Media Bias: Perceived or Real? To what extent, and where?

[Texsox]

So we disqualify anyone with a political opinion from being in the media? How does that work?

[BearSox]

To anyone who claims there is no media bias, you are simply a homer.

[mr_genius]

I give you the conservative, anti-Obama, Chris Matthews! never mind that he worked as a Democrat, that is just a smoke screen.

 

Edited September 3, 2008 by mr_genius

[Texsox]

To anyone who claims there is no media bias, you are simply a homer.

 

What passes for bias, placement of a story, amount of coverage, local versus national coverage, is more business and ratings driven and not some media conspiracy to elect more Dems as some would claim.

[BearSox]

What passes for bias, placement of a story, amount of coverage, local versus national coverage, is more business and ratings driven and not some media conspiracy to elect more Dems as some would claim.

That doesn't replace the fact though that the msm is in the tank for Obama and the Dems.

[knightni]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

??

[mr_genius]

So we disqualify anyone with a political opinion from being in the media? How does that work?

 

The main problem is that newsrooms are often a sort of echo-chamber as they have over the years hired mainly Democrats. Why this has happened is a very legitimate question. I think it would basically boil down to most people that go into journalism have traditionally been left of center. There may also be some subliminal bias against someone whom would give examples of their work that might be considered conservative, but I'm not sure that is really the main cause ( I would actually say it likely has little to do with the bias issue).

[YASNY]

What passes for bias, placement of a story, amount of coverage, local versus national coverage, is more business and ratings driven and not some media conspiracy to elect more Dems as some would claim.

 

In my opinion, the media is not stupid enough to be blatantly biased with a particular story or a particular subject. It's more of a general mindset in how they present things. For example, I watched Tom Brokaw for 20 years or so use voice inflection, facial expressions and body language to express his progressive leanings. It's something that I saw night after night. It was something that took some time, and slowly dawned on me that it was happening. As respected as Brokaw was, I still was able to pick up on it and then watch and verify that it, in fact, was happening.

[BearSox]

So we disqualify anyone with a political opinion from being in the media? How does that work?

No one cares if you have an opinion, the problem is turning that opinion into fact.

[mr_genius]

 

 

 

 

 

 

??

 

 

 

 

[knightni]

 

 

 

 

[mr_genius]

 

 

 

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

That doesn't replace the fact negate the Conservative talking point though that the msm is in the tank for Obama and the Dems.

 

The personal leanings of the broadcast personalities mean squat compared to the corporate special interests that own the media outlets. Any progressive voice that gains any sort of media traction is still just screaming into the wind. Obama has stated that he will support Net Neutrality and work for media reform so that corporate conglomerates can't buy up every last independent news outlet. Yet you suggest these entities are "in the tank" for him?

 

Kristol really was right about the useful myth of the powerful liberal media.

 

"I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

-- William Kristol

 

[mr_genius]

The personal leanings of the broadcast personalities mean squat compared to the corporate special interests that own the media outlets. Any progressive voice that gains any sort of media traction is still just screaming into the wind. Obama has stated that he will support Net Neutrality and work for media reform so that corporate conglomerates can't buy up every last independent news outlet. Yet you suggest these entities are "in the tank" for him?

 

Kristol really was right about the useful myth of the powerful liberal media.

 

"I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

-- William Kristol

 

i am always careful to point out a pro-Democrat bias, not necessarily liberal. there is a big difference a lot of the time.

 

i decided to round up some quotes too.

 

 

“If we could be one-hundredth as great as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been in the White House, we’d take it right now and walk away winners. . . . Tell Mrs. Clinton we respect her and we’re pulling for her.” -- Dan Rather (CBS) to Bill Clinton (D)

 

"You know, I think from the reporter's point of view, it's almost hard to remain objective, because it's infectious energy.

--Lee Cowen (NBC)

Edited September 3, 2008 by mr_genius

[bmags]

I think Genius hit it half on the head. From the left, the media looks conservative, from the right, it looks liberal. It is impossible to balance a story about Monica Lewinsky or Larry Craig. With those kinds of stories it may be impossible to balance the newspaper that day. They have to take the stories as they come. What I think has hurt our journalists is we've allowed the business side to get into the newsroom. Ratings driven stories abound. How much time was devoted to Natalie Holloway? Was that a liberal or conservative story? So to make profits, the media is forced to cover a 17 year old girl because without the story, viewers and readers will switch channels or buy the other paper.

 

/ thread.

[DukeNukeEm]

Wolf Blitzer is so bad at his job I dont even know if he's biased.

[bmags]

Wolf Blitzer is so bad at his job I dont even know if he's biased.

 

haha, so true. One thing I love about being in journalism school is ripping on wolf blitzer and katie couric.

[Wise Master Buehrle]

There is no such thing as a right wing or left wing media bias. What must be understood is, that in the grand scheme of things in America, there is little difference between supposed Democrats and Republicans. They may differ on a few small and somewhat important issues, but in the end it will be how it was when Bush promised us small government, deficits going down instead of up, and all that other nonsense he used to get votes. Bush was not as advertised. And I have huge doubts that McCain or Obama are as advertised. If the powers-that-be see the ability to lie to the American people during an election once, I see no reason for them to stop or discontinue it.

