, there are two outlets that Ill generally believe, and even then im skeptical, Associated Press, and Reuters....

EDIT: Furthermore, when I watch News on TV, I watch all three networks, to get a well rounded opinion, and then form my own...

Um, no, When I think of CNN, I think of the Communist News Network, a product of people making a fuss about its Liberal Tendencies...

Hehe...reminds me of some conservative friends of mine who call the BBC the "British Bolshevik Corporation"

Hang on a second, let us not forget that Hollywood is one of the most liberal institutions in the country. The only conservative film directors that I can think of are Mel Gibson and David Zucker; I can think of very few conservative actors/actresses. I would say that movies have a slight liberal bias because of the political views of the actors/actresses and directors.

I'd say The Dark Knight could be said to be taking a slightly pro-torture/illegal survailance position. And lots of movies glorify the military. But yes, probably more left than right, by America's standards if not the world's.

The media is only as biased as the conservative media congolmerates that own them and the conservative corperations who pay for their advertising space let them be.

I have absolutely no idea how biased or unbiased the media is in the USA, other than the fact I hear they have a LOT of power over there.

I live in New Zealand (ever heard of us? Of course not, we suck), which is considered the least corrupt countryy in the world, along with Finland and Iceland.

Well, let me tell you how it is in a "uncorrupt" nation. The media are biased. Very biased. So biased in fact that they manouvered a political party into power. I'm gonna keep it brief, because I'm lazy and have to be somewhere in 10 minutes.

1. The Media is controlled by rich bastards. Rich bastards go for the National Party (kinda like Republicans but not as rascist). Therefore rich bastards are going to subtly try and get their party into power.
2. John Campbell, an influential and supposedly neutral anchorman (now with his own show) had an argument on air a few years back with then Prime Minister Helen Clark. It is quite clear that neither parties get on with each other. Yet... he's among the most influential people in NZ
3. John Key of the national party was critised for wanting to suck up to America a few years ago and join the Iraq war. Despite Helen Clark's brilliant argument, which would have turned anyone with half a brain away from Key, the media painted her out as an idiot by inserting brief shots of her looking wrongfooted or confused, while whenever the reporter spoke of John Key, the shots were always of him helping the underprivelidged or looking strong and friendly.

Funnily enough, john key is now Prime Minister, and since then every magazine has said Helen Clark is an idiot, despite her keeping us safe from Al Quaeda and the Economic Crisis. Incidently, thanks to John Key, we've entered the recession.

Thanks, Camwest, TVNZ and John Key. Let me buy you a beer... not.

I have absolutely no idea how biased or unbiased the media is in the USA, other than the fact I hear they have a LOT of power over there.

I live in New Zealand (ever heard of us? Of course not, we suck), which is considered the least corrupt countryy in the world, along with Finland and Iceland.

Well, let me tell you how it is in a "uncorrupt" nation. The media are biased. Very biased. So biased in fact that they manouvered a political party into power. I'm gonna keep it brief, because I'm lazy and have to be somewhere in 10 minutes.

1. The Media is controlled by rich bastards. Rich bastards go for the National Party (kinda like Republicans but not as rascist). Therefore rich bastards are going to subtly try and get their party into power.
2. John Campbell, an influential and supposedly neutral anchorman (now with his own show) had an argument on air a few years back with then Prime Minister Helen Clark. It is quite clear that neither parties get on with each other. Yet... he's among the most influential people in NZ
3. John Key of the national party was critised for wanting to suck up to America a few years ago and join the Iraq war. Despite Helen Clark's brilliant argument, which would have turned anyone with half a brain away from Key, the media painted her out as an idiot by inserting brief shots of her looking wrongfooted or confused, while whenever the reporter spoke of John Key, the shots were always of him helping the underprivelidged or looking strong and friendly.

Funnily enough, john key is now Prime Minister, and since then every magazine has said Helen Clark is an idiot, despite her keeping us safe from Al Quaeda and the Economic Crisis. Incidently, thanks to John Key, we've entered the recession.

Thanks, Camwest, TVNZ and John Key. Let me buy you a beer... not.

Also, that's how it is in the world's "least corrupt country". I loathe to imagine how it is in the USA with all its media giants and history of dirty governments.