 

Tying this back into the Media Bias discussion, there is most definitely a media bias in this country! But it is not geared towards the right-left argument. It is just a plain old, simple bias. Seriously, when most-important nuggets of information like "Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia prompted Russia to counter-op Georgia" are left out of the stories, you got to feel that there is a bias and a problem in this countries media! If it weren't for all the great alternative news-sources on the still-unregulated internet, I would have never known such a thing. I'd be exactly what they want, a person who takes what the mainstream media (big newspapers, TV) as the end-all be-all of news information and think that Russia was being the big, bad bully when it was actually Georgia who started the conflict!

 

Let the American people decide for themselves. Instead of hyping this up as Russia provoking us into another Cold War, why not lay the facts straight and let us decide for ourselves? Why must we ingest this information that is already digested by others? Certainly a lot more people wouldn't feel as threatened by Russia if they knew that the attack was provoked. They'd feel more threatened by America. Our safety is being sacrificed when we allow Georgia to commit such acts of genocide. Now we're furthering the provocations by placing anti-missile bases in Poland? Why are we poking and prodding Russia so much? Doesn't all of this nonsense from our leaders put the American peoples safety at risk? These are the kinds of things we should be reading about in the papers and watching on the television.

Edited September 3, 2008 by YahtzeeSox

[DrunkBomber]

This sits in every checkout lane in America.

[lostfan]

This sits in every checkout lane in America.

...this barely qualifies.

[EvilMonkey]

No mention of the Edwards non-story, until their hand was forced by the Enquirer? They wouldn't run that because they didn't have enough 'evidence'. However one person makes a claim that McCain is screwing a lobbyist and every major paper runs with it for 3 days. The media has thier favorites. Most of the time they are Democrats. They used to like McCain, but now that he is opposing the Messiah, they don't know what to do. True, they are not attacking him as much as they could be, but that's because they can't stop sucking Obama's cock long enough to do anything else. The media is also lazy. Often local papers just repeat stories that they glean from AP or Reuters, so all it takes is one biased person there, and that biased opinion gets spread all around the country. And I just love how news stories usually seem to forget to mention political affiliation, or bury it deep in stories, when it is a bad thing that involves Dems.

 

And Flasoxx, you do realize that most of the people in your little collage are NOT news reposters, but provide commentary? Their jobs are to give their opinions, not unbiased news. Rush is not a newsman. Hannity is not a newsman. Those guys are as biased as most of the folks on msnbc.

[lostfan]

If we're going to disqualify commentators, well, then what are we talking about? Nothing?

[StrangeSox]

And Flasoxx, you do realize that most of the people in your little collage are NOT news reposters, but provide commentary? Their jobs are to give their opinions, not unbiased news. Rush is not a newsman. Hannity is not a newsman. Those guys are as biased as most of the folks on msnbc.

 

The problem is they are presented as if they're newsmen by the networks. People take their opinions as fact.

[Texsox]

To anyone who claims there is no media bias, you are simply a homer.

And anyone who claims that this isn't a political strategy by the GOP is also a homer.

 

Imagine how an editor would have to "balance" the Palin story based on this thread.

 

Route 1.

Get me something on Biden's kids to balance this. We don't print until we have a negative story about Biden or his kids.

 

Route 2

What have we reported that is close to this?

Jenna?

No dammit, it has to be Dem to balance.

I was reading Soxtalk and they are talking Tony Rezko.

OK, let's use that. We had a page 1, two 12s, and a 15. We have 1,300 column inches and three pictures to fill. 1,600 were negative, 200 were positive, and the rest neutral. Now get to work.

 

Too bad the debate is never will the GOP strategy to destroy media credibility hurt our country in the long run. But somehow people are able to believe a coordinated media bias in thousands of independent newspapers, but not a coordinated effort by one organization. As soon as there is something slightly negative about a GOP member, their first order of business is to shoot the messenger.

[Texsox]

No mention of the Edwards non-story, until their hand was forced by the Enquirer? They wouldn't run that because they didn't have enough 'evidence'. However one person makes a claim that McCain is screwing a lobbyist and every major paper runs with it for 3 days. The media has thier favorites. Most of the time they are Democrats. They used to like McCain, but now that he is opposing the Messiah, they don't know what to do. True, they are not attacking him as much as they could be, but that's because they can't stop sucking Obama's cock long enough to do anything else. The media is also lazy. Often local papers just repeat stories that they glean from AP or Reuters, so all it takes is one biased person there, and that biased opinion gets spread all around the country. And I just love how news stories usually seem to forget to mention political affiliation, or bury it deep in stories, when it is a bad thing that involves Dems.

 

And Flasoxx, you do realize that most of the people in your little collage are NOT news reposters, but provide commentary? Their jobs are to give their opinions, not unbiased news. Rush is not a newsman. Hannity is not a newsman. Those guys are as biased as most of the folks on msnbc.

 

Media seems like all media, not just journalists. People are lazy and get their news from Rush and Co. Especially because the media is so biased, they need to hear it from Rush so they can believe it. But you do have the GOP party strategy down. Thousands of hours of programming with conservative talk and opinion pales in comparison to a story in a newspaper or TV newscast with declining ratings. I can't believe the GOP can say that with a straight face and so many people will accept it.

 

Hidden agenda of media -- make money with higher ratings

Hidden agenda of the GOP -- Get elected