Ah, I get it. Because the people of the 1960's were all capable of astral projection, so they didn't need news media to provide them with information about what happens miles and miles away. A pity we forgot how to do that...

there's always the letters from troops and the telegrams to parents that their Son just died moving through a piece of jungle that his platoon abandoned shortly after his death . . .

Of course. Just read Time magazine. They always highly rate Time Warner movies. Now if that ain't bias, then I don't know what is.

I live in New Zealand (ever heard of us? Of course not, we suck), which is considered the least corrupt countryy in the world, along with Finland and Iceland.

Well, let me tell you how it is in a "uncorrupt" nation. The media are biased. Very biased. So biased in fact that they manouvered a political party into power. I'm gonna keep it brief, because I'm lazy and have to be somewhere in 10 minutes.

I also live in New Zealand, and our media are certainly not biased - at least not by overseas standards. Furthermore, they did not manouver a political party unlike how the biased media of the United States made the Americans lose one war, nearly lose another and manouver a political party into power.

1. The Media is controlled by rich bastards. Rich bastards go for the National Party (kinda like Republicans but not as rascist). Therefore rich bastards are going to subtly try and get their party into power.

Who owns TVNZ?

2. John Campbell, an influential and supposedly neutral anchorman (now with his own show) had an argument on air a few years back with then Prime Minister Helen Clark. It is quite clear that neither parties get on with each other. Yet... he's among the most influential people in NZ

So? What does an argument have to do with anything - Holmes may have had an argument with Dennis Connor, but I don't think that showed any bias. Given that it was over Corngate, I believe that an argument was understandable.

3. John Key of the national party was critised for wanting to suck up to America a few years ago and join the Iraq war. Despite Helen Clark's brilliant argument, which would have turned anyone with half a brain away from Key, the media painted her out as an idiot by inserting brief shots of her looking wrongfooted or confused, while whenever the reporter spoke of John Key, the shots were always of him helping the underprivelidged or looking strong and friendly.

Except that the media also forgot that New Zealand did get into the Iraq War. Anyone remember the Army Engineers we sent to Basra? Thought so, you have, like everyone else, conveniently forgotten that fact.

Stating that alone would have made Helen Clark appear as a liar. Also, the media wasn't all that friendly to Don Brash with the Exclusive Brethren scandal back in 2005, so I don't think that is a sign of media bias either.

Funnily enough, john key is now Prime Minister, and since then every magazine has said Helen Clark is an idiot, despite her keeping us safe from Al Quaeda and the Economic Crisis. Incidently, thanks to John Key, we've entered the recession.

We have been in recession since June 2008. If memory serves, John Key only became Prime Minister in November 2008, and anyway, government policy doesn't have a significant impact showing on the economy until anywhere between six and twelve months later. Major policy may not even show up for years later; such as Rogernomics which didn't have its positive impact until the mid 1990s.

Thanks, Camwest, TVNZ and John Key. Let me buy you a beer... not.

Except they didn't get John Key elected. They gave Helen Clark a fair chance, but to be honest, the public were so tired of her and her miserable failures that they would have elected a chimpanzee Prime Minister.

Also, that's how it is in the world's "least corrupt country". I loathe to imagine how it is in the USA with all its media giants and history of dirty governments.

Actually, what you depicted wasn't the truth. New Zealand is an example of relatively unbiased media and would be a good model for other nations to follow.

On the other hand, Australia's media has been kept deliberately centrist by over-generous ownership laws and poor oversight, resulting in news services which are low-bias, but also of little use.

little use I would agree with but centrist? You have to be fucking kidding me? What media do you read/watch?

The media is only as biased as the conservative media congolmerates that own them and the conservative corperations who pay for their advertising space let them be.

Yep conservatives like Rupert Murdoch who make FOX News bias the same way he makes his media outlets in Australia bias too but wait a minute they are bias towards the left. As for the main question yes the media is bias.

I tend to ignore the biassed media, and get my news from monoassed sources. Except if I want info on Pangaea, then I use my Triassed sources. :D

They are biased to what is most profitable.

They are biased to what is most profitable.

Except Fox News, which is biased towards being wrong.

Asking if the media has a liberal bias is like asking if a rocking horse has a wooden pecker.

Asking if the media has a liberal bias is like asking if a rocking horse has a wooden pecker.

because the answer is no?

Asking if the media has a liberal bias is like asking if a rocking horse has a wooden pecker.

Rocking horses have peckers?

Al Frankin annoys the fuck out of me most of the time, but every now and then he gets it right. Like when he said that the media doesn't have a pro-left wing or pro-right wing bias...the media has a pro-money bias.

Asking if the media has a liberal bias is like asking if a rocking horse has a wooden pecker.
Your childhood, it frightens me.

The problem in my opinion is that while everyone makes a fuss of Fox being a Conservative channel, no-one makes a fuss over CNN and MSNBC being Liberal channels. If people actually made a fuss, then all would be well in my opinion.

Huh? Liberals have to hear about how liberal the media is with rather little proof when the reporting happens when Fox often comes up with the most inane shit ever, or in other words when it comes to politics if CNN(which is viewed by the American public as being centrist) and MSNBC are liberal biased they at least try overcome their own biases. Fox news doesn't see to.

This is particularly crucial given the power the media have, as shown with last years US elections.

Please. The same "liberal media" gave favorable coverage to Bush in 2000 when compared to Al Gore. Picking who is the next media darling doesn't have much with do with politics so much as who makes the better image.

"the media" h'ain't a unitar-ee ntittee. 's sooce, eet can t 'ee bi-assed.

Huh? Liberals have to hear about how liberal the media is with rather little proof when the reporting happens when Fox often comes up with the most inane shit ever, or in other words when it comes to politics if CNN(which is viewed by the American public as being centrist) and MSNBC are liberal biased they at least try overcome their own biases. Fox news doesn't see to.

So all you have to do is try to overcome your bias and then the people will ignore it? Fine, at least Fox isn't afraid to demonstrate that it is biased, unlike the likes of CNN and MSNBC.

Please. The same "liberal media" gave favorable coverage to Bush in 2000 when compared to Al Gore. Picking who is the next media darling doesn't have much with do with politics so much as who makes the better image.

Indeed, you have demonstrated another example of someone who likely won because of media backing. Bush made a number of gaffes during the 2000 election, not least of which was his inability to locate Pakistan on a world map; yet the media seemingly glossed over that.

Of course, the same media came back to stab him in the back, particularly with Iraq which they initially backed whole heartedly, and then did a 180 degree turn on a little later.

So all you have to do is try to overcome your bias and then the people will ignore it? Fine, at least Fox isn't afraid to demonstrate that it is biased, unlike the likes of CNN and MSNBC.

All people are biased. Its a fact of life. Attempting to be objective is what good journalists and people who want to discover the truth do.

Indeed, you have demonstrated another example of someone who likely won because of media backing. Bush made a number of gaffes during the 2000 election, not least of which was his inability to locate Pakistan on a world map; yet the media seemingly glossed over that.

Indeed, I demonstrated that the media isn't as biased towards liberals as you maintain.


Of course, the same media came back to stab him in the back, particularly with Iraq which they initially backed whole heartedly, and then did a 180 degree turn on a little later.

Its appears that in this instance the media mirrors the public.

Fine, at least Fox isn't afraid to demonstrate that it is biased
Fox calls their coverage "fair and balanced". Doesn't sound like demonstrating bias to me.

All people are biased. Its a fact of life. Attempting to be objective is what good journalists and people who want to discover the truth do.

Unfortunately, the American media haven't quite gotten to the being objective bit yet.

Indeed, I demonstrated that the media isn't as biased towards liberals as you maintain.

There are always exceptions, however, since television became a common medium, it has been very left leaning, and that is dangerous for an institution that has so much power.

Its appears that in this instance the media mirrors the public.

I dispute that. The media were making Iraq look like an unwinnable war, so the public decided to agree with them - I mean, at the very least use some discretion; the terrorists crave media attention, so why broadcast every single hostage tape?

Some of my teachers and friends claim that the media has a liberal bias. I'm not too sure about how true that is, but I consider the fact that I only know a few conservative channels such as Fox News, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc.
In terms of ideology bias, it depends on what you percieve certain ideologies as meaning; as I've often said on this site, ideology labels sound somewhat arbitrary, as their definitions seem to vary and by associating so many opinions with a specific ideology you're in turn associating them with each other.

But in terms of bias in general, of course. If the organizations are competing for ratings, I think it's reasonable to assume they would likely say what is profitable to say, which may or may not be balanced, (and really, who gets to say what is balanced or what isn't?) or even necessarily true. Such things could be influenced by a variety of things, such the nature of the established viewer base, or those viewers' reasons for viewing, or the effects of the claims on the long-term reputations of such organizations, just to name a few. The opinions of the individual reporters may be involved, but I think it's safe to say that the more competition there is, the less influence they'll continue to have if they put their personal opinions ahead of making profitable decisions. I think the influence of personal opinion bias is overstated, and the influence of "what can I make more money by saying" bias is underappreciated.

The ideal solution, if you don't trust such media, is to use more open and varied media, such as the Internet. On the Internet, you'll see more of a variety of views expressed, and while there will probably be more personal bias expressed per person, you can easily find a perspectives biased in various directions that contradict each other, and decide for yourself who to believe.

EDIT: And granted, sometimes the Internet uses stuff from other media, such as in youtube clips using stuff from TV news. But in doing so, the Internet can point out something you might not notice with the other media, such as in youtube clips that play different networks' versions of a story and catch one of them quoting a politician out of context (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDw5a0_iFBk).

I don't think the media should strive for objectivity. They never will be objective and if they have us convinced they are when they aren't, that's a worst problem than accepting their bias and moving on.

Depends on the medium. I guess there is probably a scale, with local talk shows being the most biased, then tabloids etc.... with international news organisations like the BBC probably being the least biased.

I don't think the media should strive for objectivity. They never will be objective and if they have us convinced they are when they aren't, that's a worst problem than accepting their bias and moving on.
That too. If people can at least get used to the fact that the mainstream media will be biased and they won't always be able to tell what the greater bias is, they might be more inclined to turn to media like the Internet.

EDIT: And Hydesland, even international news organizations might report with a bias if it is profitable to do so...

CORPORATE media, is inherently biased in favor of the corporate interests it is part and parcel of. nothing remotely liberal about it by any stretch of the word though. conservative in any honest sense isn't entirely accurate either, unless you buy into the greed being praiseworthy nonsense. conservative in the sense of the unholy alliance of hypocritical fanaticism and self serving greed calling itself conservative, yes.

That was no different to World War I, World War II or the Korean Police Action; what was different is that instead of backing the military, the media did everything in its power to attack it.

Compare what the media produced in World War II with what they produced in Vietnam, and it is unfortunate that such an attitude continues to this day - especially with Iraq, where the media first agreed with it, then made a 180 degree turn.

Swing and a miss.

WWII was a war that needed to be won. We knew why we were there, or at least the fear of a Nazi'd Europe and a Japanese Pacific was enough to motivate that kind of necessity. Vietnam was a hold-over from French colonialism that morphed into a proxy battle against an ideology that wasn't in any direct, organized, military way, a direct threat to the US or its interests. We really didn't know why we were there. Huge difference. Perhaps the sell job was the best it could have been for Vietnam, but when you're drafting kids to fight against tyranny or world domination, it trumps drafting them to save...who, now? The South Vietnamese who don't want, what, to be Communist because of dominoes, or something? There's just no comparison, and your attempt to draw one between Vietnam and any other war is inaccurate.

Swing and a miss.

WWII was a war that needed to be won. We knew why we were there, or at least the fear of a Nazi'd Europe and a Japanese Pacific was enough to motivate that kind of necessity. Vietnam was a hold-over from French colonialism that morphed into a proxy battle against an ideology that wasn't in any direct, organized, military way, a direct threat to the US or its interests. We really didn't know why we were there. Huge difference. Perhaps the sell job was the best it could have been for Vietnam, but when you're drafting kids to fight against tyranny or world domination, it trumps drafting them to save...who, now? The South Vietnamese who don't want, what, to be Communist because of dominoes, or something? There's just no comparison, and your attempt to draw one between Vietnam and any other war is inaccurate.

Had we not gotten bogged down in Vietnam, I strongly suspect that the USSR would have won the Cold War. The domino theory would have more than likely gone as suggested; Cambodia and Thailand would have fallen, followed by Malaya and Indonesia. With that, freedom in Australia and New Zealand would have been very much under threat, and with that, freedom in the Pacific as a whole.

Communism was a direct, organised threat to the United States and its interests; the problem was also in the sales pitch, I agree, people were not informed strongly enough of what Communists were capable of. Part of the problem though was also ignorance, we didn't even know that there had been Gulags until the late 1960s.

Nevertheless, the media should not have stabbed the US military in the back. Given a few more years, North Vietnam would have falled, the VC were already weak by the time America pulled out of Vietnam.

CORPORATE media, is inherently biased in favor of the corporate interests it is part and parcel of.
Such as having whichever bias would get more ratings, to maximize profits?

Unfortunately, the American media haven't quite gotten to the being objective bit yet.

The goal is probably unreachable but at least they make some attempt to be objective unlike Fox.

There are always exceptions, however, since television became a common medium, it has been very left leaning, and that is dangerous for an institution that has so much power.

Do you have proof that its been left leaning? Or that it is dangerous?

I dispute that. The media were making Iraq look like an unwinnable war, so the public decided to agree with them - I mean, at the very least use some discretion; the terrorists crave media attention, so why broadcast every single hostage tape?

I dispute this. The public aren't completely stupid. They know to take what they hear with a grain of salt. Also, in the day where one can get the news from various television stations, radiostations, newspapers, news websites, blogs, ect its silly to talk of "the media" as a singular entity. As to why broadcast terrorist hostage tapes..... because it gets interest from viewers/listeners/whatever. The media is a business and so they must show what sells. If they don't show it another station will and they'll lose viewers.

The public aren't completely stupid. They know to take what they hear with a grain of salt.
Source?

The public are sheeple who will do and believe whatever they are told by their talking head Gods.

its silly to talk of "the media" as a singular entity.
Its also grammatically incorrect. "Media" is a plural.

hahaha

I do it for the love, man. ;)

hahaha

Here are a couple sources on how much the media is trusted:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/01/poll-shows-media-lack-public-trust-in-election-rep/
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/01/09/poll-only-19-americans-implicitly-trust-media

Those are interesting sources, and I don't doubt the people answering them think they actually don't trust the media. The problem is the level of inundation we have with news media in our lives. I'm taking this socg course, and basically what we've been learning is how so much of what the media tells us is flat-out wrong. For instance, when you think about violence or teen pregnancy or abortion rates, you think they are all increasing. But in fact all of them are decreasing and are at record lows. When you think about the characteristics of violence, you think it is mostly random acts done against innocent people, when in fact random violence is a tiny, tiny fraction of the actual crime committed in this country.

On another front, when you think about natural disasters you think about panicky masses of people without direction. In fact, years and years of sociological research into the reactions on communities in the wake of a disaster suggest the exact opposite - there is not looting, there is not panic, there is instead a coming together of people and by-and-large a disregard of social class in an effort to withstand natural disasters.

So much of the media bias doesn't come in the form of political biases of individuals, but rather in the framing that the media does of every single issue it addresses. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina all we heard about were roving bands of young (black) males pillaging and burning. These for the most part didn't actually exist at all. But the media has ignored what empirical research into the subject tells us and instead goes with the approach that best suits their worldviews and bottom lines. There are actually so many reasons the media approaches issues this way, which I won't get into now because it would be far too long a discussion. Unless anyone's interested.

So while you might not "trust" the media, whatever that means, there is no way you can avoid it, and even if you make every effort to sift through all of their crap and find the nuggets of really true information, you're still effected by their bias. There's no way you cannot be.

And so we're clear, the "you" I am using is not "you Tech-gnosis" it is "you impersonal"

T.V. and print seem to be liberal, whereas talk radio seems conservative.

*snip*

There is a lot of truth here. Violent crimes have decreased, but reporting on violent crimes is up. I recall a book that said that after hurricane Katrina mess was over no one could find any witnesses to the alleged rapes in the Superdome. The bias towards sensationalism is decried by most of the public and yet when sensationalist news it on people are more likely to watch it. In a competitive environment the news has to respond to the public's preferences or risks shut down.

Here's source regarding the superdome: http://postkatrinalouisiana.blogspot.com/2005/09/truth-about-superdome-and-convention.html

The bias towards sensationalism is decried by most of the public and yet when sensationalist news it on people are more likely to watch it. In a competitive environment the news has to respond to the public's preferences or risks shut down.
At the beginning of the semester, my prof asked us to write down a list of the five most important social issues facing America and the world today. People wrote down the usual ones - things like crime, poverty, the gays, a decaying sense of morality (seriously). What's funny is that things we think are "major social issues" are simply issues that have been brought to our attention by effective lobbying groups. And the most effective way of a group trying to draw attention to a problem is to suggest that their problem is getting worst or effects everyone. Thus the publics' perceptions of issues are shaped by those with a vested interest in shaping that image. Its all very interesting and its amazing how wrong many of our basic perceptions are.

T.V. and print seem to be liberal, whereas talk radio seems conservative.

Very few things are as they seem.

How would people now which social issues America is facing unless they are aware of them, and how else are they made aware by them if some organized group didn't make them aware?

How would people now which social issues America is facing unless they are aware of them, and how else are they made aware by them if some organized group didn't make them aware?

The problem isn't that people are aware of social issues, its how those issues are framed.

Had we not gotten bogged down in Vietnam, I strongly suspect that the USSR would have won the Cold War. The domino theory would have more than likely gone as suggested; Cambodia and Thailand would have fallen, followed by Malaya and Indonesia. With that, freedom in Australia and New Zealand would have been very much under threat, and with that, freedom in the Pacific as a whole.

Communism was a direct, organised threat to the United States and its interests; the problem was also in the sales pitch, I agree, people were not informed strongly enough of what Communists were capable of. Part of the problem though was also ignorance, we didn't even know that there had been Gulags until the late 1960s.

Nevertheless, the media should not have stabbed the US military in the back. Given a few more years, North Vietnam would have falled, the VC were already weak by the time America pulled out of Vietnam.

Some nice fantasy/alternate timeline writing there. You seem to forget that China could easily have gotten involved as they did in Korea. There could also have been direct Soviet involvement as well. Communism as a threat was and always has been a red herring, and the spectre of direct Soviet involvement could have sparked a nuclear exchange.

See? I can postulate meaninglessly, too!

The problem isn't that people are aware of social issues, its how those issues are framed.

Elaborate.

Elaborate.

Let's say a group wants to get some funding for their anti-crime campaign. They can approach this in several ways. They could tell the straight truth, which is that crime across the board is in fact down. But this would not be a very effective strategy for them to get money for their anti-crime campaign. "Crime is down, help us fight crime" doesn't have the best ring to it. Or they could tell you that crime is up (numerically it is, but per capita it isn't) or they could tell you that more crimes are reported than ever before, or they could say anything else to bend the truth and make it seem like crime is actually increasing when the opposite is happening.

Let's say a group wants to get some funding for their anti-crime campaign. They can approach this in several ways. They could tell the straight truth, which is that crime across the board is in fact down. But this would not be a very effective strategy for them to get money for their anti-crime campaign. "Crime is down, help us fight crime" doesn't have the best ring to it. Or they could tell you that crime is up (numerically it is, but per capita it isn't) or they could tell you that more crimes are reported than ever before, or they could say anything else to bend the truth and make it seem like crime is actually increasing when the opposite is happening.

Oh, I realize this but is it isn't it impossible not to frame an issue?

Oh, I realize this but is it isn't it impossible not to frame an issue?

Oh no question, but all of this is in response to when you originally said that people didn't trust the media. My point is people can not trust the media all they want, but by-and-large have no idea that this framing takes place, or even what framing an issue is. An individual attempting to be unbiased and as well-informed as possible, who watches CNN, NBC, the BBC, Fox, and PBS, and distrusts each of them is still going to have his perceptions shaped by the frames that the media and claims-makers put onto the issues. He will think crime, abortion, and teen pregnancies are on the rise, for instance.

Such as having whichever bias would get more ratings, to maximize profits?

if it were only about ratings for profits, the problem is, that's only half of it.
you know, its the "angels we have heard on high, tell us to go out and buy" too.
and by that i don't just mean up front advertising, but the whole orientation implied as underlying assumptions.

i really think the line that sums it up, is:
"when corporate interests control the state, corporate media IS state media".

T.V. and print seem to be liberal

only in the sense where conservative voices dominate the discussion and control the agenda, while wimpy centrists whine at them a bit when they are feeling up to it.

Let's say a group wants to get some funding for their anti-crime campaign. They can approach this in several ways. They could tell the straight truth, which is that crime across the board is in fact down. But this would not be a very effective strategy for them to get money for their anti-crime campaign. "Crime is down, help us fight crime" doesn't have the best ring to it. Or they could tell you that crime is up (numerically it is, but per capita it isn't) or they could tell you that more crimes are reported than ever before, or they could say anything else to bend the truth and make it seem like crime is actually increasing when the opposite is happening.

How is crime measured in the United States? Over here in New Zealand, the official statistics indicate that crime is decreasing, however, that is because people have stopped reporting crimes and in many cases only do so for insurance documentation.

if it were only about ratings for profits, the problem is, that's only half of it.
you know, its the "angels we have heard on high, tell us to go out and buy" too.
and by that i don't just mean up front advertising, but the whole orientation implied as underlying assumptions.
Wait... what? Your wording is confusing, what exactly are you trying to say?

The media is biased towards profit.

Except Fox, they're biased towards a complete lack of journalistic integrity.
So totally winner, this.

If you don't coddle some jingoistic horseshit, guess what? you have a nasty case of liberal bias.

If you don't coddle some jingoistic horseshit, guess what? you have a nasty case of liberal bias.
i would presume, if this is intended to be an observation of reality, as opposed to a reversal satyre of it, it is intended to mean a nasty case of being accused of it, generally as a means of right wing propaganda to facilitate unimpeded unbalanced and contrabenifical exploitation.

like i said before: when corporate interests control the state, corporate media IS state media, with all the ills that implies and then some!

i would presume, if this is intended to be an observation of reality, as opposed to a reversal satyre of it, it is intended to mean a nasty case of being accused of it, generally as a means of right wing propaganda to facilitate unimpeded unbalanced and contrabenifical exploitation.

like i said before: when corporate interests control the state, corporate media IS state media, with all the ills that implies and then some!

That sounds like commie talk to me.

That sounds like commie talk to me.Enjoy your bailout.

That sounds like commie talk to me.

it sounds like moral responsibility to me. exactly what right wing loonacy DEMONSTRATES the lack of.

yes, corporate media IS biased. in exactly the OPPOSITE way wing-nuts try to pretend it is!

it sounds like moral responsibility to me. exactly what right wing loonacy DEMONSTRATES the lack of.

yes, corporate media IS biased. in exactly the OPPOSITE way wing-nuts try to pretend it is!

If the observer is a Marxist-Leninist - true.

Your childhood, it frightens me.

Yes, it should. My parents were married.

That sounds like commie talk to me.

Best avatar ever? I think so.

Oh, sorry just thinking out loud. Y'all can get back to your thread now.

How is crime measured in the United States? Over here in New Zealand, the official statistics indicate that crime is decreasing, however, that is because people have stopped reporting crimes and in many cases only do so for insurance documentation.

Well, there are several measures of the crime rate that are used. Its difficult to rely on any of them, however, because while the "official" crime rate is measured by the FBI, their numbers come from the individual precincts or counties or townships sending in their numbers to the FBI. So naturally there are inconsistencies out the ass with those numbers, with some departments not even bothering to report, and there is all the differences between what constitutes crime, etc. Generally the numbers for violent crime are looked at when you're addressing something sociologically, but there are discrepancies in between these numbers as well. Very problematic. And the numbers from the FBI do indeed show that the rate of violent crime is rising. But this is most likely due less to an actual increase in violent crime rates, and instead to an increase in the reporting of crimes.

A more accurate measure of crime rates are called "victimization surveys", which are when sociologists go out and ask people over, say, a 6 month period every month if they've been the victim of a crime. These numbers have always been quite a bit higher than the FBI rates, but they have stayed pretty steady or even decreased over time.

Yet another measure is self-reporting, which is usually what you'd find in schools. A survey which asks (anonymously, of course) for students to report if they've used drugs or alcohol, or committed a crime in the past month, would be an example of this kind of measure.